Are Company Lay-Offs Justified?

Replies

• 

  aarthivg

  Both has their own positive aspects, But the company lay off first their low performance employee's only. So I think, its employee's fault.
• 

  Pensu

  I dont think its company's fault. There is a lot of competition in the market and no one wants to loose the clients knowingly. They try and if they dont have the required budget, they have to lay off the employees.
• 

  Kaustubh Katdare

  #-Link-Snipped-# Don't you think it's one sided affair then? Why should the companies insist on 'Notice Period' when an employee decides to leave? Or why should the company sign bonds from freshers when they join the company?
• 

  Pensu

  The_Big_K

  #-Link-Snipped-# Don't you think it's one sided affair then? Why should the companies insist on 'Notice Period' when an employee decides to leave? Or why should the company sign bonds from freshers when they join the company?

  Agreed. But I think an employee is an asset to organization, not a liability. Understand it like this, if company has money, they are ready to give it to you. But if they dont have the required amount, how can they pay the employees?. Actually you talked about putting the blame, and you cant blame the companies as they are not doing it knowingly. Companies get projects based on their reputation, and employees make the reputation of a company (as far as I understand the scenario). Now if there is some problem then employees are equally responsible, you cant say that its totally companies fault. Once they had money, they recruited thousands of people, now they dont have it, so they have to let you go.
• 

  Kaustubh Katdare

  You're basing your assumption on the basis that companies fire employees only when they don't have the money to pay. That's not the case. You're also talking about the services based companies that are totally dependent on projects they win by bidding.
  
  In most of the cases, companies fire employees to cut the costs and keep the profit margins high to please the shareholders.
  
  The main problem that I see, is that the company agreements are totally in favor of the company. Have you noticed that no company 'promises work' or '2-year engagement' while hiring the candidate. That has destroyed many careers.
• 

  Pensu

  Well yeah, my main focus here are service companies only. And I agree that companies have their tactics to have the agreement totally in their favor. Companies are no saint, they are here to make profit and employee is just an asset to them. I know its sounds wrong responsibility wise, but I think you have to survive on your own in this competitive market. They cant fire you if you are productive for them. And I still stand on my point that companies arent the only one responsible for the cut-offs. Would like to know what other CEans think about it.
• 

  Anoop Kumar

  The_Big_K

  #-Link-Snipped-# Don't you think it's one sided affair then? Why should the companies insist on 'Notice Period' when an employee decides to leave? Or why should the company sign bonds from freshers when they join the company?

  Following is from company point of view
  
  Why should the companies insist on 'Notice Period' when an employee decides to leave?
  When employee working for 1-2 years, say as a team leader, then whole project is dependent on him. Now that team leader got a very good opportunity and decided to leave the company. how can current company afford to loose that team leader in few days. Its takes at least 1-2 months for new employee to take over the project responsibility.
  
  why should the company sign bonds from freshers when they join the company?
  Generally its 2 year bond. Normally every company train freshers for one year and then deploy them on project so they are making them professional from a student. and those freshers are tends to leave company after training. Now what company get in return, after spending one year time and resources spend on those candidates .
  
  

  Both has their own positive aspects, But the company lay off first their low performance employee's only. So I think, its employee's fault.

  Not always, even performance issue is just 10-20% even less. Mostly project delayed/ended or no new project , and company lay-off their employees and when project will come they will again hire them. They know that they can easily find people who are willing to change.
• 

  RISHABH LALA

  I believe that company should act like a family . If the financial condition of the family is not good all the members are affected but not fired out! ......This means the reduction in the salary is a better alternative than loosing the employees; to remain competitive in the market . And when there is boost to the company's income than the arrears should be paid back...................This happened with Vikram Pandit, CEO CITY BANK ,USA; who worked for 1 Dollar per annum for two years !
• 

  vinod1993

  "non availability of project" makes us lazy and temporary redundancy makes us even more lazy...! 😀 They don't want our brains to work efficiently it seems..!! I think everything is a premeditated affair..! that is, In my opinion they recruit a chunk of people every year and all brains are put to sleep..! i know i'm gng irrelevant to the current discussion but eventhen i would like to stress this point out...! In the employer's perspective "lay-offs" are justified because he gets considerable profit..!