|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> What can I say? I guess I'm slowly losing my mind. Still, I'm in good
> company. We just had a "presentation" here that basically consisted of
> management cheerfully telling us that [more] compulsary redundancies are
> on the way in the next few days. This time they're going to interview
> everybody in the building and decide who to get rid of.
OMG ... This is exactly the plot of Office Space.
If you haven't seen it. Rent it now! And don't forget your TPS reports!
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John wrote:
> Look at it this way, Andrew, if your job goes you'll end up with a
> redundancy payment and lots of free time to find a new one and if it
> doesn't go you've lost nothing and gained a little knowledge about the
> workings of the minds of senior executives. A win-win situation :-)
Yeah, that's pretty much what I figured.
Indeed, I almost thought about offering myself for the axe anyway... but
decided against it.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> What can I say? I guess I'm slowly losing my mind. Still, I'm in good
> company. We just had a "presentation" here that basically consisted of
> management cheerfully telling us that [more] compulsary redundancies are
> on the way in the next few days. This time they're going to interview
> everybody in the building and decide who to get rid of.
So our lab has been basically empty for about 8 months now. As a result
of this, we have a serious financial problem. So they want to get rid of
some employees to control expenses.
Wanna guess who's going?
Yeah, that's right. One of our sales staff.
Yes, you heard me right. We're not getting enough contracts, so we're
going... to... get rid... of some of our sales staff...? WTF?
I mean, from the beginning they seemed to be focusing *only* on reducing
expenses and not even looking at increasing income. Since our massive
problem here is an utter lack of work to do, looking at how to increase
orders would seem the obvious place to go. But no, they're looking at
how to decrease costs. And they're going to do it by... reducing the
sales force?
I mean, one could argue that the sales guys aren't being very
successful, so maybe replacing some of them, I don't know... but just
*reducing* the sales force? That seems... kind of... braindead?
(Besides, even just replacing sales people... as I understand it, it's
all about individual sales staff developing a personal relationship with
the clients. Replace a sales person and they have to do all that work,
all over again...)
Yet again, my employer seems to be deliberately _trying_ to cause
themselves problems. But hey, what do I know about running a business?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oh *sweet*! Now they think that rather than getting rid of people, they
might just give us all a 10% pay cut.
Apparently, if we all unanimously agree to take a 10% pay cut, that will
take us *half* way to the break-even point. That plus their income
_assumptions_ (i.e., they're assuming that income is going to increase
soon) takes us to break-even. And they say (but it won't be in the
written document we'll all have to sign) that once we become profitable
again, they'll reverse the 10% cut.
So we have a choice: Either we all agree to accept a 10% pay cut
indefinitely, or some of us get the boot. And we have until close of
business *today* to decide.
Note again, we have to accept, in writing, a 10% pay cut. But they will
not put in writing that it's temporary. Note also that this cut isn't
even big enough to take us anywhere near break-even unless their income
assumptions turn out to be right. (In other words, they're expecting us
to get lots more work real soon now.)
Let me tell you, there wasn't much said in the meeting, but there were
some pretty unhappy boys and girls in there. Last month some accountant
came over from the USA and said everything is more or less OK. It's not
great, but it should get better shortly. This week, suddenly they're
talking about we must make savings, and in a few hours you need to
decide how we're going to do that. It's like... WTF changed since last
month?
Lots of unspoken questions in that room. I tell you, the atmosphere was
practically corrosive. Being in financial trouble is one thing. Being
left feeling like you weren't told the truth is another...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21-5-2009 11:43, Invisible wrote:
> Oh *sweet*! Now they think that rather than getting rid of people, they
> might just give us all a 10% pay cut.
>
> Apparently, if we all unanimously agree to take a 10% pay cut, that will
> take us *half* way to the break-even point. That plus their income
> _assumptions_ (i.e., they're assuming that income is going to increase
> soon) takes us to break-even. And they say (but it won't be in the
> written document we'll all have to sign) that once we become profitable
> again, they'll reverse the 10% cut.
>
> So we have a choice: Either we all agree to accept a 10% pay cut
> indefinitely, or some of us get the boot. And we have until close of
> business *today* to decide.
