2 ms·
Companies have every incentive to look good in the eyes of their shareholders, and not cutting costs when everybody else is doing it doesn't look good. And most
by rob74 4y ago
Companies have every incentive to look good in the eyes of their shareholders, and not cutting costs when everybody else is doing it doesn't look good. And most managers would say that firing 10% of their staff (supposedly the worst performers) would not affect the productivity of the company much. What they fail to consider is the "middle finger" mentioned at the end of the article - even the most naive employee is now aware that the phrases of "employees are our most important asset" are just so much BS, and will act accordingly.
- TeMPOraL 4y ago> What they fail to consider is the "middle finger" mentioned at the end of the article - every employee is now aware that the phrases of "employees are are most important asset" are just so much BS, and will act accordingly. It may not work out well for the employees, though: once everyone stops pretending to care, the companies will be less worried about someone else giving you a better offer, so your negotiating leverage may just go down the drain.
- screwturner68 4y agoI know EMC used to fire 10% of their workforce every year, it was stupid but that's what they did. My question is if these people hadn't been pulling their weight why did you wait so long to chop their head? I see it at my company where groups will keep dead weight around just so they have someone to fire when management wants a head, again it's silly but it's better than having to fire a productive worker that actually will effect the bottom line if they get fired.