←back to thread

1041 points mertbio | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.239s | source
Show context
keiferski ◴[] No.42839412[source]
The thing that bothers me most about layoffs due to “financial difficulties” is when you observe management wasting absurd amounts of money on something in one year, then announcing the following year that they have to make cuts to baseline, “low level” employees that don’t cost much at all.

This kind of managerial behavior seriously kills employee motivation, because it both communicates that 1) no one has job security and 2) that management is apparently incapable of managing money responsibly.

“Sorry, we spent $200k on consultants and conferences that accomplished nothing, so now we have to cut an employee making $40k” really erodes morale in ways that merely firing people doesn’t.

replies(27): >>42839478 #>>42839479 #>>42839482 #>>42839483 #>>42839696 #>>42839726 #>>42839758 #>>42839803 #>>42840179 #>>42840331 #>>42840640 #>>42840917 #>>42841170 #>>42841209 #>>42841264 #>>42841300 #>>42841377 #>>42841387 #>>42841490 #>>42841539 #>>42841743 #>>42841788 #>>42842227 #>>42842942 #>>42843762 #>>42847256 #>>42847589 #
mrweasel ◴[] No.42839758[source]
> Sorry, we spent $200k on consultants

A former employer decided to freeze pay for a few years and later later start laying off people. During the pay freeze a colleague suggested that we might save a significant amount of money by hiring staff, rather than paying the large number of consultants we had hired. I think the ration was something like getting rid of two consultants would free enough money to hire three developers.

Managements take was that we should keep the consultants, because they where much easier to fire, two weeks notice, compared to four. So it was "better" to have consultants. My colleague pointed out that the majority of our consultants had been with us for 5+ years at that point and any cancelling of their contracts was probably more than 4 weeks out anyway. The subject was then promptly changed.

In fairness to management large scale layoffs did start 18 months later.

replies(10): >>42839859 #>>42839925 #>>42840137 #>>42840567 #>>42840942 #>>42841190 #>>42841485 #>>42842003 #>>42842066 #>>42858837 #
1. jddj ◴[] No.42839859[source]
Outside of the US this optionality does have some value to deserve at least some premium.

Hire an extra dev for the same money looks good on paper, but employment being the trapdoor function that it is in some jurisdictions does muddy the water.

(I do understand that there's a historical context to keep in mind, and that the relationship is often asymmetric in the other direction as well)

replies(2): >>42839946 #>>42841503 #
2. mrweasel ◴[] No.42839946[source]
> but employment being the trapdoor function that it is in some jurisdictions does muddy the water.

Absolutely, I should have clarified, this was in Denmark. Laying off someone is pretty easy, unless they happen to be pregnant, a union representative or work-place-safety representative.

And I should know, I was laid off from a job after two months because they decided that they didn't have the budget anyway.

replies(1): >>42840883 #
3. varjag ◴[] No.42840883[source]
Two months in much of Europe is within 6-month trial period, it's easy to let anyone go.
4. yobbo ◴[] No.42841503[source]
Furthermore, the "additional cost" of an employee in Europe is a further 35% of the salary due to social fees. That is why contractors often don't cost more to the company, although it might seem like that to employees.