>
> Note again, we have to accept, in writing, a 10% pay cut. But they will
> not put in writing that it's temporary. Note also that this cut isn't
> even big enough to take us anywhere near break-even unless their income
> assumptions turn out to be right. (In other words, they're expecting us
> to get lots more work real soon now.)
>
> Let me tell you, there wasn't much said in the meeting, but there were
> some pretty unhappy boys and girls in there. Last month some accountant
> came over from the USA and said everything is more or less OK. It's not
> great, but it should get better shortly. This week, suddenly they're
> talking about we must make savings, and in a few hours you need to
> decide how we're going to do that. It's like... WTF changed since last
> month?
>
> Lots of unspoken questions in that room. I tell you, the atmosphere was
> practically corrosive. Being in financial trouble is one thing. Being
> left feeling like you weren't told the truth is another...
If the unemployment benefit is based on your last income it is also a
10% cut on that if you are going to get sacked anyway either to get that
other half or when they are closing the UK branch next month.
So in general this kind of 'offer' is only acceptable if
- your official salary stays the same but you get a percentage of it
- it is temporary
- the mother company guarantees that the UK branch will not be closed as
long as this measure is in place
- the guy who offers it also accepts a cut in salary. Preferably more
that that 10% to show his confidence in the outcome.
Did you check if such a thing is even legal in the UK? What do the
unions say about this?
I think you have also to take into account how likely it is that it will
get better. Is the management competent and how well do they know the
market are some of the most important questions.
I know not in details how the actual situation is, but based on what I
heard I would not agree.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> If the unemployment benefit is based on your last income it is also a
> 10% cut on that.
As far as I know, in the UK unemployment benefit is unrelated to your
prior income and is computed based only on how much money they think you
"need" in order to survive. (E.g., stuff like whether you have children.)
> So in general this kind of 'offer' is only acceptable if
> - your official salary stays the same but you get a percentage of it
> - it is temporary
> - the mother company guarantees that the UK branch will not be closed as
> long as this measure is in place
> - the guy who offers it also accepts a cut in salary. Preferably more
> that that 10% to show his confidence in the outcome.
Somebody asked if Fathead is taking a pay cut as well. We are told he
is. (Obviously, there is no way to actually verify this.)
> Did you check if such a thing is even legal in the UK? What do the
> unions say about this?
It's legal if we all sign a written document agreeing to it. It is
required to be unanimous though.
Unions? We don't have any.
> I think you have also to take into account how likely it is that it will
> get better. Is the management competent and how well do they know the
> market are some of the most important questions.
>
> I know not in details how the actual situation is, but based on what I
> heard I would not agree.
Uh, yeah.
We got fed the whole sob story of how lots of other companies are doing
this sort of thing and it isn't unusual, and our industry has been hit
hard, yadda yadda yack.
It's true that our customers' entire business model is based on
continuous R&D. If you imagine a company such as Intel deciding to stop
developing new products, you'll instantly see how utterly suicidal that
would be. So they'll have to start taking projects off hold soon if
they're not going to go under. But they don't have to give the contacts
to *us*; there _are_ other people in our line of work.
The fact of the matter is, last year two key people left the company -
our Director of Business Development, and shortly afterwards our General
Manager. Since that time, our order book has become progressively more
empty. Then we got rid of our lab manager (we're not sure why, it just
randomly happened one afternoon).
Right now, it's pretty bad. I've never known the lab to be so quiet.
Every time I walk into the office, I see a dozen people sitting around
surfing ebay. When you've got three project managers sitting there
*watching* people playing Flash games, you know something isn't right.
So far, I'm not seeing any kind of plan to get work to materialise. I
guess it's just an unglamourious "our sales guys are going to keep doing
what they're doing until some work starts appearing". Last time our lab
was this empty, our lab manager was jumping up and down on the phone
daily demanding to know when more work was coming. But he doesn't work
for us any more...
Basically, they want us all to take a pay cut, they can't tell us how
long for, they can't tell as a specific condition for removing the cut,
and we need to decide, unanimously, in the next few hours. Great.
