Layoffs: What do you think?

14 Posts  ·  8 Users
About this group
Due to the ongoing recession, the word 'layoff' has become a part of our daily vocabulary. For some employed people, it is like the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. For students, it is a research topic. For CEOs/COOs, it is a major head...
Page 1 of 2
Hi all ...............

The basic reason for existing of a business entity is profits, so any factor that threatens to affect this need to be dealt with. But, when human resource of the organization becomes the factor, the situation becomes tricky, especially in society like ours where much premium is laid on job security. Layoffs and retrenchments in the first place appears to be draconian steps which any organization takes or should take, however if you look at an employer's perspective, when employees have the absolute freedom to sack the company (i.e. resignation) no fingers are pointed at employees, also in the present day we are seeing retrenchments in sectors like IT-ITES, airline, real estate etc. the very sectors which saw highest levels of attrition just a short while before. There were numerous cases where software engineers left organizations at the most critical durations of the project n leaving the entire project plans in a haywire just to go for their 100 % increment at a rival firm. Similar was the case in airline industry where hr managers got sleepless nights managing egos and attitudes of fresh pilots just out of their flight schools. So the point that I want to make is, the freedom enjoyed by employees in choosing and sacking (resigning) the company should also be enjoyed by employers as well. An organization is made up of symbiotic relation b/w employees and employer, either of the two ceases to fulfill the expectations of others its time severe this relation.


This is indeed a good point and I agree with you to some extent..

but i felt you made it sound as if resigning and switching jobs is a crime or something and that such ppl must be taught a tough lesson!.. no offense meant but i think its just fair on both the sides..

Not all employers can offer their people growth and high salaries. Competent and ambitious people naturally feel dissatisfied in such an environment...

People switch jobs because of better opportunities. and who are the ones offering these opportunities?..... none other than other companies;)! They often have ridiculously specific requirements like '15 years of experience of purchase of hydraulic machinery components'. Its just that while they are looking for other competent people to quit their jobs and join their teams, they dont want their people to leave because money is invested and they dont want their investments to benefit others...

So it works out perfectly fine on both sides...thats what is challenging abt the HR function of an org. (Sumit correct me if I m wrong)

IMO when many people leave a particular employer, chances are that its not the high attrition but somethings are probably going terribly wrong!

just my opinion... no offense.
Commenting on this post has been disabled by the moderator.
Hi all ...............

There were numerous cases where software engineers left organizations at the most critical durations of the project n leaving the entire project plans in a haywire just to go for their 100 % increment at a rival firm. Similar was the case in airline industry where hr managers got sleepless nights managing egos and attitudes of fresh pilots just out of their flight schools. So the point that I want to make is, the freedom enjoyed by employees in choosing and sacking (resigning) the company should also be enjoyed by employers as well. An organization is made up of symbiotic relation b/w employees and employer, either of the two ceases to fulfill the expectations of others its time severe this relation.


Very well said and a brilliant point ignited. As Justin Timberlake said , "What goes around comes back around"
Someday = Never
Commenting on this post has been disabled by the moderator.

Hi all ...............

The basic reason for existing of a business entity is profits, so any factor that threatens to affect this needs to be dealt with. But, when human resource of the organization becomes the factor, the situation becomes tricky, especially in society like ours where much premium is laid on job security. Layoffs and retrenchments in the first place appears to be draconian steps which any organization takes or should take, however if you look at an employer's perspective, when employees have the absolute freedom to sack the company (i.e. resignation) no fingers are pointed at employees, also in the present day we are seeing retrenchments in sectors like IT-ITES, airline, real estate etc. the very sectors which saw highest levels of attrition just a short while before. There were numerous cases where software engineers left organizations at the most critical durations of the project n leaving the entire project plans in a haywire just to go for their 100 % increment at a rival firm. Similar was the case in airline industry where hr managers got sleepless nights managing egos and attitudes of fresh pilots just out of their flight schools. So the point that I want to make is, the freedom enjoyed by employees in choosing and sacking (resigning) the company should also be enjoyed by employers as well. An organization is made up of symbiotic relation b/w employees and employer, either of the two ceases to fulfill the expectations of others its time severe this relation.

Commenting on this post has been disabled by the moderator.
Someday = Never
Commenting on this post has been disabled by the moderator.

Things will definitely change after elections.According to me media was not covering the layoff problems as it was covered in Uk and other countries.Why every one knew that there are major employment problems in Us and not in India. The problem was always there, it will just become worse,but still government is not taking any actions.

Commenting on this post has been disabled by the moderator.
I think news sites and journalists need to move away from sensationalizing layoffs and move towards helping people. I mean, I know people are losing jobs. If I'm on the verge of losing mine too, I wouldn't want to hear about how depressed others are. I'd rather have someone willing to help me, and give me ideas to combat the situation. Here are some things that I think should be done to make life easier for employees/employers/stakeholders/bankers:

a) Ensure that each laid off employee is counselled, to prevent trauma. Most layoffs are not performance-based, though you do tend to relate performance with job loss. So, maybe all major companies could set up helplines to counsel people. (Not too expensive, and good coverage too.)

b) 'Retrenchment insurance' - Perhaps banks could float schemes where one could pay say 1% higher interest and be safe from EMI payments for a specific number of months, say 6. This would enable people who're already suffering the trauma of losing their jobs to escape the added one of collections agents.

And of course, if one of your friends has lot his/her job, don't offer sympathy, or free gyaan. If you have help to offer, give it in as nice a way as possible, without appearing overbearing or demeaning the person.


Very well said sumit. Journalists should be more responsible about sensationalizing such news. But this is what sells and thus it is being continued with more gusto. Sad...

