5% reduction
-
There will be lots of jobs opening up in agriculture and restaurant, according to @taiwan_girl
The Brad
-
@Horace said in 5% reduction:
Glad you saved that one up rather than spending it on the planes on the tarmac thread.
LOL I chuckled at that and knew what you were going to say as soon as I read "Glad you saved..."
-
One interesting cut in this round was a software developer from a recent acquisition, less than a year ago. He was brought in at the top possible grade for that role, one which the company very rarely gives to existing employees. I have to imagine he demanded it under threat that he would walk with his expertise in the acquired company's product. He spent 10 months as a top performing and gracious developer, sharing his knowledge and mentoring people (from what I understand from his Linkedin post today), and was blindsided by the layoff this week. I have to wonder whether his negotiation for that rare top job grade, left a bad taste with the wrong person. His immediate manager, who is a complete tool, was shocked that he was let go as well, but mid-level managers don't make these sorts of decisions at this company.
The company's official messaging about this stuff is always that it's not "performance related", but that only leaves a random lottery system where employees have to hope they're not left standing in some game of reorganizational musical chairs. But I doubt anybody buys that these things are not performance (or personality/politics) related.
-
When we had layoffs at my previous company they repeatedly said that they weren't performance related, but strangely enough we could predict almost all of the people who were let go with about 90% accuracy.
-
The term layoff is an abuse of the original word. Layoff used to be a descriptor for positions such as factories that needed to slow down for a refit, or maybe there was a temporary lack of work that was not expected to be long term. Employees were “laid off” with a general understanding that there would be a job waiting for them at a point in the future. There were 6 week layoffs, 10 week, etc… Then it just became a euphemism for firing people. Stupid.
-
It retains a much different connotation than "fired" though. And companies usually treat it differently for the purposes of severance.
@Horace said in 5% reduction:
It retains a much different connotation than "fired" though. And companies usually treat it differently for the purposes of severance.
I get that, but it’s not a layoff. Call it staff reduction, Let go without cause, whatever. But keep the layoff title for actual layoffs.
The Brad
-
I mean there is a good chance it's not performance related, but perhaps a shift in what the company wants to spend money on (or not). Let's just hope they don't target fig tree farmers next!
@89th said in 5% reduction:
I mean there is a good chance it's not performance related, but perhaps a shift in what the company wants to spend money on (or not). Let's just hope they don't target fig tree farmers next!
When my son was laid off from JAMF, he'd just received a substantial bonus. It was explained to him that upper management took a last hired, first laid-off approach.
This could be the same thing. It's not effective, but it's lawyer-proof.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@Horace said in 5% reduction:
It retains a much different connotation than "fired" though. And companies usually treat it differently for the purposes of severance.
I get that, but it’s not a layoff. Call it staff reduction, Let go without cause, whatever. But keep the layoff title for actual layoffs.
@LuFins-Dad said in 5% reduction:
@Horace said in 5% reduction:
It retains a much different connotation than "fired" though. And companies usually treat it differently for the purposes of severance.
I get that, but it’s not a layoff. Call it staff reduction, Let go without cause, whatever. But keep the layoff title for actual layoffs.
In the UK, they're referred to as 'redundancies', as in 'you've been made redundant'. It's a depressing word for a depressing thing.
I was only joking
-
@Horace said in 5% reduction:
It retains a much different connotation than "fired" though. And companies usually treat it differently for the purposes of severance.
I get that, but it’s not a layoff. Call it staff reduction, Let go without cause, whatever. But keep the layoff title for actual layoffs.
@LuFins-Dad said in 5% reduction:
Call it staff reduction
That's what it was called when Mr. Reagan did this - Reduction In Force.
Government employees got riffed.
-
@89th said in 5% reduction:
I mean there is a good chance it's not performance related, but perhaps a shift in what the company wants to spend money on (or not). Let's just hope they don't target fig tree farmers next!
When my son was laid off from JAMF, he'd just received a substantial bonus. It was explained to him that upper management took a last hired, first laid-off approach.
This could be the same thing. It's not effective, but it's lawyer-proof.
@Jolly said in 5% reduction:
@89th said in 5% reduction:
I mean there is a good chance it's not performance related, but perhaps a shift in what the company wants to spend money on (or not). Let's just hope they don't target fig tree farmers next!
When my son was laid off from JAMF, he'd just received a substantial bonus. It was explained to him that upper management took a last hired, first laid-off approach.
This could be the same thing. It's not effective, but it's lawyer-proof.
Demonstrably not the case here. One of my co-workers who was around when I got acquired into this company in 2004, was let go.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in 5% reduction:
@Horace said in 5% reduction:
It retains a much different connotation than "fired" though. And companies usually treat it differently for the purposes of severance.
I get that, but it’s not a layoff. Call it staff reduction, Let go without cause, whatever. But keep the layoff title for actual layoffs.
In the UK, they're referred to as 'redundancies', as in 'you've been made redundant'. It's a depressing word for a depressing thing.
@Doctor-Phibes said in 5% reduction:
@LuFins-Dad said in 5% reduction:
@Horace said in 5% reduction:
It retains a much different connotation than "fired" though. And companies usually treat it differently for the purposes of severance.
I get that, but it’s not a layoff. Call it staff reduction, Let go without cause, whatever. But keep the layoff title for actual layoffs.
In the UK, they're referred to as 'redundancies', as in 'you've been made redundant'. It's a depressing word for a depressing thing.
Yeah, that was always the most depressing way to put it. At CS we'd have one action and they'd call it a RIF in the US and redundancy in the UK.
-
There will be lots of jobs opening up in agriculture and restaurant, according to @taiwan_girl
@LuFins-Dad said in 5% reduction:
There will be lots of jobs opening up in agriculture and restaurant, according to @taiwan_girl
-
In my understand, if it is a "layoff", that job position (or at least that job title) is being eliminated. So, a lot of companies will "layoff" their worst employees, and then get a new person, hiring them with a slightly different job title, so they are within the law. LOL
-
I don't know the laws of which anybody speaks, other than civil rights laws about race, gender, etc. Granted, lawsuits can be brought for any flimsy reason shoe-horned into one of those established protected categories, but other than that, a private company can fire whomever they please for whatever reason they please.
