4 ms·

At my first job they would lay off employees, then systems would fail and the person who could fix it was laid off. Eventually a big customer would complain and

by wil421 4y ago

At my first job they would lay off employees, then systems would fail and the person who could fix it was laid off. Eventually a big customer would complain and the company would incur monetary SLA penalties for the systems being down. They would have to hire the laid off guy back as a contractor and pay some company $100+ an hour for a $30 (at the time) an hour salary employee. Eventually someone with a brain would realize they are hemorrhaging money and hire the guy back full time and even make it look like he was never laid off for 2 years contracting so he would keep his seniority benefits. My coworkers with 20+ years said this happened over and over again. I left and everyone was laid off in 6 months…

bombcar 4y ago
It SOMETIMES works. You lay off 50 people and only have to contract back one or two and it’s a net savings. But often it’s just boardroom machinations for various reasons that can change as quickly as the weather. I know people who made a good living being the layoff/callback dude for years. Basically considered it a 3-6 mo vacation every couple years. “Oh you want me to come in to consult? I’m in the Bahamas- it’s gonna costya”
- prottog 4y ago
  > I know people who made a good living being the layoff/callback dude for years. That's hilariously inefficient. I would be mad if I were a shareholder in this business, but good for those employees in question who were savvy.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Then you probably don't want to be a shareholder at all; I'm pretty sure any business that is publicly traded has done it at one time or another.
brookst 4y ago
Yeah that’s bad management. The trick is understanding when part of the company is genuinely not contributing, and since things are complicated, what other parts are entangled and need to be adjusted as part of the plan. Just randomly laying off x% is like randomly removing x% of code to improve performance. It’s going to produce more pain than gain.
- wil421 4y ago
  I’m pretty sure upper management just dictated cost savings amounts per org and delegated it down. Middle management met and figured out what salaries fit cost savings and saved themselves above all.
  - brookst 4y ago
    Super dumb way to run a company but I’m sure there are plenty like that.
marcosdumay 4y ago
It usually works, because it usually takes years for the loss of people to have an impact on revenue. By that time, investors already realized their gain and moved their money into another company, leaving someone else holding the bag.

by wil421 4y ago

bombcar 4y ago

It SOMETIMES works. You lay off 50 people and only have to contract back one or two and it’s a net savings. But often it’s just boardroom machinations for various reasons that can change as quickly as the weather. I know people who made a good living being the layoff/callback dude for years. Basically considered it a 3-6 mo vacation every couple years. “Oh you want me to come in to consult? I’m in the Bahamas- it’s gonna costya”

prottog 4y ago
> I know people who made a good living being the layoff/callback dude for years. That's hilariously inefficient. I would be mad if I were a shareholder in this business, but good for those employees in question who were savvy.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Then you probably don't want to be a shareholder at all; I'm pretty sure any business that is publicly traded has done it at one time or another.

brookst 4y ago

Yeah that’s bad management. The trick is understanding when part of the company is genuinely not contributing, and since things are complicated, what other parts are entangled and need to be adjusted as part of the plan. Just randomly laying off x% is like randomly removing x% of code to improve performance. It’s going to produce more pain than gain.

wil421 4y ago
I’m pretty sure upper management just dictated cost savings amounts per org and delegated it down. Middle management met and figured out what salaries fit cost savings and saved themselves above all.
- brookst 4y ago
  Super dumb way to run a company but I’m sure there are plenty like that.

marcosdumay 4y ago

It usually works, because it usually takes years for the loss of people to have an impact on revenue. By that time, investors already realized their gain and moved their money into another company, leaving someone else holding the bag.