I really liked the Retrenchment insurance idea, very well thought of. This could really be a boon to employees as well as bankers.

The laid-off people I have come across are surely traumatized but one thing I observed was that they are not willing to change their current position/designation/job profile. Though this seems right as you want to stick to the career path you have chosen.

But people have spent nearly 4-5 months now at home and the frustration levels are just mounting and they are not even willing to change their job profile. I don't know if it is wise, but who knows when the IT industry will recover and the jobs will start flowing in again.

Does it make sense changing the job profile completely? or it is wiser to stay put and wait for the jobs to flow in again? Not all are financially sound and can spare time-off from a job.
Someday = Never
Commenting on this post has been disabled by the moderator.

This topic definitely warrants a response. To start off, it is pertinent to recognize that staffing in companies and all staffing decisions vary between industries. I would argue that the term 'Human Capital', jargon of the recent past, would apply rightly to a people intensive business like professional services firms but would not make much sense when discussing industries such as manufacturing, FMCG etc. I say this purely looking at business relationships. Some business cater to customers and others to businesses. Businesses that rely on its employees to thrive would most certainly spend more time and effort to ensure that they are taken care off vis a vis companies that focus on physical goods. This point is clearly brought out by the manufacturing example by naiquevin

That being said - the decisions for companies to retrench staff fall into three broad categories:

1. When REVENUE is affected: The reasons could be many and an able leader would look at cutting its people as the last resort. It is for this same reason that people intensive companies come out with work arounds to retrenchement. Options like unpaid leave, sabbaticals are aplenty and companies that realize value in their people tend to first resort to such options rather than delivering them for slaughter. But this would be in the case of companies that work on business to business relationships. An FMCG company that recognizes revenue hits would probably feel that cutting out a few employees would be a better decision instead of chopping off a product line.

2. When PERFORMANCE is affected: Performance is a measurement of personal ability. Retrenching people based on performance becomes a very serious concern when the individuals performace directly impacts the organization. It is for this reason that companies adopt a team based approach to delivering solutions. Teams need to be well balanced and the caliber of each team is based on collective individual ability. It is fair enough to assume that there is always going to be a mix of high performers, not so high performers and mediocre. It is this mix that allows teams to thrive and grow. A person would be retrenched if he/she threatens team stability and firm performance and image. High performance teams usually tend to have a very low attrition rate. Observe this at your office. I have observed this throughout my career.

3. Miscellaneous reasons: This could be absolutely any random reason. An upset manager, a one off damaging mistake on the employees part that led to a billion dollar loss for the client or company itself! (I have a heard of such stories!)

To end I would like to state that retrenchment is, more often than not, not arbitary, there is usually a method to the madness supported by a business case - much similar to hiring people.

Best,

Rosh

ISB CO 2011 | Upgrade your life | www.bettermentacademy.com
Commenting on this post has been disabled by the moderator.

I think news sites and journalists need to move away from sensationalizing layoffs and move towards helping people. I mean, I know people are losing jobs. If I'm on the verge of losing mine too, I wouldn't want to hear about how depressed others are. I'd rather have someone willing to help me, and give me ideas to combat the situation. Here are some things that I think should be done to make life easier for employees/employers/stakeholders/bankers:

a) Ensure that each laid off employee is counselled, to prevent trauma. Most layoffs are not performance-based, though you do tend to relate performance with job loss. So, maybe all major companies could set up helplines to counsel people. (Not too expensive, and good coverage too.)

b) 'Retrenchment insurance' - Perhaps banks could float schemes where one could pay say 1% higher interest and be safe from EMI payments for a specific number of months, say 6. This would enable people who're already suffering the trauma of losing their jobs to escape the added one of collections agents.

And of course, if one of your friends has lot his/her job, don't offer sympathy, or free gyaan. If you have help to offer, give it in as nice a way as possible, without appearing overbearing or demeaning the person.

Commenting on this post has been disabled by the moderator.

In current situation, laying off employees is one of the measures that companies look at to save costs and in most of the cases it is the last resort..
I dont think there is anything wrong in this ...

BUt what I feel is that if the employer as well as the employee prepare themselves for downturn during the boom time itself, then the situation will not be so bad even in case of lay offs .. This can be done by giving them training which will add value to their resume..

For eg.. I worked in the manufacturing plant of a certain company for 1 year, so I would like to give an example from the manufacturing sector..
in most of the cases there is no training (other than handing m/cs and stuff) given to diploma holders who are deputed blue collared jobs along with other workers...And when its time for lay offs these are the first targets since there is no workers union backing them..
Some thing like this happened in my company and many other companies in the same industrial locality..
NOw the thing is that the resume of these guys is not filled with flashy things other than the work exp which also is not all that great on paper.. and most of them come from near by villages and poor backgrounds .. which means they can only look at other manufacturing plants for jobs or have limited options... which apparently are also laying off as recession has hit them as well ...

What I feel is, if some kind of training would have been given to them ..the situation would have been much better atleast of some of them whom I have worked with..
Even a simple course in spoken english could have made a difference ..

I dont have much knowledge of IT sector as i havent worked there but I guess this would work there as well.. ppl can be given training of someother programming language which the company may not be using..

What u ppl think?

Commenting on this post has been disabled by the moderator.

Now that elections are over mass layoff are gonna be seen.
sATYAM WHICH was saved for facesaving by govt will be the first it seems.

Satyam may lay off over 12,000 employees.

DLf has already fired 20% in 1 year. Major layoffs r expected by jet airways soon as political pressure to abstain from sacking is now no more:nono:

Commenting on this post has been disabled by the moderator.