3 ms·
That's like saying it's be a bit awkward if they laid off a bunch of employees but kept all the salaries of the remaining employees the same. Because by removi
by avalaunch 13y ago
That's like saying it's be a bit awkward if they laid off a bunch of employees but kept all the salaries of the remaining employees the same. Because by removing the little perks they're trimming everyone's salary just a little. You're already asking your remaining employees to work a little harder to make up for the loss. No need to add insult to injury and ask them to do it for a little less as well. In a time of turmoil I'd rather keep as much as possible familiar.
- reeses 13y agoVery good point. This goes hand-in-hand with "cut deep so you cut once." You can't leave that sword hanging over the heads of individual contributors or they'll activate their network and start entertaining offers. Since the process of layoffs generally involves a rank-and-yank, the people who remain are precisely the ones who have the option of working elsewhere. They can generally (depending on the location) get an offer within a day.
- avalaunch 13y agoThat's also a really good point. I knew someone in that position and he didn't last much longer before bailing on the company. He had no problem getting new offers. Companies just see an easy line item savings without thinking of the impact on the employees they desperately need to hold onto. On top of any potential insult to the employees, the companies that do this are giving off a terrible impression. "OMG. They can't even afford free soda anymore. This ship is definitely sinking."