-98

Layoffs at any company should start from the top and go to the bottom. The worker bees should not take the hit. Lay off the people that make the most money!

16%Agree84%Disagree
kk39s avatar Life
Share
0 13

If you fire the people at the top there will be no one responsible to manage, pay and have the correct work environment. The whole company will fail and thousands will be unemployed rather than a few hundred

Izzie_23s avatar Izzie_23 Disagree +12Reply
@Izzie_23 If you fire the people at the top there will be no one responsible to manage, pay and have the correct work...

I don't think they necessarily mean fire ALL the people at the top making the most money - but it does make sense to make a cut up top, where only a handful of jobs are at stake. Those people can be replaced with cheaper individuals who can do just as good if not a better job. If the OP on the other hand means fire the people based solely on income, with no limits on numbers or anything, then yeah i agree with you

This user has deactivated their account.
@1892631

I don't think the OP added enough detail - the simple modification of saying something like "lay off the highest paid and lease useful", then it would be ok. I think it would be better to look at lay offs in the higher ranks first before moving down to the lower ranks. It makes sense to me - especially if the workforce lower down is productive, happy and useful. Why should they be laid off just so the people in charge can dodge their mistakes?

Put in some thought first. IT sounds good on paper, firing less peole but saving more money, but did you ever wonder why they're paid more? The work they do isn't easily absorbed by the others, and you'll be hard pressed to find someone to replace them. Most anyone can put together a small consumer good, but how many can design one that people would want to buy? How many can manage the production of thousands, maybe millions of units per day? How many people can fix the machinery in the factory? THat's why they're paid more.

B10ckH34ds avatar B10ckH34d Disagree +5Reply
@B10ckH34d Put in some thought first. IT sounds good on paper, firing less peole but saving more money, but did you ever...

But the post is about lay-offs, which are essentially money-saving tactics. It would be more effective to get rid of top people, and those management figures could EASILY be replaced by lower-downs ready to come up. You could pay a newly promoted person less quite easily. I believe that when the OP talks about "people paid the most money", they are referring to execs and whatnot.

Because its so much easier to find an executive level position when you're unemployed than an entry level position

Lay off the people who don't contribute to good business as much.

The people that make the most money would probably not want to fire themselves.

rilaras avatar rilara Disagree +1Reply

I'm surprised so many people came out against this. The idea needs a few extra details thrown in, but the way I see it, it would actually be a good way to go. While it wouldn't apply to all areas of government and industry, it certainly would be a good principle to adopt in the interest of macroeconomics. Higher-ups on inflated salaries are the most responsible for things going wrong. if they company is in trouble, it's right they should shoulder the blame, isn't it? Many times, layoffs are made against workers who are productive and useful, and the reason for the layoffs stem from bad decisions upstairs. Now obviously this isn't true of all cases, and so I disagree with the absolute nature of the OP. But I do agree with this principle

At first I thought you meant "lay off" as in "go easy on"

Anonymous 0Reply

Youarerite!

Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.