←back to thread

1041 points mertbio | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.502s | 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 #
mstaoru ◴[] No.42839925[source]
5+ years "consulting" would probably be reclassified as employment by most courts.
replies(1): >>42839964 #
mrweasel ◴[] No.42839964[source]
In this case a consulting company was hired, so these where employees, just with a different company. They just opted to station the same people at the same client for all those years.
replies(2): >>42840249 #>>42840936 #
pjmlp ◴[] No.42840249[source]
In Germany now there are laws in place for this, you get ridiculous stuff like as consultant you are not allowed to eat together with team mates from the employer because that is seen as bounding activities (you may "accidently" bump into each other in the cantine, but not go together), or share the same office equipment for coffee, having to go down the stree to get coffee while employees get theirs from the kitchen, and so on.
replies(4): >>42840336 #>>42840619 #>>42840928 #>>42845001 #
1. close04 ◴[] No.42840928[source]
> In Germany now there are laws in place for this, you get ridiculous stuff like as consultant you are not allowed to eat together with team mates from the employer because that is seen as bounding activities

AFAIK in Germany the model of using temporary agency staff (AÜG or "staff leasing") is now tightly regulated. It works for a limited time period and tries to guarantee some equitable conditions for temporary workers like fair treatment, equitable wages, and benefits, aligning with the protections afforded to permanent employees.

Consultancy has no such protections.

I have never heard of any laws that prohibit internal employees from socializing with the externals (consultants or AÜG), or eat together. Bonding can happen equally at the desk or the lunch table. And I haven't heard of any company or institution enforcing this. Legislating who one is allowed to eat with sounds crazy.

What many companies probably enforce is "no internal benefits for consultants", so the free company coffee, parking, canteen, or maybe even a desk/office are not available for the externals, and they have to look elsewhere. Or maybe some unwritten internal rules to discourage bonding.

replies(1): >>42841622 #
2. pjmlp ◴[] No.42841622[source]
You get that at many companies whose legal department is too worried that AÜG might somehow be triggered for them, or have a strong union that would rather see all consulting folks be gone, which I understand when placed in the shoes of internal folks.