I understand that sometimes shit happens and you need to fire some people for the company to survive and protect the other jobs, but layoffs should be a measure twice cut once affair. This kind of thing shows management is winging it and there should be a law to put these companies under court management before the idiots bankrupt them.
If you want the company survive then you need to cut excess spending. Most excess spending is at the top. Executives are a big waste of money. They never fire themselves or cut their own pay. No. They fire those who actually contribute value and then expect their peers to do twice the work for the same pay.
I just talked to my manager about largely the same thing, and apparently there are a ton of legal issues, so it’s generally a lot easier to just lay off entire departments than try to distinguish between good and bad employees. For example, if one of the people you selected happens to be a minority, but you selected them because they underperform, you need to prove in court that it wasn’t motivated at all by their minority status.
I’m guessing that’s what happened here. They laid off good and bad employees because it’s a lot easier (and probably cheaper in the long run) to shut down departments than deal with lawsuits.
I understand that sometimes shit happens and you need to fire some people for the company to survive and protect the other jobs, but layoffs should be a measure twice cut once affair. This kind of thing shows management is winging it and there should be a law to put these companies under court management before the idiots bankrupt them.
If you want the company survive then you need to cut excess spending. Most excess spending is at the top. Executives are a big waste of money. They never fire themselves or cut their own pay. No. They fire those who actually contribute value and then expect their peers to do twice the work for the same pay.
I just talked to my manager about largely the same thing, and apparently there are a ton of legal issues, so it’s generally a lot easier to just lay off entire departments than try to distinguish between good and bad employees. For example, if one of the people you selected happens to be a minority, but you selected them because they underperform, you need to prove in court that it wasn’t motivated at all by their minority status.
I’m guessing that’s what happened here. They laid off good and bad employees because it’s a lot easier (and probably cheaper in the long run) to shut down departments than deal with lawsuits.