4 ms·

I worked at AOL back when they did quarterly "staff reductions". They would go and hire lots of them right back; it was an accounting trick. Never mind the fact

I worked at AOL back when they did quarterly "staff reductions". They would go and hire lots of them right back; it was an accounting trick. Never mind the fact that families were affected and employees were constantly stressed near the end of every quarter. Those things don't matter, quarterly numbers do when growth has stalled.

ajsnigrutin 1y ago
This is a great tactic, where competent, good workers find a more stable job, and the ones unable to get a better job are then rehired. On one hand, you can bully them more, and they'll stay, on the other hand, they're so bad at their job, no one else wants them either.
- akshayrajp 1y ago
  Doesn't sound very labour-law friendly
  - johnnyanmac 1y ago
    People call each other incompetent as the entire country is outsourcing them and then wonder why there's no worker solidarity.
  - baggachipz 1y ago
    'murica
- baggachipz 1y ago
  I believe they call this "contracting". Which is not what they purported to do. Having to go through all the bullshit about the hiring process, benefits, taxes, and all that over and over is an absurd inefficiency. It also doesn't help when people are just trying to feed and care for their families. Because of that experience (and lots of other anecdotal evidence), I see no reason for anybody to ever work at amazon unless they are ok with being a contractor.
- jalapenos 1y ago
  I mean, no-one messages each other on AOL now so yeah. Those quarterly earnings though, they were something
reaperducer 1y ago
Never mind the fact that families were affected and employees were constantly stressed near the end of every quarter. It's this sort of thing that has me re-thinking the fairness of employees giving employers the customary (in the United States) two week notice before leaving. Employees don't get two weeks notice before being fired without cause. It's supposed to be because replacing an employee is so difficult for the company. Well, it's a hell of a lot more difficult for an employee to lose a job than it is for a company to lose a worker. If I'm employer "at will" then my employer should also be retained "at will." If they want to negotiate another arrangement, that's fine.
- lingrush4 1y ago
  For layoffs like this, employers typically give out two months of severance, so I'm not sure what you're whining about. Of course if you're willing to burn bridges with your employer, there's nothing stopping you from quitting immediately. Have at it.
  - johnnyanmac 1y ago
    Two months of severance in this kind of eceonomy isn't enough. That's low compared to country with proper labor laws. They give a small severance to mitigate any investigations into violations and not much more. >Of course if you're willing to burn bridges with your employer, there's nothing stopping you from quitting immediately. Have at it. I think that's their point. The social contract is broken and no one's trying to make company careers anymore. If you're not respected, why respect their time?
  - forbiddenvoid 1y ago
    Companies pay out severance mostly for compliance with the WARN act. If they could get away with not doing this, they absolutely would.
coldcode 1y ago
My career as a programmer started this way. The division VP would eliminate jobs in the last quarter of the year to make his numbers look good, then desperately hire people at the start of the first quarter to avoid projects falling too far behind. I was one of those people.
xnx 1y ago
Classic Bluth Company "Black Friday" move: https://arresteddevelopment.fandom.com/wiki/Black_Friday https://arresteddevelopment.fandom.com/wiki/Black_Friday
insane_dreamer 1y ago
> They would go and hire lots of them right back; it was an accounting trick. How did it benefit the company's accounting? Doesn't it create an additional expense in both severance and hiring costs?
- baggachipz 1y ago
  Bearing in mind that I'm nothing resembling an accountant, I believe it has to do with getting them off the books by the end of the quarter before the statement goes out. That shows as less liability for the quarterly statement. The cost of severance and hiring is for the next quarter, so it doesn't affect the current quarter's numbers. So: - Company has 10 employees at an annual cost of 100k each. That's 250k (1mm / 4) of employee expenses for the quarter. - Company lays off 5 employees right before the end of the quarter. That's only 5 employees on the payroll in the current quarter, because you account for the number of employees when the statement is issued. Re-hiring and severance payouts are going to be done sometime in the future. Congratulations, your employee expense was only 125k for the quarter!

ajsnigrutin 1y ago

This is a great tactic, where competent, good workers find a more stable job, and the ones unable to get a better job are then rehired. On one hand, you can bully them more, and they'll stay, on the other hand, they're so bad at their job, no one else wants them either.

akshayrajp 1y ago
Doesn't sound very labour-law friendly
- johnnyanmac 1y ago
  People call each other incompetent as the entire country is outsourcing them and then wonder why there's no worker solidarity.
- baggachipz 1y ago
  'murica
baggachipz 1y ago
I believe they call this "contracting". Which is not what they purported to do. Having to go through all the bullshit about the hiring process, benefits, taxes, and all that over and over is an absurd inefficiency. It also doesn't help when people are just trying to feed and care for their families. Because of that experience (and lots of other anecdotal evidence), I see no reason for anybody to ever work at amazon unless they are ok with being a contractor.
jalapenos 1y ago
I mean, no-one messages each other on AOL now so yeah. Those quarterly earnings though, they were something

reaperducer 1y ago

Never mind the fact that families were affected and employees were constantly stressed near the end of every quarter. It's this sort of thing that has me re-thinking the fairness of employees giving employers the customary (in the United States) two week notice before leaving. Employees don't get two weeks notice before being fired without cause. It's supposed to be because replacing an employee is so difficult for the company. Well, it's a hell of a lot more difficult for an employee to lose a job than it is for a company to lose a worker. If I'm employer "at will" then my employer should also be retained "at will." If they want to negotiate another arrangement, that's fine.

lingrush4 1y ago
For layoffs like this, employers typically give out two months of severance, so I'm not sure what you're whining about. Of course if you're willing to burn bridges with your employer, there's nothing stopping you from quitting immediately. Have at it.
- johnnyanmac 1y ago
  Two months of severance in this kind of eceonomy isn't enough. That's low compared to country with proper labor laws. They give a small severance to mitigate any investigations into violations and not much more. >Of course if you're willing to burn bridges with your employer, there's nothing stopping you from quitting immediately. Have at it. I think that's their point. The social contract is broken and no one's trying to make company careers anymore. If you're not respected, why respect their time?
- forbiddenvoid 1y ago
  Companies pay out severance mostly for compliance with the WARN act. If they could get away with not doing this, they absolutely would.

coldcode 1y ago

My career as a programmer started this way. The division VP would eliminate jobs in the last quarter of the year to make his numbers look good, then desperately hire people at the start of the first quarter to avoid projects falling too far behind. I was one of those people.

xnx 1y ago

Classic Bluth Company "Black Friday" move: https://arresteddevelopment.fandom.com/wiki/Black_Friday https://arresteddevelopment.fandom.com/wiki/Black_Friday

insane_dreamer 1y ago

> They would go and hire lots of them right back; it was an accounting trick. How did it benefit the company's accounting? Doesn't it create an additional expense in both severance and hiring costs?

baggachipz 1y ago
Bearing in mind that I'm nothing resembling an accountant, I believe it has to do with getting them off the books by the end of the quarter before the statement goes out. That shows as less liability for the quarterly statement. The cost of severance and hiring is for the next quarter, so it doesn't affect the current quarter's numbers. So: - Company has 10 employees at an annual cost of 100k each. That's 250k (1mm / 4) of employee expenses for the quarter. - Company lays off 5 employees right before the end of the quarter. That's only 5 employees on the payroll in the current quarter, because you account for the number of employees when the statement is issued. Re-hiring and severance payouts are going to be done sometime in the future. Congratulations, your employee expense was only 125k for the quarter!