PS. I'd almost consider resigning myself just so my collegues can keep
their jobs... but my pittiful salary is unlikely to make much difference.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Basically, they want us all to take a pay cut, they can't tell us how
> long for, they can't tell as a specific condition for removing the cut,
> and we need to decide, unanimously, in the next few hours. Great.
On the other hand, if we don't get rid of people, then if, by some freak
of nature, we get some work in, we'll still have enough staff to
actually handle it.
We can't really afford to lose too many more people before we reach the
point where we stop functioning.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21-5-2009 12:41, Invisible wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>
>> If the unemployment benefit is based on your last income it is also a
>> 10% cut on that.
>
> As far as I know, in the UK unemployment benefit is unrelated to your
> prior income and is computed based only on how much money they think you
> "need" in order to survive. (E.g., stuff like whether you have children.)
Here it is a percentage of your last income. Makes sense in a way,
because if you earn more you have a bigger house, a bigger car and you
are probably the only income. So you need more to get you through the
hard times. Not totally fair perhaps but it prevents a lot of secondary
damage.
I am not following what is going on in the private sector, but I think
the concept here is that people are partly fired for some time and get
unemployment benefit for that part. That way it doesn't affect your
unemployment benefit later.
>> So in general this kind of 'offer' is only acceptable if
>> - your official salary stays the same but you get a percentage of it
>> - it is temporary
>> - the mother company guarantees that the UK branch will not be closed
>> as long as this measure is in place
>> - the guy who offers it also accepts a cut in salary. Preferably more
>> that that 10% to show his confidence in the outcome.
>
> Somebody asked if Fathead is taking a pay cut as well. We are told he
> is. (Obviously, there is no way to actually verify this.)
Ask him to proof it ;)
>> Did you check if such a thing is even legal in the UK? What do the
>> unions say about this?
>
> It's legal if we all sign a written document agreeing to it. It is
> required to be unanimous though.
Does that mean it is only legal if it is unanimous or that they want
full pressure from do-workers on everybody?
> Unions? We don't have any.
Interesting. A relic from the Thatcher days?
>> I think you have also to take into account how likely it is that it
>> will get better. Is the management competent and how well do they know
>> the market are some of the most important questions.
>>
>> I know not in details how the actual situation is, but based on what I
>> heard I would not agree.
>
> Uh, yeah.
>
> We got fed the whole sob story of how lots of other companies are doing
> this sort of thing and it isn't unusual, and our industry has been hit
> hard, yadda yadda yack.
>
> It's true that our customers' entire business model is based on
> continuous R&D. If you imagine a company such as Intel deciding to stop
> developing new products, you'll instantly see how utterly suicidal that
> would be. So they'll have to start taking projects off hold soon if
> they're not going to go under. But they don't have to give the contacts
> to *us*; there _are_ other people in our line of work.
>
> The fact of the matter is, last year two key people left the company -
> our Director of Business Development, and shortly afterwards our General
> Manager. Since that time, our order book has become progressively more
> empty.
Are you sure you have the events in chronological and causative order?
> Then we got rid of our lab manager (we're not sure why, it just
> randomly happened one afternoon).
>
> Right now, it's pretty bad. I've never known the lab to be so quiet.
> Every time I walk into the office, I see a dozen people sitting around
> surfing ebay. When you've got three project managers sitting there
> *watching* people playing Flash games, you know something isn't right.
>
> So far, I'm not seeing any kind of plan to get work to materialise. I
> guess it's just an unglamourious "our sales guys are going to keep doing
> what they're doing until some work starts appearing". Last time our lab
> was this empty, our lab manager was jumping up and down on the phone
> daily demanding to know when more work was coming. But he doesn't work
> for us any more...
So the short version is that everybody that was actually able to find
new work is no longer working there? Enquiring mind wants to know.
> Basically, they want us all to take a pay cut, they can't tell us how
> long for, they can't tell as a specific condition for removing the cut,
> and we need to decide, unanimously, in the next few hours. Great.
That pressure alone would make it illegal in my opinion, but IANAL.
> PS. I'd almost consider resigning myself just so my collegues can keep
> their jobs... but my pittiful salary is unlikely to make much difference.
