First out of the door during layoffs???

Post Reply New Topic

So have you found during your career that you're invariably the first to be pink-slipped, chopped, given severance, etc etc, everytime your organization had to "right-size" the workforce??

I've found this has been mostly the case for me - but can also say there was a point when I was so indispensable because of my niche knowledge and expertise in a very technical area, that they didn't let me go

Personally, I find that layoffs are just a watered-down version of Stalinist purges - the upper brass gets rid of those who they feel are not culturally on the same wavelength, like iconoclasts, eccentrics or intellectuals... even her book "The Aspergers Workplace Survival Guide", the author Barbara Bissonnette mentions that when she spoke with HR staff, the overwhelming factor in deciding whether to retain somebody or boot them out during layoffs, was...wait for it....how popular they were with others in the organization (of course, what benefit they were providing to the future growth of the organization was a distant second or even third.)

That is true. The supervisors and managers are basically asked to select a number of their staff to let go, it rarely is HR deciding based on performance. That's why you see talent being fired while the incompetent but social butterfly people remain.

However, there is another factor for the layoff choice, which is handed down from HR (those 'rare' cases): The highest earners that are not indispensable will be let go no matter how good they are at their job or how long they've held it. Layoffs are done to cut down costs hence why you're let go if you get paid more than the others that do the same job..even if that pay rate is because you've been with the company ten times longer than the rest.

Any layoffs that I have heard of usually go by the last hired, first fired policy. A company I worked for a couple years ago did that by letting go of the last 8 hires a month early before everyone else got canned the following month.

The last place I worked for got in a new upper level boss many years ago. He asked each person what they thought were the good and bad points of our company. A lot of people mentioned that two women were gossiping all the time and making trouble, so they were let go. No warning or anything. Afterward he gathered us in a meeting (for some other reason) and brought this up. He said he did it for the health of the organization and we wouldn't speak of those two people again.

It was really weird. I hope that was a rare thing to happen at a company, because it didn't seem fair.

The way I have always seen it done is that when a layoff is ordered from on high, each dept. does a ranking of its employees based on those that contain the skillsets (both technical and interpersonal/teamwork) that will be needed going forward. The required number of layoffs are then made starting at the bottom of that ranking and moving up until the layoff target is filled.

I don't recall ever thinking that it was handled inappropriately.

I worked in marketing, advertising and public relations. Within most businesses, that kind of work is considered a "luxury" and such a simple craft, that anyone can do it. As a result, workers in this field are usually "last hired, first fired" whenever there is a need to trim costs.

The long standing saying goes to layoff and firing as follows: "Last hired, first fired".

Rarely does performance and talent matter.
It mainly has to do with seniority, how well management likes you, and how well you "fit in" to the company.