ForumGarden

I have a growing perception that all the job layoffs that are occuring may not be 100% related to the economic downturn. Is it unreasonable to assume that some companies, perhaps more than we think, are taking advantage of the current situation to downsize under cover of the recession and thus position themselves better for the next year without taking all the flack as a bad company that lays off workers? Hey, everyone has to cut jobs right? Hmmm I wonder? :-2

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1175548 wrote: I have a growing perception that all the job layoffs that are occuring may not be 100% related to the economic downturn. Is it unreasonable to assume that some companies, perhaps more than we think, are taking advantage of the current situation to downsize under cover of the recession and thus position themselves better for the next year without taking all the flack as a bad company that lays off workers? Hey, everyone has to cut jobs right? Hmmm I wonder? :-2


That does not make sense to me. If it's a viable growing business why lay off people to better position themselves? Better position themselves for what? Next year could be worse than this year for the economy and business really has no crystal ball.

You are absolutely correct. Companies that are still making millions need to be seen as 'acting responsibly’ to Wall Street and need to show that they are taking action to control costs.

So even if they are doing well, they are still expected to demonstrate that they are controlling their businesses in these economic times.

If not they are seen as irresponsible and become a risk.

Crazy but true.

The unforeseen risk to even a business that is doing well is that the business’s trading partners may not be doing well. Let’s say that the company does not control its costs because sales are strong, and let’s then say that one of its biggest customer then goes under, then this company is left with a large exposure.

This is what they are all afraid of. 'Í am OK, but are my customers???'

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1175548 wrote: I have a growing perception that all the job layoffs that are occuring may not be 100% related to the economic downturn. Is it unreasonable to assume that some companies, perhaps more than we think, are taking advantage of the current situation to downsize under cover of the recession and thus position themselves better for the next year without taking all the flack as a bad company that lays off workers? Hey, everyone has to cut jobs right? Hmmm I wonder? :-2


Why would a company want to downsize if it's doing well?

It's only when a company is suffering that they feel the need to shed jobs.

No Quinn is absolutely right actually. Obviously some companies do need to cut costs, or are insolvent and are going bankrupt, but not all, and those other ones are making hay while the sun shines. I am thinking of companies that are still making massive profits and are using this recession/depression (whatever you want to call it) as an excuse to

1. Lay off expensive long term staff with lots of work priviliedges, they will eventually replace with cheap younger people, people in China, or economic migrants.

2. Erode worker's conditions and rights by claiming that "its cost cutting measures" in the face of an "unprecendented" economic situation.

3. Cut wages and demand greater productivity, while saying nothing about their profits.

Usually people might object, however people are so frightened at the moment, (and the right-wing economic propagandists have so easily hijacked the whole argument, conviniently forgetting that it was they and other private buisness interests that caused this problem with sheer greed and arrogance) that people are quietly accepting even worse working conditions and mass layoffs simply in the name of ever greater profits for those who control the Capital.

Man, I am starting to sound like a raging Communist, has it come to this? :wah:

Sure, it's a great opportunity to trim the fat, and there's very little to lose. If the economy does continue going down, they're visionary survivors skillfully weathering the storm. If it turns around, they can boast of their great profits, toss some bonuses around (so the gov't can get their 90%), and be ahead of their competition.



Win/win

Seems plausible to me.

I can hear it in the HR meetings now............

Find the slackers and can em....

As ACC says

Win/Win

OOPS...............

Win/win

BTS;1176883 wrote: Seems plausible to me.

I can hear it in the HR meetings now............

Find the slackers and can em....

As ACC says

Win/Win


Well in fact, my CEO just said he wants to up the anti on performance managment and to get rid of the lowest rated 5% each year. So there you go.

Another problem is, laid off workers have no desire to get off of unemployment. I have tried to hire a mechanic for 2 months now. I had a guy come in today that asked if the job started at $40,0000.00 or more. I told him no. He said he would rather do nothing for his $450.00 per week on unemployment than work for less than a gauranteed $40,000.00. :-5

YZGI;1178307 wrote: Another problem is, laid off workers have no desire to get off of unemployment. I have tried to hire a mechanic for 2 months now. I had a guy come in today that asked if the job started at $40,0000.00 or more. I told him no. He said he would rather do nothing for his $450.00 per week on unemployment than work for less than a gauranteed $40,000.00. :-5


Then either he's a pillock or he's moonlighting.

At $450 / week your dole sounds like it's a lot better than ours

Bryn Mawr;1178378 wrote: Then either he's a pillock or he's moonlighting.



