Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What if the company I work for drastically makes less revenue than originally intended for the year? What happens to the employees of this company? Some positions are responsible for securing the revenue streams, other positions are responsible for maintaining those revenue streams and finally some positions are responsible for making sure everything happens correctly.
So say that our company does not actually make as much money as we had hoped, WHO is the first the get fired?! or will there even be a firing?
To clarify I am in a position for maintaing the revenue streams after other teams secure those streams of revenue in the first place.
In most cases, after an extended period of declining revenue, the CEO will be the only one to get fired. This will be followed by a restructuring and several layoffs.
Really depends on the capital position of the company, historical performance, outlook/forecast/run rate, the expense line items in the P/L statement, shortfall area (acquisition/retention/optimization).
The most mission-critical employees are usually the last to go. Anyone directly related to producing value has the most safety. Of course, this all depends on the size of the company. Sears, for example, has been hemorrhaging cash for over a decade, but not a single corporate employee has yet lost his or her job.
Pay attention to the executive teams communication regarding their steps to counter it. Efficiencies and synergy mean "We need fewer of you to get the work done, and we'll save money, raising profits".
Revenue is a means to the goal..which is profit. Corps will allow less revenue IF operating profit can meet its goal, but the two can only happen with cost cutting.
The company is growing which is great so the position was newly created. This happens at a lot of companies, the workload increase and the smarter companies bring new man power on and more people in so that everyone can do a good job instead of rushing through work or staying very, very late.
This then begs the question well what if it was a mistake to create the new position in the first place, what happens to that employee? Is he completely screwed or will the company have sympathy and allow that employee to stay provided that the employee does a good job.
The company is growing which is great so the position was newly created. This happens at a lot of companies, the workload increase and the smarter companies bring new man power on and more people in so that everyone can do a good job instead of rushing through work or staying very, very late.
This then begs the question well what if it was a mistake to create the new position in the first place, what happens to that employee? Is he completely screwed or will the company have sympathy and allow that employee to stay provided that the employee does a good job.
If they decide the revenue shrink is the new normal, they will first assess what positions are expendable. The ones that are least expendable either directly add revenue or work at cutting costs. the less of either of those you do, the more at risk you are.
Sympathy , logically, is not a factor. Its about having a meaningful impact on improving profits.
The company is growing which is great so the position was newly created. This happens at a lot of companies, the workload increase and the smarter companies bring new man power on and more people in so that everyone can do a good job instead of rushing through work or staying very, very late.
This then begs the question well what if it was a mistake to create the new position in the first place, what happens to that employee? Is he completely screwed or will the company have sympathy and allow that employee to stay provided that the employee does a good job.
No. Last in, first out. There is no sympathy in business.
some industries are "better" or more ruthless in shedding employees by the thousands. You merely have to look at the 2007-2009 era bank debacle to see Bank of America or whoever is your favorite lays off like 5,000 people in one swipe. Don't get caught up thinking it's a one-sie two-ise layoff if sales plummet.
The humanitarian way to do layoffs now, is to offer an "incentive package" (a.k.a. money) for people to VOLUNTEER for the layoff. Rather than wring your hands deciding if Joe or Bob or Janice or Shelly is more or less valuable, and worry that somebody is going to come back to work with an AK-47 looking for revenge, you just say "I'll give you ten-to-twenty-six weeks pay to walk out the door". People will stand in line and fight to be laid off first, and you'll have to cap the number of "winners".
Layoffs maybe, firing people? Only if they are aholes, but it happens.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
