This is actually a friend’s idea. But since I cannot convince him to publish it here, I will do it instead:
Often companies are forced to lay off people because of adverse circumstances. Once circumstances improve, these positions often have to be filled again. Overall this is a costly and inefficient way to do business, but one for which there is no clear alternative.
Instead, companies could give the people who are to be laid off an opportunity to come up with some new innovation, which will save (or make) the company some money. If the idea is a success then the person will stay employed.
Since these employees are about to lose their jobs, they will be quite motivated to use their existing knowledge about the company to come up with some novel concepts.
This will of course not always work. But if just a few people could prove their worth for the company, then both the company and the employees will have scored!
I agree
No opinion
I disagree
Add your comment
If someone came up with a way to improve the company only after being threatened to be laid-off, wouldn't you question why they didn't suggest their novel idea earlier?
This is like Marxism. It sounds GREAT on paper, but would be fraught with peril and problems in real life!
Doesn't this assume a relationship of trust and goodwill between company and employee that doesn't always exist?
Proving your worth at a job ends in endless amounts of paperwork. This is what happens in the UK. Would this mean that people who don't earn the company any huge breakthrough, but do the job they're supposed to do well are any less valuable than someone who does inconsistant work, but comes up with an idea to help the company once in their career?
Very nice but I doubt that works. Once the employer has decided to laid you off is quite difficult to make change his mind.
Eliseo
why wait till you get laid off? all companies should reward good ideas. virgin does this.
Perhaps what companies could say instead is this: "We've got to cut costs, because we're in a bad spell now. But we think we'll recover. If you think so too, would you work for 1/3 less for the next year or two, and we'll pay your pay cut back to you, gradually, once our stock price recovers over ___?"
Being an old pro at downsizing, I can tell you that once it's in their mind that they're reducing 'headcount' by x-number, nothing you can do matters. Mostly you don't need to outrun the bear, you just need to outrun your co-worker. But also, many times they close the whole site.
Once before a layoff, I met with the 'new idea lead' repeatedly with what I thought were great ideas, but if there are going to be fewer engineers, there are going to be fewer projects. New ideas don't fly in lean times. He professed to like my ideas, but that didn't prevent a pink-slip. And when I wrote them on paper, they became company property, not mine, so they died with that guy.
Now my ideas show up in the products of my former competitors. Many features are just logical--you might have thought them, but many people will eventually.
As for working for 1/3 less, it leaves a bad taste in your mouth and most people quit if there's still a market for their skills.
hrench, you got it right. Once the higher ups decide to reduce the labor force, it's a done deal. I think a smarter thing to do would be for companies to save money for the lean times. Corporate and Consumer America needs to do this more. If a company does this, then they can withstand the lean times without laying off employees that they've invested time and money training. They could even reduce the number of hours worked by employees to save money and jobs. This would better allow the company to resume normal operations quicker when the economy picks up. It' would also give the company an advantage over the competition by already being more efficient and productive by have trained and experienced personnel ready to go. I think most people would rather have their hours cut to 28-32 hrs/wk than be laid off.
Symmetry is at work again.
If you ask workers to accept 1/3 less salary, would you also be able to re-negotiate your mortgage, utilities, phone company, etc. to accept 1/3 less payments?
Unless all factors are equal in economics, then you will have problems and imbalances.
In these times, it would be great if you could re-negotiate rates and payments with the companies you have to deal with. But that isn't going to happen, since then everyone who is interconnected to your income will have to accept the same cuts.