Reply
Tue 27 Jan, 2009 01:29 pm
So the last couple of weeks, we have had wasted meetings that last 2 hours or so. One was on cost and one was on change. These were for those that supervise people and above.
The cost meeting objective was supposed to point out ways we could influence or directly decrease our costs. We find out that our group’s highest costs (and those we can control) are people costs. No one explained in this meeting how we could directly lower the people cost. Well having some common sense, I conclude the way to lower people cost is to decrease the number of people. They talked about improving technology and work smarter not harder (all the slang business crap terms that don’t mean a thing). So basically I am to help to make us work more efficiency thus either eliminating my position and/or others within my group.
Change was a total waste of time " they had “exercises” for us to work through. Now we all know that we are changing they way we do things and honestly don’t have much a choice " we need to lower costs in the current economy.
So does upper management really think we are morons and these “meetings” are going to make us feel better and respond better? Come on we are all adults and realize the bad economy we are in " we are (hopefully) not managers because we are morons, but because we actually know something. These hours of meetings could have been simply addressed in a half hour meeting in my opinion " unfortunately do to the bad economy, we are re-organizing and changes are necessary to lower costs so we can remain in business. There may be additional layoffs as a result. Done " quickly and efficiently. How is that for a direct impact to cost?
@Linkat,
horrid. So sorry Linkat...Are you worried?
Linkat, it sounds as though someone in HR is trying to justify his or her job against the day when layoffs begin.
The same crapola is happening here too. My boss questioned my lowered productivity numbers. I pointed out the fact that he stopped authorizing overtime, so I'm working notably fewer hours (and making notably less money of course). No comment on that point yet.
@Linkat,
Perhaps one should be careful about what one posts via the company Internet connection....
@mismi,
Well under the current economy you would have to be a fool not to be worried. However, there is only so much you can do and have control over.
On the positive side - I must be looked at well here - they made a lower level position into a higher level position to keep me here in Boston when I couldn't sell my house to relocate. With some of the changes, we anticipate that many people will no longer have direct reports but be individual contributors. My boss asked me which I would prefer - I believe that shows that at least a few people are thinking of me. I may not get the position I prefer - but it is nice that someone is behind you.
@DrewDad,
yeah I've thought about that - that is why I keep things very general.
Ah, meetings to justify, well, anything. I suspect they are looking for some way to tell people (I know they don't have shareholders, but there is answering to higher up types) that they're doing something.
So - so far only one person thinks I'm a moron. Thats pretty good.
Yes, those meetings justify the pink slips that will be circulating later on.
Has anyone come up with a concept to cut people cost? Like voluntary unpaid leave of absence for several months, part time opportunities for full time employees, etc.?
@Linkat,
Linkat wrote: We find out that our group’s highest costs (and those we can control) are people costs. No one explained in this meeting how we could directly lower the people cost. Well having some common sense, I conclude the way to lower people cost is to decrease the number of people.
(Emphases mine.)
Could this be the point? Make it known that they wanted layoffs without having any specific "we want layoffs" directive tracked back to them?
@CalamityJane,
No - and I doubt they would do that. When there was mention of relocations initially they asked if anyone was interested - but that was ignored. There were some people that said they were interested, but yet they were told later their jobs were staying while others were not interested and they were told their jobs were moving (even though they were the exact same job/titles).
@sozobe,
We do know and it has been announced that there will be additional layoffs by the end of the quarter so this isn't a surprise. Just odd the way the costs were presented to us. At least I took it as odd. Maybe it is just their way of proving/showing us the numbers.
You could send a memo telling them that one way to reduce "people costs" is to quit having so many over-long damn meetings.
But then they'd probably call a meeting to discuss that memo.
Am I the only one who thinks Linkat may actually be a cyber-disguise for Kickycann???
This question had to be written by Kicky.
Five people magically disappeared from the hellhole I call work just last week. My boss sat me down in a conference room today and I thought I was a goner fpr sire. Instead I was told I need to "find ways to make [myself] more resourceful." I think it would be very resourceful of me to ******* quit. But, like a pussy, I will instead take some HTML class and learn to make pretty marketing docs. SAWEET!
@mac11,
mac11 wrote:
Linkat, it sounds as though someone in HR is trying to justify his or her job against the day when layoffs begin.
That was my first thought too, mac.
Sorry to hear you're going through crapola.
They could be prepping you supervisors for what my company did anytime there was an economic downturn in the title industry.
They'd first layoff some people and then a week later announce that further cuts were required and give a long speech about how much they valued all of us and didn't want to lose the good talent, expertise and efficiencies of the remaining staff and that we were all in this together and would each have to give a little to prevent further layoffs. They'd ask us for our ideas for cost cutting measures. After that they'd freeze wages and hiring and then announce a voluntary program where people could volunteer to take an unpaid week vacation once per quarter. When that didn't have much success they then made the work week a 4 day week and reduced our pay by a day's wages. All that would be cloaked in the "these are your ideas in action" spin.
Once the industry's market improved again our work week would go back to a 5 day week and salaries would be restored. In the meantime, we were able to collect unemployment benefits for the work reductions while still holding onto our jobs.
Linkat, I really don't understand why that meeting was held. They want more "efficiency," but waste time with a two hour non-productive meeting? Something is haywire with the management of your company.
If they are really serious about cutting cost, it has to come from labor costs. That "should" be general knowledge for anyone in place of responsibility for supervision of staff.
What management had to do was to have individual supervisors or teams of supervisors come up with the "how and when" in written form. Until that's done, further meetings are a waste of time.
@Linkat,
Linkat wrote:Change was a total waste of time " they had “exercises” for us to work through.
my experience that 'change' 'managing change' 'change management' etc etc programs are a reliable sign of the end days for a company/department
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace