5 ms·

That guy, a vishal garg, who fired 900 employees, domestically and internationally --most of them were not developers/programmers, etc. Just run of the mill w

by mc32 5y ago

That guy, a vishal garg, who fired 900 employees, domestically and internationally --most of them were not developers/programmers, etc. Just run of the mill white collar workers --who presumably he had statistics on given he mentioned many "only worked two hours while claiming eight". So... like everyone who works using a computer then would have to be unionized?

tehjoker 5y ago
Well, (a) management lies but it's possible and (b) bigger unions are better!
zhte415 5y ago
I don't know this story, but didn't they consider firing themselves or their one downs who led this state to exist, if it really did. 900 is not a huge number in Operations. Given a span of control of 10-20 per team per manager, and around 5-8 managers per senior manager, that's about 8 people for them to be managing directly, perhaps add 3-4 as heads of admin or automation functions with small teams then that's an incredibly typical Operations office, at least with boilerplate span of control recommendations that come out of McKinsey, BCG etc (indeed I have problems with these, but it is 'standard'). Was everyone lying to this Head? Did they create a culture of busywork? Did it become a dysfunctional closed shop impervious to supervision? Did the Head at least know their two-downs' names or ever have a chat, or the offer of one?
onion2k 5y ago
Just run of the mill white collar workers --who presumably he had statistics on given he mentioned many "only worked two hours while claiming eight". He claimed that at the same time as firing 900 people. To me it sounded much more like his internal justification for his actions rather than something that was true. Essentially I believe he was mentally shifting the blame from his own failing to successfully run a company that could profitably utilise 900 people, to making it the workers fault that he had to fire them. The fact that he doesn't appear to be replacing the workers shows there wasn't work to be done. Is it your fault if you do all the work required of you in 2 hours?

by mc32 5y ago

tehjoker 5y ago

Well, (a) management lies but it's possible and (b) bigger unions are better!

zhte415 5y ago

I don't know this story, but didn't they consider firing themselves or their one downs who led this state to exist, if it really did. 900 is not a huge number in Operations. Given a span of control of 10-20 per team per manager, and around 5-8 managers per senior manager, that's about 8 people for them to be managing directly, perhaps add 3-4 as heads of admin or automation functions with small teams then that's an incredibly typical Operations office, at least with boilerplate span of control recommendations that come out of McKinsey, BCG etc (indeed I have problems with these, but it is 'standard'). Was everyone lying to this Head? Did they create a culture of busywork? Did it become a dysfunctional closed shop impervious to supervision? Did the Head at least know their two-downs' names or ever have a chat, or the offer of one?

onion2k 5y ago

Just run of the mill white collar workers --who presumably he had statistics on given he mentioned many "only worked two hours while claiming eight". He claimed that at the same time as firing 900 people. To me it sounded much more like his internal justification for his actions rather than something that was true. Essentially I believe he was mentally shifting the blame from his own failing to successfully run a company that could profitably utilise 900 people, to making it the workers fault that he had to fire them. The fact that he doesn't appear to be replacing the workers shows there wasn't work to be done. Is it your fault if you do all the work required of you in 2 hours?