←back to thread

1041 points mertbio | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
ElevenLathe ◴[] No.42840336[source]
The one that is most ridiculous and sad IMO (I'm in the US) is that contractors aren't invited to the Christmas party.
replies(3): >>42840410 #>>42840990 #>>42842938 #
scarface_74 ◴[] No.42840990[source]
Why is that ridiculous, I work in consulting. Why would I expect to be invited to the Christmas party? If you had consultants from McKinsey working for you, would you expect them to be invited to your Christmas party?
replies(2): >>42841181 #>>42841304 #
gorbachev ◴[] No.42841304[source]
Because in a lot of places the consultants and employees work side by side, sometimes for a long time, on the same project/work. They operate as one team, more or less. The consultants are more like staff augmentation, than McKinsey consultants.

If I was a manager of that team, I'd worry about the effect of treating part of my team differently.

If I was an employee on a team like that, I'd feel really bad about my team mates not being allowed to participate.

replies(2): >>42841385 #>>42842698 #
1. scarface_74 ◴[] No.42841385{8}[source]
There is admittedly a difference between staff augmentation and McKinsey style strategic “consulting”. The distinction is usually who owns the project?

If the client company owns the project and you are just coming in as a warm body, that’s staff augmentation.

But if the client company is putting out Requests for Comments to different companies and they sign a Statement of Work and your consulting company comes in and does the work, that’s “consulting”. In the latter case, you don’t usually get let go as soon as there is no work for you - ie when you are “on the bench”.

Even if you are a more junior employee at the latter company where you are more hands on keyboard than flying out to meet customers and sometimes you might even be doing staff augmentation for the client, it still feels differently.

My consulting company has internal employee events, is responsible for my pay, performance, etc - not the client.

replies(1): >>42847767 #
2. cutemonster ◴[] No.42847767[source]
At the same time, a consulting company's employee might spend 30 times more time together with the employees of his/her client, and then it might have felt more natural to join them on Christmas dinner too, and a bit sad to be "left out" (although of course everyone probably understand why).

The client's employees can be your "real" coworkers that your at every day, for years and years? Although maybe your company does shorter projects (?), what do I know