45
By Anonymous / Friday 19 November 2010 19:38 / United States
Add a comment
You must be logged in to be able to post comments!
Create my account Sign in
Top comments
By  Ray_of_midnight  |  22

Often it's the talented people who get laid off because they're near the top of the salary range for their position, so firing them "saves money". Salary is easy to quantify, whereas the value-add of a better-trained or more experienced employee is sometimes not so easy to put in dollars-and-cents. It's an outgrowth of the current school of "management by Powerpoint slide".

Comments
Reply
  danceoo  |  0

she can't, she was laid off, not fired. it means they can't afford to keep everyone. it's not a personal, or an incompetence firing. it's the reality of many businesses in this economic climate. it sucks, but it's not her boss' fault

Reply
  ImaginaryFoe  |  0

It probably wasn't his decision. If she was last hired, makes the most money, or has a position that can be automated, integrated, or outsourced, she would be the most likely to be laid off. Her boss may be on the chopping block the next round.

By  perdix  |  29

Read between the lines. He was trying to say you could be laid on or laid off. You chose not to play ball(s), so he's sending you away to keep a lesser employee who puts out.

By  Ray_of_midnight  |  22

Often it's the talented people who get laid off because they're near the top of the salary range for their position, so firing them "saves money". Salary is easy to quantify, whereas the value-add of a better-trained or more experienced employee is sometimes not so easy to put in dollars-and-cents. It's an outgrowth of the current school of "management by Powerpoint slide".

Loading data…