3 ms·
> I think you can make a strong argument that they failed some sort of responsibility to the employee expectations by over hiring, but that is different. on th
by heywhatupboys 4y ago
> I think you can make a strong argument that they failed some sort of responsibility to the employee expectations by over hiring, but that is different.
on the other hand, the alternative to "over hiring" is jobless people. At least they were job providers for some time.
- Apocryphon 4y agoThat's not necessarily true, those people could have gone to work for smaller companies and startups. Those companies also would not have had their resources stretched in a wage bidding war against FAANG and unicorns. Maybe there'd be more companies and more roles to apply for.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoI didn't want to get into the pros and cons of over-hiring. but there are definitely some of each. Big con is people don't like getting laid off, and some would not have joined, taken other jobs had they known. A pro is that it really cranked up salaries for most people hired during a labor shortage, including those who aren't laid off. That said, I think it is all beside my main question: Are shareholders unhappy with executive leadership. If I were an executive, I would be making the case (privately) that my over-hiring and subsequent layoffs were in fact GOOD for the company.