4 ms·

This isn't a moral justification, but isn't laying off workers when other companies have layoffs a simple supply and demand response? That is, the demand curve

This isn't a moral justification, but isn't laying off workers when other companies have layoffs a simple supply and demand response? That is, the demand curve is the same for these workers but the supply curve shifts to the right and prices for the same job drops. They're betting that the people hired in a recession will perform better per dollar than the people let go.

rossdavidh 4y ago
A layoff of ~5%, especially if it is the first one in a while, is usually (at large corporations) just a way to get rid of (perceived to be) non-performing staff without having to do as much paperwork as actually firing someone. This isn't to say they are correct about those 5% not performing, and even if they are it may not have been that person's fault, but the real motivation for a layoff of this type (first one in a while, less than 1 in 10) is usually just to get rid of people it would otherwise be too stressful/legally fraught to get rid of.
- topkai22 4y ago
  You’d wish, but in my experience individual performance is only a small factor in layoffs. In one layoff I survived, our GM (with 1000+ people) was told who was being let go a day before the event. That involved 100+ people. People with above average performance ratings were let go, some with below average ratings stayed. As best we can tell, HR went with laying off senior/expensive employees based on the lack of certain technologies on their internal resume. Of course, your best employees don’t update their their internal resume much, because they are busy with all the work being thrown at them. It was chaos. I’ve also seen companies do layoffs by cutting entire teams. Top performer on a misaligned team? You are also laid off.
- raydev 4y ago
  How old is your data on this? This is repeated multiple times in this thread, but my experience with layoffs hasn't shown that poor performers are cut. It's random or it's entire teams/orgs.

rossdavidh 4y ago

A layoff of ~5%, especially if it is the first one in a while, is usually (at large corporations) just a way to get rid of (perceived to be) non-performing staff without having to do as much paperwork as actually firing someone. This isn't to say they are correct about those 5% not performing, and even if they are it may not have been that person's fault, but the real motivation for a layoff of this type (first one in a while, less than 1 in 10) is usually just to get rid of people it would otherwise be too stressful/legally fraught to get rid of.

topkai22 4y ago
You’d wish, but in my experience individual performance is only a small factor in layoffs. In one layoff I survived, our GM (with 1000+ people) was told who was being let go a day before the event. That involved 100+ people. People with above average performance ratings were let go, some with below average ratings stayed. As best we can tell, HR went with laying off senior/expensive employees based on the lack of certain technologies on their internal resume. Of course, your best employees don’t update their their internal resume much, because they are busy with all the work being thrown at them. It was chaos. I’ve also seen companies do layoffs by cutting entire teams. Top performer on a misaligned team? You are also laid off.
raydev 4y ago
How old is your data on this? This is repeated multiple times in this thread, but my experience with layoffs hasn't shown that poor performers are cut. It's random or it's entire teams/orgs.