4 ms·
It's important to understand that growing companies are not laying off because they have 'nothing for staff to do'. This isn't likely a situation of 'Ford Moto
by jasmer 4y ago
It's important to understand that growing companies are not laying off because they have 'nothing for staff to do'.
This isn't likely a situation of 'Ford Motorcars had a bad 3 quarters, and sales forecasts are way down, we have to close two plants'.
They are laying off to improve efficiencies on paper, capture some excess value created by those staffers (hey - you built that thing, great, bye, don't need you! For now ...), and likely to bulk up the balance sheet before a transaction, like an IPO etc. - and as an excuse to get rid of what they perceive to be lower performing staff (who may or may not be adding value).
It's a supposed 'optimization' not a 'necessary' thing.
I suggest that in these scenarios, that there could be better alternatives, if we put our heads together and thought about it a bit.
- austhrow743 4y agoThe whole company is an optimisation thing not a necessary thing.
- jasmer 4y agoOptimizing for what, and in who's interests? From the perspective of those who are not shareholders, corporations are just a means of providing some service - even those that are 'necessary'. It's odd that so many people fight so hard for the 'freedom and rights' of fairly powerful interests, systems which they will never be a part of or benefit from, and which regularly act against their own interests. There are multiple stakeholders at play, the arbitrary posture of 'optimization for capital' is worse than naive in 2022, we've been through these experiments by now. There are better ways; we're not even trying.