The sad part is those who get tossed on the garbage heap of life are usually solid performing, decent folk at the lower levels. Funny how the big shots making the big buck escape the carnage. If they were serious about saving money through downsizing, they’d choose the big salaries. As usual, it’s the little guy that takes it in the back end with little or no recourse.
“Review the demographics of the staff that will be laid off to eliminate any appearance of discrimination.” After all you don’t want to be accused of practicing non-diversity. Appearances count more than talent these day. Whatever happened to letting poor performers go and retaining the driven and talented associates? If a business properly documents performance, or lack thereof, then worrying about discrimination is a moot point.
I disagree about the documentation – that doesn’t prevent a suit being filed and legal fees being incurred – whether or not they have coverage inforce, someone is still paying dearly for someone just trying to make a buck – I don’t think anyone was arguing whether or not they (employers) were guilty of wrongdoing, simply predicting a new trend as people get desperate to replace income.
This isn’t about people getting desperate to replace income. It’s about companies off-loading numbers of people under the guise of acting responsibly to control costs. In tough economic conditions you re-evaluate the value added by EVERY position; no sacred cows. The higher salaried people will make the most impact and may be the least productive.
Lawyers suing lawyers? Not in this lifetime. Yeah, on a very limited small scale. There are plenty of other peole and businesses for lawyers to screw. Even though there are too many lawyers, and a thinning would be good for all, but they will not hold themselves accountable.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
The sad part is those who get tossed on the garbage heap of life are usually solid performing, decent folk at the lower levels. Funny how the big shots making the big buck escape the carnage. If they were serious about saving money through downsizing, they’d choose the big salaries. As usual, it’s the little guy that takes it in the back end with little or no recourse.
“Review the demographics of the staff that will be laid off to eliminate any appearance of discrimination.” After all you don’t want to be accused of practicing non-diversity. Appearances count more than talent these day. Whatever happened to letting poor performers go and retaining the driven and talented associates? If a business properly documents performance, or lack thereof, then worrying about discrimination is a moot point.
I disagree about the documentation – that doesn’t prevent a suit being filed and legal fees being incurred – whether or not they have coverage inforce, someone is still paying dearly for someone just trying to make a buck – I don’t think anyone was arguing whether or not they (employers) were guilty of wrongdoing, simply predicting a new trend as people get desperate to replace income.
This isn’t about people getting desperate to replace income. It’s about companies off-loading numbers of people under the guise of acting responsibly to control costs. In tough economic conditions you re-evaluate the value added by EVERY position; no sacred cows. The higher salaried people will make the most impact and may be the least productive.
Lawyers suing lawyers? Not in this lifetime. Yeah, on a very limited small scale. There are plenty of other peole and businesses for lawyers to screw. Even though there are too many lawyers, and a thinning would be good for all, but they will not hold themselves accountable.