Here that would mean voluntary unemployment and a complete loss of benefit.
Whatever you decide: go looking for another job.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> As far as I know, in the UK unemployment benefit is unrelated to your
>> prior income and is computed based only on how much money they think
>> you "need" in order to survive. (E.g., stuff like whether you have
>> children.)
>
> Here it is a percentage of your last income. Makes sense in a way,
Yeah, I guess.
>> Somebody asked if Fathead is taking a pay cut as well. We are told he
>> is. (Obviously, there is no way to actually verify this.)
>
> Ask him to proof it ;)
It's interesting... If Adam had said he was taking a 10% pay cut too, we
would all just believe him without even thinking about it. But when
Fathead says it, we're all suspicious... Maybe because he's such a good
manager?
>>> Did you check if such a thing is even legal in the UK? What do the
>>> unions say about this?
>>
>> It's legal if we all sign a written document agreeing to it. It is
>> required to be unanimous though.
>
> Does that mean it is only legal if it is unanimous or that they want
> full pressure from do-workers on everybody?
We are told it's only legal if it's unanimous. IANAL. Maybe it's just a
ploy?
>> The fact of the matter is, last year two key people left the company -
>> our Director of Business Development, and shortly afterwards our
>> General Manager. Since that time, our order book has become
>> progressively more empty.
>
> Are you sure you have the events in chronological and causative order?
It would be a lie to say that the Director of BD left and the next day
the lab was empty. It is true, however, that the BD guy left suddenly
and unexpectedly (apparently HQ did something he didn't like), and that
Adam left suddenly and unexpectedly shortly after that. And it's most
assuredly true that nobody likes Fathead, our new site manager.
The recent quietness could be due to any number of things... it just
seems like a bit of a coincidence that we now have 5 BD people instead
of just 1, but there's no work. You could blame the banking crash
(indeed, Fathead does), but it was quiet before that.
>> Then we got rid of our lab manager (we're not sure why, it just
>> randomly happened one afternoon).
>
> So the short version is that everybody that was actually able to find
> new work is no longer working there? Enquiring mind wants to know.
Since Fathead has been our manager, staff turnover has been absurdly
high. Like before, we'd maybe hire 1 person per year. And maybe 1 person
would leave in a given year. And they'd announce that they're leaving,
and a month or two later they'd actually leave. And we would probably
all go out for a meal and say goodbye and stuff.
With Fathead in charge, you just come in one morning and there's some
person you don't recognise wandering around, and it turns out they work
for us now. Or we'll have a meeting and Fathead says "by the way, X no
longer works for us, as of 2PM yesterday", and we're all like WTF?!
I especially like the way he decided to take on some temp staff in the lab.
1. The lab was almost empty, so why more staff?
2. It takes *months* to perform and document all the formal training in
our policies and procedures before the new person can actually do any work.
3. During this training, somebody has to by training the person rather
than doing their own job.
We had 2 people work for us for a month. Why? They didn't even finish
their training period before their contracts ended. WORTH IT! Well that
was a waste of money...
So anyway, several high-profile people have left suddenly, and with the
lab being empty for so many months now, everybody has been getting
twitchy about job security. And now this happens...
>> Basically, they want us all to take a pay cut, they can't tell us how
>> long for, they can't tell as a specific condition for removing the
>> cut, and we need to decide, unanimously, in the next few hours. Great.
>
> That pressure alone would make it illegal in my opinion, but IANAL.
It _is_ suspecious that last month, things were "poor but managable",
and now suddenly this week it's high-noon. Why?
>> PS. I'd almost consider resigning myself just so my collegues can keep
>> their jobs... but my pittiful salary is unlikely to make much difference.
>
> Here that would mean voluntary unemployment and a complete loss of benefit.
Possibly here too. I don't know.
> Whatever you decide: go looking for another job.
Er, yeah. Even if there are no pay cuts and I get to keep my job, this
is *not* the company to work for! o_O
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Lots of unspoken questions in that room. I tell you, the atmosphere was
> practically corrosive.
You haven't seen corrosive until you've seen them call everyone in the
company into the room on Friday morning and announce they don't have enough
money to cut paychecks this week.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|