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.
Why does that matter? Do hard working employees need a different way of being laid off than ones that dont work hard? They werent being terminated for cause. They are already all working home it appears, what should the company do for the hard working ones and why does it matter? Getting laid off sucks either way.
You don't lay someone off and then turn around imply that they may have been one of the ones stealing from the company by clocking in more hours than they actually worked.
If you want to go down that road then you FIRE the people who actually were fraudulently clocking hours that they did not work OR you keep your mouth shut, cut your losses and let them go.
Why would the CEO feel bad about letting a bunch of low down leeching slackers go? He starts off remarking what an extremely difficult thing it is for him to do and then ends it by saying - "Well at least 250 of you were stealing!" It's not that these people were working from home, it's that some of them were getting paid and NOT working but the entire group takes the hit for it.
How is that publically shaming them? Getting laid off is harsh period, I dont think it makes a difference if it is made via zoom. The media just wants to make headlines out of this, it is what it is.
yea true. I'd rather get laid off via zoom than have to drive an hour to the office to get laid off.
yea true. I'd rather get laid off via zoom than have to drive an hour to the office to get laid off.
Same here. The zoom call doesn't bother me. Just don't lump me in with the people who were fraudulently clocking in and taking money that they didn't earn.
He damaged the professional reputations of everyone he laid off. Imagine being on a list of 900 people, followed by the statement that an unidentified 250 of the group were thieves, and then imagine that the list and statement were published by someone generally considered to be credible. This is a terrible thing to do to these people. Outrageous. This may not be actionable but it should be.
Same here. The zoom call doesn't bother me. Just don't lump me in with the people who were fraudulently clocking in and taking money that they didn't earn.
Those people were working hard enough that they didn't get fired with cause. If they did their jobs in 1/4 the time maybe they should've gotten promoted instead.
Edit: Assuming the CEO wasn't just talking out of his butt, which is likely the case.
Those people were working hard enough that they didn't get fired with cause. If they did their jobs in 1/4 the time maybe they should've gotten promoted instead.
Edit: Assuming the CEO wasn't just talking out of his butt, which is likely the case.
Apparently under the conditions of their employment they were expected to work 8 hours day but were clocking in, not working most of the day and disappearing, missing calls, etc.
He damaged the professional reputations of everyone he laid off. Imagine being on a list of 900 people, followed by the statement that an unidentified 250 of the group were thieves, and then imagine that the list and statement were published by someone generally considered to be credible. This is a terrible thing to do to these people. Outrageous. This may not be actionable but it should be.
Exactly. The ones who were working and upholding their end of their employment obligations should not be lumped in with a bunch of slacking scammers who took money they didn't earn.
Apparently under the conditions of their employment they were expected to work 8 hours day but were clocking in, not working most of the day and disappearing, missing calls, etc.
If people weren't doing their work then fire those people, don't slander everyone you're laying off. If they were really stealing that much from the company, maybe fire them a year earlier and you wouldn't have had to lay off anyone else. This is a pure butt-covering story that doesn't make any sense.
The CEO should resign. Whether his approach to a mass layoff was considerate or polite is beside the point.
If there were dozens of people barely doing any work, the management is to blame. That's what schedules, goals, weekly check-ins, etc. are for.
It sounds like Garg and his senior people were looking for an excuse to cut expenses while weaseling out of any blame.
Wut a joik.
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.
