Mixing
Why would a company blindside everyone during a layoff? [closed]
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
During a "downsizing" why wouldn't a companies give people 1-2 weeks notice beforehand so they have a chance to train other employees about what they were working on, say goodbye, etc? Severance pay is nice for finding a new job, but not for being able to keep in touch with other employees, setting up references, etc. What reasons would a company have for doing it suddenly and without warning?
layoff
asked Jun 11 '16 at 1:13
Robert Fraser
1243
closed as too broad by keshlam, Kent A., Dawny33, paparazzo, Lilienthal♦ Jun 12 '16 at 9:52
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
During a "downsizing" why wouldn't a companies give people 1-2 weeks notice beforehand so they have a chance to train other employees about what they were working on, say goodbye, etc? Severance pay is nice for finding a new job, but not for being able to keep in touch with other employees, setting up references, etc. What reasons would a company have for doing it suddenly and without warning?
layoff
asked Jun 11 '16 at 1:13
Robert Fraser
1243
closed as too broad by keshlam, Kent A., Dawny33, paparazzo, Lilienthal♦ Jun 12 '16 at 9:52
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
7
It's not always done this way. It depends on company practices and overall situation.
– PM 77-1
Jun 11 '16 at 2:18
2
There are a long list of possible reasons, from managing employee response to managing media responses to managing stock market response to managing creditor response to... Different companies have different concerns at different times and manage each layoff differently. I don't think a single clear answer is possible here.
– keshlam
Jun 11 '16 at 2:48
You're assuming that's the way it's always done. It isn't.
– Simon B
Jun 11 '16 at 21:54
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
During a "downsizing" why wouldn't a companies give people 1-2 weeks notice beforehand so they have a chance to train other employees about what they were working on, say goodbye, etc? Severance pay is nice for finding a new job, but not for being able to keep in touch with other employees, setting up references, etc. What reasons would a company have for doing it suddenly and without warning?
layoff
asked Jun 11 '16 at 1:13
Robert Fraser
1243
During a "downsizing" why wouldn't a companies give people 1-2 weeks notice beforehand so they have a chance to train other employees about what they were working on, say goodbye, etc? Severance pay is nice for finding a new job, but not for being able to keep in touch with other employees, setting up references, etc. What reasons would a company have for doing it suddenly and without warning?
layoff
asked Jun 11 '16 at 1:13
Robert Fraser
1243
edited Jun 12 '16 at 1:16
asked Jun 11 '16 at 1:13
Robert Fraser
1243
asked Jun 11 '16 at 1:13
Robert Fraser
1243
asked Jun 11 '16 at 1:13
Robert Fraser
1243
1243
closed as too broad by keshlam, Kent A., Dawny33, paparazzo, Lilienthal♦ Jun 12 '16 at 9:52
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
closed as too broad by keshlam, Kent A., Dawny33, paparazzo, Lilienthal♦ Jun 12 '16 at 9:52
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
7
It's not always done this way. It depends on company practices and overall situation.
– PM 77-1
Jun 11 '16 at 2:18
2
There are a long list of possible reasons, from managing employee response to managing media responses to managing stock market response to managing creditor response to... Different companies have different concerns at different times and manage each layoff differently. I don't think a single clear answer is possible here.
– keshlam
Jun 11 '16 at 2:48
You're assuming that's the way it's always done. It isn't.
– Simon B
Jun 11 '16 at 21:54
suggest improvements |Â
7
It's not always done this way. It depends on company practices and overall situation.
– PM 77-1
Jun 11 '16 at 2:18
2
There are a long list of possible reasons, from managing employee response to managing media responses to managing stock market response to managing creditor response to... Different companies have different concerns at different times and manage each layoff differently. I don't think a single clear answer is possible here.
– keshlam
Jun 11 '16 at 2:48
You're assuming that's the way it's always done. It isn't.
– Simon B
Jun 11 '16 at 21:54
7
7
It's not always done this way. It depends on company practices and overall situation.
– PM 77-1
Jun 11 '16 at 2:18
It's not always done this way. It depends on company practices and overall situation.
– PM 77-1
Jun 11 '16 at 2:18
2
2
There are a long list of possible reasons, from managing employee response to managing media responses to managing stock market response to managing creditor response to... Different companies have different concerns at different times and manage each layoff differently. I don't think a single clear answer is possible here.
