Corporate America
Well, it looks like I'm going to get my wish. Between my company and the company with which we're merging, our team has 34 people. It was just announced that they'd be cutting that number down to 10 people.
10 people! At least I can get laid off. At least it looks that way. But that means that 24 people (well, 23. . . I want to get away) will be without jobs. 23 people stressed over how they pay their mortgage, how they buy their food, how they pay their credit cards' minimum monthly payments.
23 people who may have to move, may have to leave their friends and family. 23 people who may start fighting with their spouses as things get tighter. 23 people -- whose employer is displaying pursuit of the dollar over human decency.
Yes, I know that there are redundancies and it wouldn't be fair "to the shareholders" to keep everyone around. This makes sense to me. There may have to be a small amount of layoffs. . . But cutting almost 66% of them? That's my team alone. Across the company, there will be 1000s of cuts.
But you know what is funny? The senior executives -- the ones with 6 figure salaries and 6 figure bonuses. . . Somehow there were no redundancies between them. Somehow they are all remaining in the company.
Even though their responsibilities are being sliced in half. Even though their teams are being cut. Somehow they are remain completely vital to the combined company's future.
Even though cutting just 1 of them would be financially equal to cutting 5 people on the lower levels.
Oh no, we're told. This is just to deliver "financial results" in the "best interests of the shareholders."
Really?
Then why are the people who are making the decisions not cutting any of their buddies? Why are they creating whole new "do nothing" positions for them -- anything to save them? All the while cutting the workers on the lower level (ie, the ones where a layoff would hurt most because they live check to check) so severely.
You know, I do consider myself a capitalist. I think that so long as people remain ethical (and there are many "legal" things that are unethical) that they should be allowed to make as much money as they can. But there is something kind of fundamentally screwy about Wall Street's expectations. Wall Street expects year after year growth. Sometimes these expectations are just not sustainable -- and they push a company to start doing unethical things to fulfill them.
If we were to apply that to your personal life, it would be like making a million dollars a year. Most would be happy making one million in 2004, in 2005, in 2006 and on and on. But on Wall Street, this would be considered a zero percent growth company. This company would be a failure.
Or how about a sports team? It wouldn't be enough to win a championship every year. You'd have to win by more, in less games, go undefeated. . . you have to somehow get better every year.
So even though my company makes gobs of cash, even though it's a money machine. . . it needs to find a way to lower its costs (fire workers, increase workers' health care contribution, stop paying for parking, lower 401K matching rates) while increasing its revenue (by raising prices, raising fees, etc). . . Eventually the human interest part of the equation gets shoved aside in order to "meet the numbers."
I don't think this system has any easy answer, because honestly shareholders do need some kind of growth in order for them to want to invest in the first place -- and without investment, alot of our economy would go into the tank. But I do think that shareholders should change their expectations a little bit, to allow companies to grow naturally and ethically.
But what I'm learning through this whole process is that even the financial aspect is kind of rhetoric. Window dressing. In actuality, the leadership wants to do what they want to do, do favors for each other, pay each other huge sums of money, all the while looking to Wall Street like they are cutting costs. They don't really care about delivering value for the shareholders any more than they care about delivering value for the customers. They care about their money, their power, their buddies.
Oh well, at least I'm getting laid off.

4 Comments:
I've always wondered why people look to the bottom to "trim the fat" Its the same in business as in government. The people in charge who make this decisions never seem to look at their own large salaries to make the company slimmer. They'd rather cut ten 30K a year employees then cut one executive makeing 300K. I have to think 10 people can get more done than one guy..
Anyway.. you were planning on leaving soon anyway, right? This way you'll get severance and all that jazz.
Thats what happened to Susan's dad. He was planning on retiring from NBC10, but at the same time they were eliminating his position. So instead of retiring he got laid off and got a years worth of severance pay, which was pretty sweet.
The reason they trim the fat at the bottom is because it's the people at the top who decide which fat to trim. . . very self-serving. It really makes no sense.
Yes, I was going to leave in March, but was asked to stay through the merger, with the prospects of being laid off dangled in front of me as my prize.
It would mean 3 months severance, 6 months unemployment, all my stock options and grants vested (in other words, I get to keep them, if I left I would have lost them). So it's a pretty nice thing to get laid off. Which is why I'm afraid I might not get it still. "He's going to leave anyway" -- I'm SURE someone has said that at some higher level.
I think that since you have fronted the $$$ for our band projects, that makes you the lowest paid member of the band (you have made negative money on this venture) so we have decided to cut you... for the benefit of the team. It was nice playing with you, but we're gonna have to say goodbye. No hard feelings, but your fired. jk
Congratulations for losing your job. (never thought I'd say that)
Post a Comment
<< Home