At $450 / week your dole sounds like it's a lot better than ours
It seems the aircraft workers are getting a darn good pull this time around. The last time aircraft workers in this town went on a layoff binge they got up to 2 years worth of unemployment benefits.

YZGI;1178399 wrote: It seems the aircraft workers are getting a darn good pull this time around. The last time aircraft workers in this town went on a layoff binge they got up to 2 years worth of unemployment benefits.


Could you explain this?

Over here, if a company lays off workers then they have to give them a redundancy package (and yes, for a long term employee that can reach two years salary and more and could involve early payment of full pension) but it does not affect the amount of unemployment payments you receive.

Bryn Mawr;1178432 wrote: Could you explain this?



Over here, if a company lays off workers then they have to give them a redundancy package (and yes, for a long term employee that can reach two years salary and more and could involve early payment of full pension) but it does not affect the amount of unemployment payments you receive.
When you are laid off here and don't have enough time in for early retirement, basically you either find a new job or go to the unemployment office. You register that you have been laid off and you begin recieving unemployment benefits immediately paid for by the state. All employers pay umemployment insurance. If I laid off a worker, then the state would charge my unemplyment insurance. If I have a history then the insurance goes up. So as a buisness owner you don't want employees to be charged on unemployment because then the company has to pay more. If a employee is fired the same things happen. If an employee quits then if they don't have another job lined up they have to wait 6 weeks to recieve unemployment or are denied.

Bryn Mawr;1178432 wrote: Could you explain this?



Over here, if a company lays off workers then they have to give them a redundancy package (and yes, for a long term employee that can reach two years salary and more and could involve early payment of full pension) but it does not affect the amount of unemployment payments you receive.
Depending on if you work for a Union or not and whether the contract states compensation is due upon laying off is the only way a compensation is paid to a laid off worker. Some have stipulations of a time period they have to give notice before laying off, others don't. I could lay off any of my workers at any time and pay no compensation, but then if and when they got unemployment benefits it would be charged to my company and my company rates for unemployment would go up in turn.





Does this make any sense?

YZGI;1178442 wrote: When you are laid off here and don't have enough time in for early retirement, basically you either find a new job or go to the unemployment office. You register that you have been laid off and you begin recieving unemployment benefits immediately paid for by the state. All employers pay umemployment insurance. If I laid off a worker, then the state would charge my unemplyment insurance. If I have a history then the insurance goes up. So as a buisness owner you don't want employees to be charged on unemployment because then the company has to pay more. If a employee is fired the same things happen. If an employee quits then if they don't have another job lined up they have to wait 6 weeks to recieve unemployment or are denied.


but you get nothing from the company that laid you off?

BTW - same here if you quit your job, self inflicted so no dole for a while.

Bryn Mawr;1178445 wrote: but you get nothing from the company that laid you off?



BTW - same here if you quit your job, self inflicted so no dole for a while.
Only if you have a contract stating that you get compensation upon being laid off.

YZGI;1178447 wrote: Only if you have a contract stating that you get compensation upon being laid off.


Over here it is one of the big disincentives stopping companies from laying workers off without really good reason.

I can see the employer's dilemma:


If I cut a few workers, I might be able to increase productivity and turn the business around. Then I can hire more selectively as I grow.

But if I lay anyone off, it will cost so much that I might lose the business entirely.

So I'm forced to keep failing workers on a sinking ship while I look for a job for myself.

That bites.



I think Obama's "stimulus" required extending employment benefits beyond what they have been.

Accountable;1178525 wrote: I can see the employer's dilemma:


If I cut a few workers, I might be able to increase productivity and turn the business around. Then I can hire more selectively as I grow.

But if I lay anyone off, it will cost so much that I might lose the business entirely.

So I'm forced to keep failing workers on a sinking ship while I look for a job for myself.


That bites.



I think Obama's "stimulus" required extending employment benefits beyond what they have been.


People have foresight - it's more a case of forward planning to make sure that growth is sustainable rather than the hire em and fire em of a boom and bust economy.

It seems to be the hard place that the rock of the unforeseen squishes you up against. But there's a lot about ya'll that I don't get.

Accountable;1178531 wrote: It seems to be the hard place that the rock of the unforeseen squishes you up against. But there's a lot about ya'll that I don't get.


It brings a degree of stability and lessens the element of luck involved in being a down and out.

We *really* do not like seeing the boss closing the company and driving away in his Rolls Royce.

Damn you've got a skewed sense of reality when it comes to small business. You're posts read as if you assume guilt and punish all rather than trust in humanity.



Leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Accountable;1175847 wrote: Sure, it's a great opportunity to trim the fat, and there's very little to lose. If the economy does continue going down, they're visionary survivors skillfully weathering the storm. If it turns around, they can boast of their great profits, toss some bonuses around (so the gov't can get their 90%), and be ahead of their competition.