– keshlam
Jun 11 '16 at 2:48
There are a long list of possible reasons, from managing employee response to managing media responses to managing stock market response to managing creditor response to... Different companies have different concerns at different times and manage each layoff differently. I don't think a single clear answer is possible here.
– keshlam
Jun 11 '16 at 2:48
You're assuming that's the way it's always done. It isn't.
– Simon B
Jun 11 '16 at 21:54
You're assuming that's the way it's always done. It isn't.
– Simon B
Jun 11 '16 at 21:54
suggest improvements |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
18
down vote
To prevent malicious actions by the departing employees.
answered Jun 11 '16 at 1:27
kevin cline
15.5k43761
I asked my project manager this question, and this was almost the exact answer he gave.
– Anketam
Jun 11 '16 at 11:27
Short & sweet. But yes I've been at companies that have done "sudden" layoffs and that has always been the explanation.
– Carson63000
Jun 12 '16 at 3:26
2
Also, it doesn't have to be malicious. When you announce a layoff, the best employees will try to leave first, or will try to use their unused vacations, or will stop doing unpaid overtime. The same goes with customers. An existing customer may not want to renew his contract if he finds out the company is laying off a large number of people. There is also the demoralizing aspect of everyone losing their job. Even if those employees don't try to do anything malicious, productivity and accountability will inevitably suffer since those people know they won't have a job in a couple of weeks.
– Stephan Branczyk
Jun 12 '16 at 12:08
1
In more secure environments, you get escorted out by security. You don't even get to collect your things. It is NOT a good experience, for anyone. Also, the "blind sided effects" may sometimes be required if it is not a management decision, but an investor decision. Letting staff know there is a coming layoff may trigger stock selling that will get someone into HUGE trouble.
– Nelson
Jun 13 '16 at 7:50
@StephanBranczyk Yeah, it would be interesting to have a two week period at the office where basically everyone was taking vacation before their last day.
– user37746
Jul 11 '16 at 16:10
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
6
down vote
If you make someone redundant you are saying their job is not needed thus there is nothing to hand over. If there was then the person being made redundant could have a legal case
Also making people redundant says the company is not doing well. Knowledge of the redundancy could affect a company's stock price (could significantly rise! or fall) this stock market rules could well mean that notice cannot be given.
However I suspect the main reason is as given in other answers that if you sack someone they could tend to take retaliatory action so best to stop the employee's ability to do that,
answered Jun 11 '16 at 12:24
Mark
28448
"Redundant" means that more than one person is doing the same thing, but the phrase "made redundant" actually means "we don't need anyone doing this thing" - correct? Why is not the proper term used: made unnecessary? It is exactly opposite in meaning.
– user37746
Jul 11 '16 at 16:05
See a dictionary e.g. dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/redundant unnecessary because it is more than is needed: - so you don;t seem to have the correct meaning
– Mark
Jul 11 '16 at 19:19
But the only way to "make someone redundant" would be to hire another person to do the same job (then fire the first person???). Consider "Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks (RAID)", this does not mean "unnecessary", it means that the redundancy is there for safety purposes.
– user37746
Jul 12 '16 at 2:42
As I said see dictionaries and a lot of UK law - you are not using redundancy as most people use it = if you make someone redundant it is explicit in law you cannot replace them -
– Mark
Jul 12 '16 at 9:05
I think that the word 'unnecessary' is more directly applicable. Don't get me started on 'envy' and 'jealousy'.
– user37746
Jul 12 '16 at 12:05
 |Â
show 5 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
Aside from what's being said already by @kevincline, telling someone that they'll be laid off, then asking them to train other employees to do their job is quite absurd, they'll just tell you to screw you.
In fact, asking them to do anything productive will be most likely be met anger.
There is really no valid point in keeping an employee that you have laid off. And for an employee, there is absolutely no valid point to stay at work once they know they'll be laid off.
answered Jun 11 '16 at 12:13
Alexandre Vaillancourt
1,580618
That's where Severance Package comes into play. Do what you are asked and you leave with it, tell the company off and leave without it.
– PM 77-1
Jun 11 '16 at 22:00
PM77, Yes, but a severance package costs money and not every company in the US is willing to offer a good severance package in case of a massive layoff.
