Has your office/company laid people off? PART 4

[blownz]

I actually just left my company voluntarily. Took an over $30K pay cut to have some less stress and get out of O&G (new company is still impacted, just not as directly). Company I was at (Multi-billion $ public company) had done tons of layoffs and had plans for tons more. I was a director and was pretty sure I was safe, but couldn't handle lying to so many concerned employees anymore. Not only had they done layoffs due to the slow down and were planning more, but they are also looking at outsourcing (and very close to testing). Lots of jobs in Calgary and Edmonton will eventually be in Oklahoma and India. The thought was that AB is just too expensive and people will be unwilling to take big enough pay cuts for where oil is at now so it will be easier to eliminate the positions in AB altogether.

Discussions regarding this with one the the big accounting firms we dealt with had a partner tell us that another billion $ O&G company in Calgary was in the process of deciding to completely pull out of Calgary.

Lots of pain for 2016 coming.

[suntan]

Funny, because the sentiment at my wife's work among workers has definitely shifted from "can't afford pay decreases!" to "yup, we'll take them if it means keeping our jobs!"

[suntan]

Originally posted by blownz
I actually just left my company voluntarily. Took an over $30K pay cut to have some less stress and get out of O&G (new company is still impacted, just not as directly). Company I was at (Multi-billion $ public company) had done tons of layoffs and had plans for tons more. I was a director and was pretty sure I was safe, but couldn't handle lying to so many concerned employees anymore. Not only had they done layoffs due to the slow down and were planning more, but they are also looking at outsourcing (and very close to testing). Lots of jobs in Calgary and Edmonton will eventually be in Oklahoma and India. The thought was that AB is just too expensive and people will be unwilling to take big enough pay cuts for where oil is at now so it will be easier to eliminate the positions in AB altogether.

Discussions regarding this with one the the big accounting firms we dealt with had a partner tell us that another billion $ O&G company in Calgary was in the process of deciding to completely pull out of Calgary.

Lots of pain for 2016 coming.

Devon?

[lasimmon]

^^ Doubt it. Does Devon have workers in Edmonton?

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by suntan
Funny, because the sentiment at my wife's work among workers has definitely shifted from "can't afford pay decreases!" to "yup, we'll take them if it means keeping our jobs!"

Because people finally figured out 70% is still better than 0% or they start the realize the quality of people off work is pretty damn good.

[sabad66]

Originally posted by suntan
Funny, because the sentiment at my wife's work among workers has definitely shifted from "can't afford pay decreases!" to "yup, we'll take them if it means keeping our jobs!"

I was totally expecting them to cancel/decrease our flex days starting 2016... didn't happen (so far). Still have our bonus announcement on Jan 30, and will see if we get a raise higher than inflation this February.

[killramos]

Well its not like flex days cost the company anything...

Pretty dumb thing to take away from people in this environment unless they are trying to initiate attrition. If anything i would think they would give more away due to lessened workloads and they are a free bone to give to struggling employees.

[suntan]

They show up as a liability on the balance sheet, so the dumber accountants in some companies think that removing a non-cash amount somehow makes a difference to investors.

[suntan]

Originally posted by sabad66

I was totally expecting them to cancel/decrease our flex days starting 2016... didn't happen (so far). Still have our bonus announcement on Jan 30, and will see if we get a raise higher than inflation this February.

Were you around for the bonus announcement a few years ago when they declared a bonus of no bonus?

[Feruk]

First time I've had to vote YES and YES.

Originally posted by killramos
Well its not like flex days cost the company anything...

Pretty dumb thing to take away from people in this environment unless they are trying to initiate attrition.

Agreed it's stupid. Oh yeah, my company's doing it...

[spikerS]

Originally posted by suntan
Were you around for the bonus announcement a few years ago when they declared a bonus of no bonus?

That was the year my bonus was $250 before taxes...I should be thankful though, that year many people got squat.

[lasimmon]

Originally posted by killramos
Well its not like flex days cost the company anything...

Pretty dumb thing to take away from people in this environment unless they are trying to initiate attrition. If anything i would think they would give more away due to lessened workloads and they are a free bone to give to struggling employees.

How does a flex day not cost a company money? They pay you not to work...?

[killramos]

And you really think taking away those 3 days a year (or whatever it ends up being) is generating that much revenue for the company that taking them away is a material impact to the company?

Everyone i know who has ever had flex days is on salary. Its not like people were going to take unpaid days off if they didn't get the flex days. They get the same amount of money a year. Get the same amount of work done. But its just a nice bone to throw people for some added flexibility in their lives. Effectively costing the company nothing in the process.

If the employees are hourly that's a different story. But in all likelihood they aren't.

[Disoblige]

Originally posted by killramos
If anything i would think they would give more away due to lessened workloads and they are a free bone to give to struggling employees.

Our company is struggling, let's pay our employees to take days off!

[lasimmon]

Originally posted by killramos
And you really think taking away those 3 days a year (or whatever it ends up being) is generating that much revenue for the company that taking them away is a material impact to the company?

Everyone i know who has ever had flex days is on salary. Its not like people were going to take unpaid days off if they didn't get the flex days. They get the same amount of money a year. Get the same amount of work done. But its just a nice bone to throw people for some added flexibility in their lives. Effectively costing the company nothing in the process.

If the employees are hourly that's a different story. But in all likelihood they aren't.

I know of companies making people take 1 day per quarter, or month or even per pay cheque unpaid.

So yes those companies obviously feel 4 days a year or more is worth something.

[killramos]

Just because a company does something doesn't mean they have a good reason to do it. And forcing unpaid days off is different as that has a direct cash flow impact.

I asked if you think that the increased productivity, and as such revenue, of nerfing flex days is material to a company at the end of the day. Do you think it is?

I bet you its not. In fact there are plenty of studies that suggest exactly the opposite. That those little bones thrown to employees have marked INCREASES in productivity. Especially in a high stress climate such as the one we are in.

I know if i didn't show up to work tomorrow it wouldn't cost the company anything. Its not like they hire a temp for when i take vacation. I just make up the work when i get back.

Nerfing flex days because times are tough is a poorly thought through and knee jerk style of human resource management.

To each their own

[leftwing]

Voted Yes and not likely. Company cut 3% of workforce late 2015, but it was more or less trimming the fat and was all management, no field staff. I was a full time employee on contract and my contract ended mid-december, wont be resigned until mid January I am being told although I feel it could be later. Needless to say I am technically laid off and collecting EI.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by killramos
Nerfing flex days because times are tough is a poorly thought through and knee jerk style of human resource management.

You are right, 5 days of flex is only 2% and it's just liability and not real opex.

It is more to show investors that you are doing EVERYTHING you can to keep cost down. How ever little that impact is.

You have to also count productivity. If 2% productivity is gained, you can also start looking at laying off extra 2% staff.

Now I can understand moral will suffer which in the end may hurt productivity but that isn't as measurable as payroll reduction.

[adam c]

Flex days are used to replace the ability for people to call in sick as that often gets abused since it's not tracked and still paid, so it actually saves a company money and increases employee moral since Jane doesn't have the ability to take an extra 4 weeks of vacation a year while Peter never calls in sick

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by adam c
Flex days are used to replace the ability for people to call in sick as that often gets abused since it's not tracked and still paid, so it actually saves a company money and increases employee moral since Jane doesn't have the ability to take an extra 4 weeks of vacation a year while Peter never calls in sick

Meh, Flex day is merely a tool to attract talent during good times. The effectiveness of such perk is debatable.

I am not ever going to question sick day in a white collar environment. If you need it take it. Flex isn't a replacement for that.