Win/win


Hardworking citizens, trying to raise families are not "fat to be trimmed" in my opinion.

Perhaps CEOs earning 450 times the average industrial wage my like to explain why they personally consider themselves lean, mean money making machines, when they suck so much off the top themselves?

Perhaps a little trimming at the tops of the branches where the fruit have become fattened on too much juice, instead of constantly underlining the roots, would save the whole tree from falling over.

Accountable;1178556 wrote: Damn you've got a skewed sense of reality when it comes to small business. You're posts read as if you assume guilt and punish all rather than trust in humanity.



Leaves a bad taste in my mouth.


Why suddenly small businesses - previous posts referenced companies making millions and you yourself suggested that many companies were taking advantage of the situation.

A small business (defined as one employing less than fifty people with a turnover of less than £3M) operates to different rules than the big boys who have to be seen to be acting responsibly on Wall Street as Mike put it.

And no, when it comes to dumping your employees onto the street I do not believe that we can trust to the bosses humanity - it's dictated by the bean counters and they're paid not to have any.

Bryn Mawr;1178657 wrote: Why suddenly small businesses - previous posts referenced companies making millions and you yourself suggested that many companies were taking advantage of the situation.



A small business (defined as one employing less than fifty people with a turnover of less than £3M) operates to different rules than the big boys who have to be seen to be acting responsibly on Wall Street as Mike put it.



And no, when it comes to dumping your employees onto the street I do not believe that we can trust to the bosses humanity - it's dictated by the bean counters and they're paid not to have any.
Sorry. Lost my focus. We have been talking about bigger businesses.

Galbally;1178656 wrote: Hardworking citizens, trying to raise families are not "fat to be trimmed" in my opinion.



Perhaps CEOs earning 450 times the average industrial wage my like to explain why they personally consider themselves lean, mean money making machines, when they suck so much off the top themselves?



Perhaps a little trimming at the tops of the branches where the fruit have become fattened on too much juice, instead of constantly underlining the roots, would save the whole tree from falling over.
I agree about hardworking citizens. The "fat" would be the citizens who are not working hard. The comment was cynically looking from the company's point of view.



I'm no expert on calculating the value of an employee's contribution to a company's bottom line. Perhaps an hour of an executive's negotiating skills results in 450 times as much revenue as the average employee. Sounds impossible on the surface, but I wouldn't know where to begin to check.

Bryn Mawr;1178432 wrote: Could you explain this?

Over here, if a company lays off workers then they have to give them a redundancy package (and yes, for a long term employee that can reach two years salary and more and could involve early payment of full pension) but it does not affect the amount of unemployment payments you receive.


That's one of the great myths people believe in. You only get anything remotely like that if you happen to work for a large company that has things like company pension schemes (and thanks to gordie boy they are on their way out) and powerful unions to protect their workforce. It's nothing like that for those working for small businesses. Even then it's only of you have worked for an employer for more than two years you are entitled to anything at all. If you get fired in that two year period there is nothing you can do about it. If you get laid off and get no redundancy all you can do is go to an industrial tribunal but that takes time.

Ready Reckoner for calculating the number of weeks' pay due - BERR

* 0.5 week's pay for each full year of service where age during year less than 22

* 1.0 week's pay for each full year of service where age during year is 22 or above, but less than 41

* 1.5 weeks' pay for each full year of service where age during year is 41+


In the eu the rules on redundancy payments are better for the employees but more expensive for the employers. (if you recall we kept out of the social contract because maggie fooled us all in to believing it would discourage inward investment) That's why you see british factories having lay offs (even if more efficient) before their european counterparts because it's cheaper for the company.

posted by yzgi

All employers pay umemployment insurance. If I laid off a worker, then the state would charge my unemplyment insurance. If I have a history then the insurance goes up. So as a buisness owner you don't want employees to be charged on unemployment because then the company has to pay more. If a employee is fired the same things happen. If an employee quits then if they don't have another job lined up they have to wait 6 weeks to recieve unemployment or are denied.


Is that the case right across the states? I ask because one of the common themes in american drama is someone being threatened with the sack-the implication being there is little comeback an employee has if summarily dismissed. It would suggest that employers are going to be very wary of sacking people if it means the unemployment insurance they pay will keep going up.