– Stephan Branczyk
Jun 12 '16 at 12:11
suggest improvements |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
18
down vote
To prevent malicious actions by the departing employees.
answered Jun 11 '16 at 1:27
kevin cline
15.5k43761
I asked my project manager this question, and this was almost the exact answer he gave.
– Anketam
Jun 11 '16 at 11:27
Short & sweet. But yes I've been at companies that have done "sudden" layoffs and that has always been the explanation.
– Carson63000
Jun 12 '16 at 3:26
2
Also, it doesn't have to be malicious. When you announce a layoff, the best employees will try to leave first, or will try to use their unused vacations, or will stop doing unpaid overtime. The same goes with customers. An existing customer may not want to renew his contract if he finds out the company is laying off a large number of people. There is also the demoralizing aspect of everyone losing their job. Even if those employees don't try to do anything malicious, productivity and accountability will inevitably suffer since those people know they won't have a job in a couple of weeks.
– Stephan Branczyk
Jun 12 '16 at 12:08
1
In more secure environments, you get escorted out by security. You don't even get to collect your things. It is NOT a good experience, for anyone. Also, the "blind sided effects" may sometimes be required if it is not a management decision, but an investor decision. Letting staff know there is a coming layoff may trigger stock selling that will get someone into HUGE trouble.
– Nelson
Jun 13 '16 at 7:50
@StephanBranczyk Yeah, it would be interesting to have a two week period at the office where basically everyone was taking vacation before their last day.
– user37746
Jul 11 '16 at 16:10
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
18
down vote
To prevent malicious actions by the departing employees.
answered Jun 11 '16 at 1:27
kevin cline
15.5k43761
I asked my project manager this question, and this was almost the exact answer he gave.
– Anketam
Jun 11 '16 at 11:27
Short & sweet. But yes I've been at companies that have done "sudden" layoffs and that has always been the explanation.
– Carson63000
Jun 12 '16 at 3:26
2
Also, it doesn't have to be malicious. When you announce a layoff, the best employees will try to leave first, or will try to use their unused vacations, or will stop doing unpaid overtime. The same goes with customers. An existing customer may not want to renew his contract if he finds out the company is laying off a large number of people. There is also the demoralizing aspect of everyone losing their job. Even if those employees don't try to do anything malicious, productivity and accountability will inevitably suffer since those people know they won't have a job in a couple of weeks.
– Stephan Branczyk
Jun 12 '16 at 12:08
1
In more secure environments, you get escorted out by security. You don't even get to collect your things. It is NOT a good experience, for anyone. Also, the "blind sided effects" may sometimes be required if it is not a management decision, but an investor decision. Letting staff know there is a coming layoff may trigger stock selling that will get someone into HUGE trouble.
– Nelson
Jun 13 '16 at 7:50
@StephanBranczyk Yeah, it would be interesting to have a two week period at the office where basically everyone was taking vacation before their last day.
– user37746
Jul 11 '16 at 16:10
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
18
down vote
up vote
18
down vote
To prevent malicious actions by the departing employees.
answered Jun 11 '16 at 1:27
kevin cline
15.5k43761
To prevent malicious actions by the departing employees.
answered Jun 11 '16 at 1:27
kevin cline
15.5k43761
answered Jun 11 '16 at 1:27
kevin cline
15.5k43761
answered Jun 11 '16 at 1:27
kevin cline
15.5k43761
answered Jun 11 '16 at 1:27
kevin cline
15.5k43761
15.5k43761
I asked my project manager this question, and this was almost the exact answer he gave.
– Anketam
Jun 11 '16 at 11:27
Short & sweet. But yes I've been at companies that have done "sudden" layoffs and that has always been the explanation.
– Carson63000
Jun 12 '16 at 3:26
2
Also, it doesn't have to be malicious. When you announce a layoff, the best employees will try to leave first, or will try to use their unused vacations, or will stop doing unpaid overtime. The same goes with customers. An existing customer may not want to renew his contract if he finds out the company is laying off a large number of people. There is also the demoralizing aspect of everyone losing their job. Even if those employees don't try to do anything malicious, productivity and accountability will inevitably suffer since those people know they won't have a job in a couple of weeks.
– Stephan Branczyk
Jun 12 '16 at 12:08
1
In more secure environments, you get escorted out by security. You don't even get to collect your things. It is NOT a good experience, for anyone. Also, the "blind sided effects" may sometimes be required if it is not a management decision, but an investor decision. Letting staff know there is a coming layoff may trigger stock selling that will get someone into HUGE trouble.
