Shut up and gives me my Soshel Securty check!!!!!!!
Layoffs are the way upper management hides their stupid decisions and ensure their bonuses.
Surely the ‘bring back jobs, just sayin’,’ reads the fool.
I’m surprised Microsoft makes enough to keep the employees they still have. Their stuff is crap. No good ideas in years and years.
Eliminating jobs is obviously bad for those on the receiving end of the downsizing.It's not obvious, and it isn't necessarily bad.
What’s the savings on firing 18,000 Americans, and hiring 18,000 H1-Bs at a 30% discount, or overseas Indians for a 50% discount?
So Microsoft won’t be allowed to apply for or employ any H1B foreign visa employees.Right?
Because what qualified USA employee in the IT field would even want to apply for a position with them, knowing of their recent firings?
Can they profit from creating a hostile working environment?
Mass layoffs can change the way some of the metrics look, so the stock will look more appealing to anyone who doesn’t look too close. But it’s short-term, and hamstrings the company’s long-term operations. You lose your employees, who does the work?
When analyzing a stock, one of the red flags I watch for is a sudden drop in certain expenses. That’s usually a sign that the company is cutting corners that really shouldn’t be cut.
I know what I speak of here. LOL.
Micron and Intel stock jumped after big layoffs.
Layoff Americans and hire in India is now the working model
The CEOs and CFOs get boosted salaries.
Remember MS is dealing with Washington labor laws. Probably a significant number of the people “laid off” are just people they wanted to get rid of but didn’t have the paper trail to make it work with legal. Layoffs open that opportunity window. Where I work was HQd in Washington for a while, we sold off a division and laid a bunch of people that the buyers “didn’t want” who actually had nothing to do with that division.
The academic knows better....
The reason for mass layoffs is to take the restructuring charges against profits at a time that it is favorable to do so for the company. It’s much more complex than this lightweight piece suggests. And it’s not about the salary cost, it’s about the total cost of employment of those people for the rest of their career, which includes the three taxes (SS, unemployment, and medicare) plus workers comp insurance, and company benefits. A good estimate is 30 to 50% on top of the actual salary, more if the company offers a pension or other disappearing perks.
Public companies really don’t care if they sell out their future for the sake of another quarter. That’s how the system is incentivized, and to a CEO making several million dollars a month or more, having another three months of job security is worth almost any dumb decision you can think of. Layoffs are like candy to investors, they see the short term gain and will worry about the long term cost another quarter.
I don't know if massive layoffs are the right way to purge the company. But it's pretty easy to make an argument for a large company to let go of the bottom 5% every year and fix those problems with new hiring.
If 95% of your hires are good, solid employees, then your company is doing a heck of job at the interview process.
similarly is it enough (longterm) to just cut calories? Or do you need to adopt a positive agenda of nutrition and fitness including building muscle?
Or in the family context is it enough (longterm) to just cut expenses? Or do you need to figure out a positive agenda of increasing revenue?
Positive movement is always far more powerful than negative esp longterm.
18,000 x $50,000 = $900,000,000
If they’re not bringing in a billion dollars of revenue...
No. Imagine the productivity you could get from 18,000 people!
My company has been cutting, and the biggest target on your back is the pay grade - if you aren’t a manager.
It is the same bureaucratic weakness that affects government. Get rid of expensive doctors, bring in nurses and assistants. But no one thinks to cut oversight.