Joe Williams
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 4,846
But we've got to assume there is some provision for severance, right?
Did we get an answer on whether there was a round of buyouts attempted, even if no one or not enough folks took them? Or did the paper go right to layoffs, no buyouts offered?
Seniority is a lousy way to do layoffs, except for every other way. Once you stray from that, you allow managers to selectively dump a) those making higher wages, regardless of performance; b) those who might access medical benefits more often; c) those who weren't "their" hires and thus won't make those managers look like astute judges of talent, and d) those who weren't "their" hires and thus are less likely to smooch up to the current managers. Even a layoff system dedicated entirely to shedding poor performers isn't likely to succeed in such a subjective business.
Besides, if there are a bunch of poor performers in place, managers weren't doing their jobs properly well before the layoffs came a-callin'.
Did we get an answer on whether there was a round of buyouts attempted, even if no one or not enough folks took them? Or did the paper go right to layoffs, no buyouts offered?
Seniority is a lousy way to do layoffs, except for every other way. Once you stray from that, you allow managers to selectively dump a) those making higher wages, regardless of performance; b) those who might access medical benefits more often; c) those who weren't "their" hires and thus won't make those managers look like astute judges of talent, and d) those who weren't "their" hires and thus are less likely to smooch up to the current managers. Even a layoff system dedicated entirely to shedding poor performers isn't likely to succeed in such a subjective business.
Besides, if there are a bunch of poor performers in place, managers weren't doing their jobs properly well before the layoffs came a-callin'.