– Nelson
Jun 13 '16 at 7:50
@StephanBranczyk Yeah, it would be interesting to have a two week period at the office where basically everyone was taking vacation before their last day.
– user37746
Jul 11 '16 at 16:10
suggest improvements |Â
I asked my project manager this question, and this was almost the exact answer he gave.
– Anketam
Jun 11 '16 at 11:27
Short & sweet. But yes I've been at companies that have done "sudden" layoffs and that has always been the explanation.
– Carson63000
Jun 12 '16 at 3:26
2
Also, it doesn't have to be malicious. When you announce a layoff, the best employees will try to leave first, or will try to use their unused vacations, or will stop doing unpaid overtime. The same goes with customers. An existing customer may not want to renew his contract if he finds out the company is laying off a large number of people. There is also the demoralizing aspect of everyone losing their job. Even if those employees don't try to do anything malicious, productivity and accountability will inevitably suffer since those people know they won't have a job in a couple of weeks.
– Stephan Branczyk
Jun 12 '16 at 12:08
1
In more secure environments, you get escorted out by security. You don't even get to collect your things. It is NOT a good experience, for anyone. Also, the "blind sided effects" may sometimes be required if it is not a management decision, but an investor decision. Letting staff know there is a coming layoff may trigger stock selling that will get someone into HUGE trouble.
– Nelson
Jun 13 '16 at 7:50
@StephanBranczyk Yeah, it would be interesting to have a two week period at the office where basically everyone was taking vacation before their last day.
– user37746
Jul 11 '16 at 16:10
I asked my project manager this question, and this was almost the exact answer he gave.
– Anketam
Jun 11 '16 at 11:27
I asked my project manager this question, and this was almost the exact answer he gave.
– Anketam
Jun 11 '16 at 11:27
Short & sweet. But yes I've been at companies that have done "sudden" layoffs and that has always been the explanation.
– Carson63000
Jun 12 '16 at 3:26
Short & sweet. But yes I've been at companies that have done "sudden" layoffs and that has always been the explanation.
– Carson63000
Jun 12 '16 at 3:26
2
2
Also, it doesn't have to be malicious. When you announce a layoff, the best employees will try to leave first, or will try to use their unused vacations, or will stop doing unpaid overtime. The same goes with customers. An existing customer may not want to renew his contract if he finds out the company is laying off a large number of people. There is also the demoralizing aspect of everyone losing their job. Even if those employees don't try to do anything malicious, productivity and accountability will inevitably suffer since those people know they won't have a job in a couple of weeks.
– Stephan Branczyk
Jun 12 '16 at 12:08
Also, it doesn't have to be malicious. When you announce a layoff, the best employees will try to leave first, or will try to use their unused vacations, or will stop doing unpaid overtime. The same goes with customers. An existing customer may not want to renew his contract if he finds out the company is laying off a large number of people. There is also the demoralizing aspect of everyone losing their job. Even if those employees don't try to do anything malicious, productivity and accountability will inevitably suffer since those people know they won't have a job in a couple of weeks.
– Stephan Branczyk
Jun 12 '16 at 12:08
1
1
In more secure environments, you get escorted out by security. You don't even get to collect your things. It is NOT a good experience, for anyone. Also, the "blind sided effects" may sometimes be required if it is not a management decision, but an investor decision. Letting staff know there is a coming layoff may trigger stock selling that will get someone into HUGE trouble.
– Nelson
Jun 13 '16 at 7:50
In more secure environments, you get escorted out by security. You don't even get to collect your things. It is NOT a good experience, for anyone. Also, the "blind sided effects" may sometimes be required if it is not a management decision, but an investor decision. Letting staff know there is a coming layoff may trigger stock selling that will get someone into HUGE trouble.
– Nelson
Jun 13 '16 at 7:50
@StephanBranczyk Yeah, it would be interesting to have a two week period at the office where basically everyone was taking vacation before their last day.
– user37746
Jul 11 '16 at 16:10
@StephanBranczyk Yeah, it would be interesting to have a two week period at the office where basically everyone was taking vacation before their last day.