Here you can be sacked out of hand if you have less than two years service with an employer and there is nothing you can do about it. Even with 10 years or more if you just get sacked and you work for a small company that doesn't want to pay redundancy all you can do is go to court but in the meantime you are looking for a job with no references if the employer is inclined to be nasty. The notion that everything is tilted in favour of employees is a false one.

posted by yzgi

Depending on if you work for a Union or not and whether the contract states compensation is due upon laying off is the only way a compensation is paid to a laid off worker. Some have stipulations of a time period they have to give notice before laying off, others don't. I could lay off any of my workers at any time and pay no compensation, but then if and when they got unemployment benefits it would be charged to my company and my company rates for unemployment would go up in turn.



Does this make any sense?


No it doesn't. I can see the logic of redundancy payment but why on earth should a company pay unemployment benefit for people it has laid off? Kind of defeats the purpose in laying them off in the first place-you'd be as well keeping them on a retainer or something.

gmc;1178761 wrote: That's one of the great myths people believe in. You only get anything remotely like that if you happen to work for a large company that has things like company pension schemes (and thanks to gordie boy they are on their way out) and powerful unions to protect their workforce. It's nothing like that for those working for small businesses. Even then it's only of you have worked for an employer for more than two years you are entitled to anything at all. If you get fired in that two year period there is nothing you can do about it. If you get laid off and get no redundancy all you can do is go to an industrial tribunal but that takes time.



Ready Reckoner for calculating the number of weeks' pay due - BERR



*



In the eu the rules on redundancy payments are better for the employees but more expensive for the employers. (if you recall we kept out of the social contract because maggie fooled us all in to believing it would discourage inward investment) That's why you see british factories having lay offs (even if more efficient) before their european counterparts because it's cheaper for the company.



posted by yzgi





Is that the case right across the states? I ask because one of the common themes in american drama is someone being threatened with the sack-the implication being there is little comeback an employee has if summarily dismissed. It would suggest that employers are going to be very wary of sacking people if it means the unemployment insurance they pay will keep going up.



Here you can be sacked out of hand if you have less than two years service with an employer and there is nothing you can do about it. Even with 10 years or more if you just get sacked and you work for a small company that doesn't want to pay redundancy all you can do is go to court but in the meantime you are looking for a job with no references if the employer is inclined to be nasty. The notion that everything is tilted in favour of employees is a false one.



posted by yzgi





No it doesn't. I can see the logic of redundancy payment but why on earth should a company pay unemployment benefit for people it has laid off? Kind of defeats the purpose in laying them off in the first place-you'd be as well keeping them on a retainer or something.


The unemployment insurance does go up but not by much. I didn't understand Bryn post about getting 2 years paid if laid off. If I have to pay a worker to lay him off I will just continue working him.

Accountable;1178692 wrote: Sorry. Lost my focus. We have been talking about bigger businesses.


I ran a small business for over twenty years as have both my son-in-laws. I trust most people to have a conscience and care for their workers - although I still think we have to guard against the rogue few.

Big business, however, is a completely different kettle of oysters - it has no humanity and is ruled by greed.

Many years ago I worked for a family firm with several thousand employees - the owner was a delightful man who had time for, and an interest in, everyone. Sadly, the firm hit a bad patch - we'd committed to a large investment program to replace ageing equipment when the market took a downturn. The bank not only refused to extend the overdraft but they foreclosed on the existing loan at short notice. The company was bought by one of our competitors, run by a vengeful former employee who close us down and made virtually everyone redundant. Oh, he made his profit asset stripping but it was his way of getting back at a firm that had refused to promote him years before - thousands on the dole to boost one man's ego so no, I do not think we can trust businesses to "do the right thing".



Having got that off my chest, I feel a lot better now :wah:

YZGI;1178798 wrote: The unemployment insurance does go up but not by much. I didn't understand Bryn post about getting 2 years paid if laid off. If I have to pay a worker to lay him off I will just continue working him.


We have employment laws to prevent people being laid off at a whim and redundancy payments so people are suddenly left destitute. Bear in mind we have a very different industrial history from the US- the reasons for the laws have a solid historical base. They do make sense to us just as your laws make sense to you but if you don't have the same shared cultural understanding it gets a bit complicated trying to understand the reason for some things.

YZGI;1178798 wrote: The unemployment insurance does go up but not by much. I didn't understand Bryn post about getting 2 years paid if laid off. If I have to pay a worker to lay him off I will just continue working him.


That is the idea of redundancy pay - to stop companies laying workers off unless they absolutely have to.

The rules for minimum payout are graded both by the age of the employee and the length of service :-

Age / LoS

<2year over

< 40 zero 1 weeks pay per year

over zero 1.5 weeks pay per year

Often, in order to encourage people to volunteer for redundancy a company will pay more than the minimum and payments of two year salary will only be seen under these conditions.