3 ms·
> From 11 to 3 employees. Doesn't seem that outrageous outside I hope I never have you as my manager If you think a ~70% reduction in head count isn't outrageo
by wnevets 2mo ago
> From 11 to 3 employees. Doesn't seem that outrageous outside
I hope I never have you as my manager If you think a ~70% reduction in head count isn't outrageous.
- BoingBoomTschak 2mo agoI've worked along scientists a few times, many twiddling their thumbs and coasting along on the back of their PhD. No idea if this applies here, mind you, but I don't see an innate need for that many people, even if this disease has major outbreaks (let's say > 50 cases) every few years. 3 does seem a bit low, though.
- georgemcbay 2mo ago> I've worked along scientists a few times You should have mentioned this up front so we all knew you were fully qualified to understand the staffing needs of critical governmental health organizations.
- flatline 2mo agoImpressive judgment from someone who presumably has no knowledge of the types of problems the lab was addressing, the scope of research, the actual individuals employed, or the prior and anticipated impact of their work. This was the whole problem with DOGE: cuts were indiscriminate and based more on feels than factual data. I won't posit that those cuts were all downside - but we will be paying to discover which were really needed for years to come.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- pavel_lishin 2mo ago> many twiddling their thumbs Do you think some of them were wasting their time, by posting on various online forums only slightly related to their jobs?
- cuvert 2mo agoWe should also extend that to firefighters, they do nothing most of the time, anyway. Let the fires burn everything and after that let the insurance solve the problems for those who have it.