– user37746
Jul 11 '16 at 16:10
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
6
down vote
If you make someone redundant you are saying their job is not needed thus there is nothing to hand over. If there was then the person being made redundant could have a legal case
Also making people redundant says the company is not doing well. Knowledge of the redundancy could affect a company's stock price (could significantly rise! or fall) this stock market rules could well mean that notice cannot be given.
However I suspect the main reason is as given in other answers that if you sack someone they could tend to take retaliatory action so best to stop the employee's ability to do that,
answered Jun 11 '16 at 12:24
Mark
28448
"Redundant" means that more than one person is doing the same thing, but the phrase "made redundant" actually means "we don't need anyone doing this thing" - correct? Why is not the proper term used: made unnecessary? It is exactly opposite in meaning.
– user37746
Jul 11 '16 at 16:05
See a dictionary e.g. dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/redundant unnecessary because it is more than is needed: - so you don;t seem to have the correct meaning
– Mark
Jul 11 '16 at 19:19
But the only way to "make someone redundant" would be to hire another person to do the same job (then fire the first person???). Consider "Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks (RAID)", this does not mean "unnecessary", it means that the redundancy is there for safety purposes.
– user37746
Jul 12 '16 at 2:42
As I said see dictionaries and a lot of UK law - you are not using redundancy as most people use it = if you make someone redundant it is explicit in law you cannot replace them -
– Mark
Jul 12 '16 at 9:05
I think that the word 'unnecessary' is more directly applicable. Don't get me started on 'envy' and 'jealousy'.
– user37746
Jul 12 '16 at 12:05
 |Â
show 5 more comments
up vote
6
down vote
If you make someone redundant you are saying their job is not needed thus there is nothing to hand over. If there was then the person being made redundant could have a legal case
Also making people redundant says the company is not doing well. Knowledge of the redundancy could affect a company's stock price (could significantly rise! or fall) this stock market rules could well mean that notice cannot be given.
However I suspect the main reason is as given in other answers that if you sack someone they could tend to take retaliatory action so best to stop the employee's ability to do that,
answered Jun 11 '16 at 12:24
Mark
28448
"Redundant" means that more than one person is doing the same thing, but the phrase "made redundant" actually means "we don't need anyone doing this thing" - correct? Why is not the proper term used: made unnecessary? It is exactly opposite in meaning.
– user37746
Jul 11 '16 at 16:05
See a dictionary e.g. dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/redundant unnecessary because it is more than is needed: - so you don;t seem to have the correct meaning
– Mark
Jul 11 '16 at 19:19
But the only way to "make someone redundant" would be to hire another person to do the same job (then fire the first person???). Consider "Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks (RAID)", this does not mean "unnecessary", it means that the redundancy is there for safety purposes.
– user37746
Jul 12 '16 at 2:42
As I said see dictionaries and a lot of UK law - you are not using redundancy as most people use it = if you make someone redundant it is explicit in law you cannot replace them -
– Mark
Jul 12 '16 at 9:05
I think that the word 'unnecessary' is more directly applicable. Don't get me started on 'envy' and 'jealousy'.
– user37746
Jul 12 '16 at 12:05
 |Â
show 5 more comments
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
If you make someone redundant you are saying their job is not needed thus there is nothing to hand over. If there was then the person being made redundant could have a legal case
Also making people redundant says the company is not doing well. Knowledge of the redundancy could affect a company's stock price (could significantly rise! or fall) this stock market rules could well mean that notice cannot be given.
However I suspect the main reason is as given in other answers that if you sack someone they could tend to take retaliatory action so best to stop the employee's ability to do that,
answered Jun 11 '16 at 12:24
Mark
28448
If you make someone redundant you are saying their job is not needed thus there is nothing to hand over. If there was then the person being made redundant could have a legal case
Also making people redundant says the company is not doing well. Knowledge of the redundancy could affect a company's stock price (could significantly rise! or fall) this stock market rules could well mean that notice cannot be given.
However I suspect the main reason is as given in other answers that if you sack someone they could tend to take retaliatory action so best to stop the employee's ability to do that,
answered Jun 11 '16 at 12:24
Mark
28448
edited Jun 11 '16 at 16:17
answered Jun 11 '16 at 12:24
Mark
28448
answered Jun 11 '16 at 12:24
Mark
28448
answered Jun 11 '16 at 12:24
Mark
28448
28448
"Redundant" means that more than one person is doing the same thing, but the phrase "made redundant" actually means "we don't need anyone doing this thing" - correct? Why is not the proper term used: made unnecessary? It is exactly opposite in meaning.
