4 ms·

> likes to be "interchangeable cogs in a machine" This is totally a response to the employer side. When companies are laying off people en masse with little re

> likes to be "interchangeable cogs in a machine" This is totally a response to the employer side. When companies are laying off people en masse with little regard to either performance or years of service rendered, they reveal themselves to regard their workforce as interchangeable cogs. We are living in a market that encapsulates the adage, “your company will let you go without a second thought.”

aspanu 3y ago
My understanding of why companies cannot purposely show that they take perf or years of service into account has more to do with labour law than a lack of caring. You cannot take into account perf in a layoff - if you did, you are not allowed to call it a layoff, AFAIK.
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  That doesn't sound right at all. You would want to lay off the bottom performers, it isn't a lottery. Imagine if a company said 'we need to get rid of 20% of our labor cost' and just ran a random number generator and got rid of the people who's number came up.
  - deprecative 3y ago
    No, you want to get rid of just enough of the top performers to significantly lower labor cost while keeping enough that they feel safe. You can shed as many of the bottom performers as you like without worry. Gotta make those top performers do 2x the work for one paycheck.
- doktorhladnjak 3y ago
  Companies absolutely take perf and years of service into account for layoffs. It’s not always the same process or formula but those are popular terms in such a formula, along with pay, location, role.
ReptileMan 3y ago
And that is a reason to turn yourself into indispensable cog, not the best replaceable there is.
- rewmie 3y ago
  > And that is a reason to turn yourself into indispensable cog, not the best replaceable there is. For centuries, organizations have been adjusting themselves to ensure that all employees are as easily replaceable as they could possibly be, not to mention outright powerless. I recommend watching the Netflix documentary "American Factory". If I recall correctly, there's a low-level manager who tried to turn himself indispensable at the expense of the company's workers and he showed a lot of surprise once he himself was fired. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Factory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Factory
- ssnistfajen 3y ago
  "Indispensable" people leave for greener pastures or get laid off anyways. This happens all the time. A company that has too many indispensable people is a company that has too many single points of failure.
SanderNL 3y ago
Apparently nobody cares, because both consumers and employees keep flocking to the same soulless behemoths en masse to get their fix and their CVs padded. Also, employees will dump their employer the second they can. Let’s not pretend this is a one-way street.

aspanu 3y ago

My understanding of why companies cannot purposely show that they take perf or years of service into account has more to do with labour law than a lack of caring. You cannot take into account perf in a layoff - if you did, you are not allowed to call it a layoff, AFAIK.

Eisenstein 3y ago
That doesn't sound right at all. You would want to lay off the bottom performers, it isn't a lottery. Imagine if a company said 'we need to get rid of 20% of our labor cost' and just ran a random number generator and got rid of the people who's number came up.
- deprecative 3y ago
  No, you want to get rid of just enough of the top performers to significantly lower labor cost while keeping enough that they feel safe. You can shed as many of the bottom performers as you like without worry. Gotta make those top performers do 2x the work for one paycheck.
doktorhladnjak 3y ago
Companies absolutely take perf and years of service into account for layoffs. It’s not always the same process or formula but those are popular terms in such a formula, along with pay, location, role.

ReptileMan 3y ago

And that is a reason to turn yourself into indispensable cog, not the best replaceable there is.

rewmie 3y ago
> And that is a reason to turn yourself into indispensable cog, not the best replaceable there is. For centuries, organizations have been adjusting themselves to ensure that all employees are as easily replaceable as they could possibly be, not to mention outright powerless. I recommend watching the Netflix documentary "American Factory". If I recall correctly, there's a low-level manager who tried to turn himself indispensable at the expense of the company's workers and he showed a lot of surprise once he himself was fired. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Factory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Factory
ssnistfajen 3y ago
"Indispensable" people leave for greener pastures or get laid off anyways. This happens all the time. A company that has too many indispensable people is a company that has too many single points of failure.

SanderNL 3y ago

Apparently nobody cares, because both consumers and employees keep flocking to the same soulless behemoths en masse to get their fix and their CVs padded. Also, employees will dump their employer the second they can. Let’s not pretend this is a one-way street.