Because it's a layoff. Even when done right, when the company lays off people in the bottom 25%, there's still just as much work and fewer hands to do it; If you aren't cut in the first round of layoffs, you will end up working much harder than you were working before the layoffs.
Usually, layoffs also imply that the company is in poor financial health. Companies in poor financial health tend to be stingy with raises and bonuses.
I would argue that because they are doing layoffs wrong, they are very likely going to endure even worse times; It implies they have unskilled management, and they've got to get along now without the employees who had other options who were encouraged (!) to jump ship before things got really bad.
Few things are quite as frustrating as putting in heroic hours only to watch that work be wasted because your management isn't very good.
If you thought you had to work more after the first round of layoffs, boy howdy; after round two, you might as well park your cot in the office. Worse, in round 2 and 3 the severance packages get smaller and smaller.
> If you thought you had to work more after the first round of layoffs, boy howdy; after round two, you might as well park your cot in the office. Worse, in round 2 and 3 the severance packages get smaller and smaller.
Because the people who are left are stupider and more desperate for a job.
>Because the people who are left are stupider and more desperate for a job.
No, it's because by round two and three the company doesn't have as much money and isn't as concerned by the bad press that comes from layoffs without severance. You could say that people /stay/ because they are desperate for a job.
My reading of rayiner's comment was that the severance packages were small because the employees were desperate and stupid.
I'm suggesting that the size of the severance package is divorced from the quality of employee. The severance package has to do with how much money the company has and how concerned it is with publicity.
I think you skipped the word 'are', in the phrase 'people who are left'.
Regardless, you both appear to agree that the layoffs who pass on the earlier, more attractive offers are likely to get the least attractive severance packages.
Edit: Not it appears that Rayiner agrees that he's wrong, which makes me wrong by proxy, which is confusing, since I can't find where you two are in any disagreement.
Actually in many cases the people laid off were doing work that didn't need to be done at all. Stuff that has to get done, stuff that's adding value... you keep the people who do that.
>Actually in many cases the people laid off were doing work that didn't need to be done at all. Stuff that has to get done, stuff that's adding value... you keep the people who do that.
Unless the company is getting out of a certain business and laying off an entire department? yeah, you are going to cut off some working hands. The best you can hope for is to mostly hit people in the bottom third or bottom quarter of performance; better resolution than that is largely impossible, even for good management.
If you are 100% useless? you get fired before the layoffs. Layoffs take those perceived to be low performers, but people who aren't so bad that you want to outright fire them.
Everyone exists on a productivity continuum; few people are zeros.
That, and evaluating productivity is hard. Really, really hard, so mistakes will be made, and even good management is occasionally going to accidentally lay off someone who is very productive. And usually you get layoffs because management wasn't good. Bad management is going to make a lot of mistakes and get rid of a lot of good people.
I mean, I'm working from my experience on the ops team; going from 8 folks to 5 folks on the pager rotation is rough. Going from 2 to 1 is terrifying.