– user37746
Jul 11 '16 at 16:05
See a dictionary e.g. dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/redundant unnecessary because it is more than is needed: - so you don;t seem to have the correct meaning
– Mark
Jul 11 '16 at 19:19
But the only way to "make someone redundant" would be to hire another person to do the same job (then fire the first person???). Consider "Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks (RAID)", this does not mean "unnecessary", it means that the redundancy is there for safety purposes.
– user37746
Jul 12 '16 at 2:42
As I said see dictionaries and a lot of UK law - you are not using redundancy as most people use it = if you make someone redundant it is explicit in law you cannot replace them -
– Mark
Jul 12 '16 at 9:05
I think that the word 'unnecessary' is more directly applicable. Don't get me started on 'envy' and 'jealousy'.
– user37746
Jul 12 '16 at 12:05
 |Â
show 5 more comments
"Redundant" means that more than one person is doing the same thing, but the phrase "made redundant" actually means "we don't need anyone doing this thing" - correct? Why is not the proper term used: made unnecessary? It is exactly opposite in meaning.
– user37746
Jul 11 '16 at 16:05
See a dictionary e.g. dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/redundant unnecessary because it is more than is needed: - so you don;t seem to have the correct meaning
– Mark
Jul 11 '16 at 19:19
But the only way to "make someone redundant" would be to hire another person to do the same job (then fire the first person???). Consider "Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks (RAID)", this does not mean "unnecessary", it means that the redundancy is there for safety purposes.
– user37746
Jul 12 '16 at 2:42
As I said see dictionaries and a lot of UK law - you are not using redundancy as most people use it = if you make someone redundant it is explicit in law you cannot replace them -
– Mark
Jul 12 '16 at 9:05
I think that the word 'unnecessary' is more directly applicable. Don't get me started on 'envy' and 'jealousy'.
– user37746
Jul 12 '16 at 12:05
"Redundant" means that more than one person is doing the same thing, but the phrase "made redundant" actually means "we don't need anyone doing this thing" - correct? Why is not the proper term used: made unnecessary? It is exactly opposite in meaning.
– user37746
Jul 11 '16 at 16:05
"Redundant" means that more than one person is doing the same thing, but the phrase "made redundant" actually means "we don't need anyone doing this thing" - correct? Why is not the proper term used: made unnecessary? It is exactly opposite in meaning.
– user37746
Jul 11 '16 at 16:05
See a dictionary e.g. dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/redundant unnecessary because it is more than is needed: - so you don;t seem to have the correct meaning
– Mark
Jul 11 '16 at 19:19
See a dictionary e.g. dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/redundant unnecessary because it is more than is needed: - so you don;t seem to have the correct meaning
– Mark
Jul 11 '16 at 19:19
But the only way to "make someone redundant" would be to hire another person to do the same job (then fire the first person???). Consider "Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks (RAID)", this does not mean "unnecessary", it means that the redundancy is there for safety purposes.
– user37746
Jul 12 '16 at 2:42
But the only way to "make someone redundant" would be to hire another person to do the same job (then fire the first person???). Consider "Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks (RAID)", this does not mean "unnecessary", it means that the redundancy is there for safety purposes.
– user37746
Jul 12 '16 at 2:42
As I said see dictionaries and a lot of UK law - you are not using redundancy as most people use it = if you make someone redundant it is explicit in law you cannot replace them -
– Mark
Jul 12 '16 at 9:05
As I said see dictionaries and a lot of UK law - you are not using redundancy as most people use it = if you make someone redundant it is explicit in law you cannot replace them -
– Mark
Jul 12 '16 at 9:05
I think that the word 'unnecessary' is more directly applicable. Don't get me started on 'envy' and 'jealousy'.
– user37746
Jul 12 '16 at 12:05
I think that the word 'unnecessary' is more directly applicable. Don't get me started on 'envy' and 'jealousy'.
– user37746
Jul 12 '16 at 12:05
 |Â
show 5 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
Aside from what's being said already by @kevincline, telling someone that they'll be laid off, then asking them to train other employees to do their job is quite absurd, they'll just tell you to screw you.
In fact, asking them to do anything productive will be most likely be met anger.
