Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Lori Laubach" <lorilral AT mindspring.com>]

Layoff, downsize, reduction in force, rightsizing, headcount correction...
Had to respond to this thread, as one who has been (very recently) on both
sides of this issue.  I  agree that in the professional ranks it's pretty
unlikely that employees will return fulltime to an employer who has laid
them off, or one they left after watching multiple rounds of their
colleagues subjected to layoff. They DO often return as
contractors/consultants at very good rates (which allow them to purchase
benefits, etc and recognize cash increases).  This happens so often, in
fact, that the IRS has research services routinely forward layoff info so
they can follow up with statutory employee audits.   Layoffs are far more
often number of heads the board says decrease than number of dollars, as odd
as this seems. As an HR type, I have done more layoff sessions than I care
to recount (including my own!).  It may seem cynical, but it IS appreciated,
by BOTH the staff let go and the staff remaining, to take many of the steps
mentioned in the article.  It's still a bummer, it's still hard on morale,
but it helps.  A few years ago at a local company I set up a "do it
yourself" outplacement when we couldn't afford to use a vendor's services.
I have NEVER had a departing employee who was disinterested in job leads, an
offer to help with resume questions, etc.  The Gartner piece is blatantly
self-serving (even naive) in some areas, but it's a very small world, and
treating people with dignity is never a mistake.  No question, here are
times when it is impossible for companies to allow staff continued access to
company equipment, premises, etc.  As the hapless soul who has to hire AND
fire, the moral of the story is still what goes around comes around so do
unto others as you would have done unto you.  But it still sucks.

--- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Champeon" <schampeo AT hesketh.com>
To: "InterNetWorkers" <internetworkers AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 11:58 PM
Subject: [internetworkers] Re: Former Employees May Be Untapped Resource
(article)


> on Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 09:49:20PM -0500, saundrakaerubel.com wrote:
> > Even as the nation faces an economic slowdown, the company, founded in
late
> > 1999, sees tremendous potential in the market, and so do research firms
> > like Gartner. "Enterprises that scorn the rehiring model will limit
their
> > ability to respond to enterprise needs and unwittingly fuel the success
of
> > competitors for knowledge, experience and talent," Gartner said in a
> > research paper issued on the topic last year.
>
> Hm.
>
> > A way to maintain healthy relations with outgoing talent is to keep the
> > lines of communications open by doing such things as sending former
> > employees e-mail notices about new job opportunities as they become
> > available, according to Gartner. That's particularly important in a
> > business climate in which all too often an employee leaves to take a job
at
> > a dot-com that a short time later goes belly-up. After dealing with the
> > disappointment, many workers return to their previous jobs.
>
> Oh, okay. I can see this, maybe. (How many workers do you know who quit
> to go entrepreneurial and then went back to the same job afterward?)
>
> > Larger companies, according to Gartner, would do well to create more
formal
> > relationships with past employees by forming alumni associations.
>
> Aha! Great idea! We had one at imonics, of sorts. Of course, it lasted
> longer than the company did.
>
> > Many employees understand that today's economic realities are forcing
> > executives to lay off workers. Letting them use computers, phones, and
> > faxes for their job search also will go a long way in making sure the
> > relationship ends on a more positive note.
>
> Right! To say nothing of an office or cubicle, chair, and various other
> support materials - just as long as you don't have to pay them anything,
> it's a great deal for you, because then the company doesn't have to pay
> unemployment, health insurance, or other benefits, either.
>
> > "These are companies that know very well how difficult it was to
recruit,
> > locate, and attract talent in the last few years," Sertoglu said. "If
you
> > do not maintain a relationship with these people, you're basically
taking
> > all that effort and throwing it away."
>
> Um, yes. That's essentially what a layoff is, IIRC.
>
> > If you do, however, the payoff will be great. You get to promote your
> > corporate brand with these groups of people who already have an affinity
> > toward your organization. Not only will some come back to work for you
in
> > the future, but they also are likely to refer other qualified candidates
to
> > your company.
>
> s/have/had, before you laid them off,/
>
> So, in a nutshell, companies should feel fine about laying off their
> own people when the going gets rough, but keep on good terms with them
> so that when the poor laid off employees' dotcom bombs, the company
> that couldn't pay them in the first place can hire them back cheap?
>
> Speaking as someone who was forced by economic adversity to "liberate"
> eleven of my twelve team members back in 1996, and then asked less
> than a month after the second round whether I could maybe, possibly
> hire them all back, I can only *laugh* at this whole idea.
>
> Am I the only one who thinks this is insulting, demoralizing, and
> beyond the realm of decency?
>
> Maybe it's just me. But this strikes me as an absurdly cynical
> strategy for any company, and as a sign of how little respect
> employees /or/ companies have for one another.
>
> --
> tired of being an underappreciated functionary in a soulless machine?
> hesketh.com is hiring: http://www.hesketh.com/careers/
>
> ---
> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!
http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> You are currently subscribed to internetworkers as:
lorilral AT mindspring.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
$subst('Email.Unsub')