Re: FWD: Layoffs and scrounging

[Roy Anderson <royanderson -at- IBM -dot- NET>]

Grab the loose equipment! The downsized employees won't be back. Don't believe
Management fairy tales. (They tell you that to give you hope in the event that
they later downsize you, too. They'd rather have a hopeful ex-employee than a
postal-type employee.) Did you see the recent IBM ad on TV where survivors sat
around mourning Mr. X. after his retirement? At the end, a young survivor asks,
"Who gets his ThinkPad?"

You don't own your office equipment. Don't think of anything in your office
--including your office--as "mine." Unless you bring equipment in, and have
ready receipts for same, you won't be allowed to take it with you if you are
downsized--especially software. If you use personally-licensed software on
your office PC, be wise and wean yourself from it. Downsized employees won't
allowed to go near their office PCs. If you were a manager, would you allow
disgruntled employees to use their PCs for a few minutes?

No matter how much you like to think of yourself as essential, you aren't. No
matter how much you want to believe your boss's view that you're "safe", you
aren't. (Your boss may not know it but both of you may be at risk.) Survival
in a restructuring environment isn't even a case of survival of the fittest.
It's a mad world of false promises, harsh realities, and broken dreams.

Look around. The job market is still hot (it will quickly cool down because
the Asian market wake-up alarm has been heard in the USA this month.) Get a
new job while you can. There's terrific stress and angst in a firm undergoing
restructuring. Don't become embroiled in it if you can leave for a comparable
or better job. Several people--including a sr. vice president--shot themselves
at my company during the most stressful time. I'll never go through it again.

Far too many people accept the spin doctors' notion that companies restructure
because of cost. Nonsense. Companies use many excuses while downsizing but the
most important cause--often unstated--is because Wall Street selfishly demands
ever-increasing returns on investments. If your firm is lean and mean, its board
of directors must focus on reducing labor costs and overhead. If you're playing
the market, and are making a killing, your gains come mainly on the backs of
downsized employees who lost their incomes, their insurance, and their ability
to pay their mortgages and put their kids through school. Somewhere in the
recesses of your mind, you recall, "IBM to lay off 250,000", "AT&T to lay off
40,000." Savings from sacrificing employees, captial improvements, and selling
off vital assets is fueling the current stock market boom.

What will executives do when Wall Street is again dissatisfied with company
earnings? They'll cut even more employees and sell technology to the Chinese
Army. The "increase earnings at all costs" mentality is akin to the ancient
Hawaiians sacrificing virgins to a volcano.

"Oops, we're out of virgins. What now?"
"Let's sacrifice our technical writers."
"Sounds good to me. Let's do it."

If you're old (40-65), or are a white male, or earn over $40K a year, or work
in a "luxury" field such as technical writing, you're at risk. You may consider
your work vital to your company but I can assure you bean counters don't share
your view. Nor does Human Resources personnel charged with reducing head count.
Nor does any senior executive receiving bonus checks for "reducing operating
costs." Translation:  operating costs = you.

It doesn't get better once restructuring ends. The workload doesn't diminish
once downsizing completes. You and other survivors must take up the slack. The
salaried employees at my former employer now work 10-12 hours a day six days
a week. Their benefits have been slashed. The company? It earns two billion
in profit every year! Survivors become victims, too.

If you are, however, a white male over 45 years of age, stay where you are and
tough out any restructuring actions. No company hires white males over 45.

Good luck. I feel your pain.

Walker, Arlen P wrote:
>
> I wouldn't worry about the scrounging. It's called "efficient use of
> resources," and it's part of what brings a company back from the
> predicament of having to lay people off in the first place.
>
>


 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=