There is really no valid point in keeping an employee that you have laid off. And for an employee, there is absolutely no valid point to stay at work once they know they'll be laid off.
answered Jun 11 '16 at 12:13
Alexandre Vaillancourt
1,580618
That's where Severance Package comes into play. Do what you are asked and you leave with it, tell the company off and leave without it.
– PM 77-1
Jun 11 '16 at 22:00
PM77, Yes, but a severance package costs money and not every company in the US is willing to offer a good severance package in case of a massive layoff.
– Stephan Branczyk
Jun 12 '16 at 12:11
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Aside from what's being said already by @kevincline, telling someone that they'll be laid off, then asking them to train other employees to do their job is quite absurd, they'll just tell you to screw you.
In fact, asking them to do anything productive will be most likely be met anger.
There is really no valid point in keeping an employee that you have laid off. And for an employee, there is absolutely no valid point to stay at work once they know they'll be laid off.
answered Jun 11 '16 at 12:13
Alexandre Vaillancourt
1,580618
That's where Severance Package comes into play. Do what you are asked and you leave with it, tell the company off and leave without it.
– PM 77-1
Jun 11 '16 at 22:00
PM77, Yes, but a severance package costs money and not every company in the US is willing to offer a good severance package in case of a massive layoff.
– Stephan Branczyk
Jun 12 '16 at 12:11
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Aside from what's being said already by @kevincline, telling someone that they'll be laid off, then asking them to train other employees to do their job is quite absurd, they'll just tell you to screw you.
In fact, asking them to do anything productive will be most likely be met anger.
There is really no valid point in keeping an employee that you have laid off. And for an employee, there is absolutely no valid point to stay at work once they know they'll be laid off.
answered Jun 11 '16 at 12:13
Alexandre Vaillancourt
1,580618
Aside from what's being said already by @kevincline, telling someone that they'll be laid off, then asking them to train other employees to do their job is quite absurd, they'll just tell you to screw you.
In fact, asking them to do anything productive will be most likely be met anger.
There is really no valid point in keeping an employee that you have laid off. And for an employee, there is absolutely no valid point to stay at work once they know they'll be laid off.
answered Jun 11 '16 at 12:13
Alexandre Vaillancourt
1,580618
answered Jun 11 '16 at 12:13
Alexandre Vaillancourt
1,580618
answered Jun 11 '16 at 12:13
Alexandre Vaillancourt
1,580618
answered Jun 11 '16 at 12:13
Alexandre Vaillancourt
1,580618
1,580618
That's where Severance Package comes into play. Do what you are asked and you leave with it, tell the company off and leave without it.
– PM 77-1
Jun 11 '16 at 22:00
PM77, Yes, but a severance package costs money and not every company in the US is willing to offer a good severance package in case of a massive layoff.
– Stephan Branczyk
Jun 12 '16 at 12:11
suggest improvements |Â
That's where Severance Package comes into play. Do what you are asked and you leave with it, tell the company off and leave without it.
– PM 77-1
Jun 11 '16 at 22:00
PM77, Yes, but a severance package costs money and not every company in the US is willing to offer a good severance package in case of a massive layoff.
– Stephan Branczyk
Jun 12 '16 at 12:11
That's where Severance Package comes into play. Do what you are asked and you leave with it, tell the company off and leave without it.
– PM 77-1
Jun 11 '16 at 22:00
That's where Severance Package comes into play. Do what you are asked and you leave with it, tell the company off and leave without it.
– PM 77-1
Jun 11 '16 at 22:00
PM77, Yes, but a severance package costs money and not every company in the US is willing to offer a good severance package in case of a massive layoff.
– Stephan Branczyk
Jun 12 '16 at 12:11
PM77, Yes, but a severance package costs money and not every company in the US is willing to offer a good severance package in case of a massive layoff.
– Stephan Branczyk
Jun 12 '16 at 12:11
suggest improvements |Â
7
It's not always done this way. It depends on company practices and overall situation.
– PM 77-1
Jun 11 '16 at 2:18
2
There are a long list of possible reasons, from managing employee response to managing media responses to managing stock market response to managing creditor response to... Different companies have different concerns at different times and manage each layoff differently. I don't think a single clear answer is possible here.
– keshlam
Jun 11 '16 at 2:48
You're assuming that's the way it's always done. It isn't.
– Simon B
Jun 11 '16 at 21:54