I was just standing in the lab office, admiring the back of Cute QA 
Girl's head, when she turned round and stared at me.

And that's when I realised... Cute QA Girl doesn't work here any more. O_O

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.

Of course, now the rumours are circulating that they already *know* 
exactly who they want to get rid of, and the interviews are just for 
show. And everybody has their own pet theory about who's gonna get it.

FUD. Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. To quote a phrase, "we haz it".

My personal favourit suggestion is that we get rid of Fathead and get a 
manager who actually *has* a clue. This, presumably, is an element of 
the set of suggestions which will _not_ be taken seriously by corporate 
management. I hypothesize that this set also has a nonempty intersection 
with the set of suggestions involving having a competent sales force.

So, what about me? Is my job going to me axed? Well, let's examine the 
evidence:

- There's only one of me. If they get rid of me, they lose the entire UK 
IT function.

- HQ IT seems to think they can do everything remotely anyway, so maybe 
they don't "need" me any more.

- I'm *ludicrasly* cheap. If they're trying to save money, getting rid 
of me doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense. More logical to get rid of 
the senior project directors or something.

- About the only thing you can't do to a computer remotely is plug it in 
and switch it on. There are any number of other staff here who can 
probably handle that. (Indeed, one in particular seems to get lumbered 
with IT-related stuff that I don't do. She'll probably get most of my 
job if they decide I'm not necessary. Poor sod...)

So there you have it: we have conclusively proved.... something.


Oh god - I just heard Fathead on the phone to Jess. She's at the airport 
right now, about to leave the country for Turkey for her holiday. And 
Fathead is ringing her to say "oh, by the way, we're axing people's jobs 
while you're away, and we're going to interview everybody but you won't 
be here. But you have a nice holiday, OK?" Isn't that nice of him?

[I did like the comment in the meeting. "I know some of your collegues 
aren't here right now. Please don't tell them about any of this; we'll 
handle it." Nice...]

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
<snip>
> So, what about me? Is my job going to me axed? Well, let's examine the
> evidence:
> 
> - There's only one of me. If they get rid of me, they lose the entire UK
> IT function.
> 
<snip>
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 :-)

John
-- 
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei

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.

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