Sacrificial Lambs

I read an interesting article in Newsweek a while back http://www.newsweek.com/2010/02/04/lay-off-the-layoffs.html. The gist of the piece is this: layoffs don’t automatically make a company profitable or enable it to survive long-term. (The article also outlines the detrimental health effects on laid-off workers, but that’s for another blog entry.)

Let’s concentrate now on the myth that layoffs are necessary for a company’s long-term survival. The article pretty much debunks that belief and for many reasons: large severance payouts, higher unemployment insurance costs, and low worker morale, among them. But companies do it because they think Wall Street analysts will applaud such expense-cutting moves (not really, says the article).

So why do companies persist in slashing payrolls? In a severe recession, such as the one we are in now, it is necessary for some hard-hit industries to downsize, the Newsweek article concedes. Yet I also think there is a herd mentality at work here. Companies see other companies doing it, so they think they must do it as well.

To my mind, it’s a knee-jerk reaction. For most companies, the easiest and quickest cost-cutting measure is to slice payroll. Why bother to find new ways to boost revenues when you can just cut salaries and show a profit in one quarter?

All this reminds me of something I was told just after I was laid off. A woman I worked with sent me an email saying that while she felt sorry I was let go, I would just have to understand that my bosses (who kept their jobs as did she) were just trying to save as much of the company as they could. (More on the stupid things people say after you’ve been laid off later.)

Let’s put aside for a moment the appropriateness of telling someone who was just put out of a job that he or she must “understand” that it was done for the greater good of the company’s survival. Hey, what about my survival?

Her comment doesn’t make any sense on so many levels. As an employee, I was paid to do a job that, I hope, brought some value to the company’s overall mission and goals.

I did not, however, sign on to be a sacrificial lamb to be tossed aside when times got rocky and my bosses couldn’t figure out another way to save the company. If any of us who have been laid off were that self-sacrificing we would have joined the Army or become firefighters.

Am I supposed to feel better that I was sacrificed so the company could survive? Well, I don’t. And why say that to me at that time, as if that would make me less devastated? It was almost as if she wanted to say, “Whew! Better you than me, you sucker!”

I wrote back to my former co-worker, telling her that, no, I didn’t particularly like being a sacrificial lamb so my boozed-up bosses (the head of the company and the alleged head of our sales department are alcoholics) could continue to make the moronic, ginned-up decisions that put the company in the hole in the first place, so they could continue to have their liquid lunches and happy hour excursions every day after work. I’m sure they discussed the layoffs at a bar. Nice, huh? If managers are going to talk about employee cutbacks, the least we deserve is that our corporate overlords be sober when the discussions are held.

There were times those two idiots would go out to lunch around noon, drink too much and not make it back to the office. For those of you who think the ’60s-era shenanigans of Mad Men no longer go on, think again. I saw this with my own eyes and heard enough stories from other reliable sources to vouch that this was the case. This was an open secret at the company. Nearly all of the upper management there are heavy drinkers.

During my (forced) exit interview, the head of the editorial department (not a heavy drinker, but a total douchebag) told me I was being cut because my salary was too high. Well, imagine my surprise when I was informed later the same day from someone inside the company that I was NOT the highest paid editor on staff. An editor who made $4,000 more a year than I did and with less time in the company was kept on staff. In all likelihood, he was kept because he is the editorial director’s handpicked puppet.

And yes, I am bitter. Get used to it.

Of course, the highest paid editor is the editorial director, but he’s not going anywhere. In the past two years, this person has eliminated any and all editors who questioned his authority and/or came close to him in terms of seniority. At the time I was cut, I was the second most senior person on the editorial staff, second only to him. So why wasn’t he and his bloated salary cut? The company doesn’t publish as many magazines as it used to, so why does it need an editorial director?

True, the regional magazine I edited was put out of print, as were all the regional publications within our group. But all the other regional editors were kept on staff…except me. I think they had to sacrifice (there’s that word again) someone from the editorial staff and I was it, even though my salary was not the highest. Yet after I left, they split my duties between two of my former co-workers. So how did they save money when they had to pay two people to do my jobs? I’m sure those two salaries added up to more than I was being paid.

So there is no rhyme or reason as to why one person gets cut and another one doesn’t. It all basically comes down to the whims of people who will do anything to save their own jobs and those of their lapdogs.

But back to the question of whether a company can survive after massive layoffs. I’ve since found out that the company I used to work for has handed out raises to the remaining staff. So, I guess that’s where my ginormous salary went: to fund the raises for those remaining staffers, all of whom have less experience and seniority than I did. Meanwhile, I’m still trying to find a job and make a go of it on unemployment benefits (which will end in November) and some freelance jobs.

Now, I’m not saying they don’t deserve raises. The company had imposed a wage freeze for about two years before I was laid off. They had to give its workers something, or there would be a mass exodus (to where in this economy, I don’t know). And some of my former co-workers did work hard. They are being asked to do more with fewer colleagues…but they are also putting out fewer products.

And how can it be that a mere seven months after cutting about a third of the staff because of revenue shortfalls that the company can now dole out raises, and some pretty hefty ones from what I’ve heard?

I’m sure the company got a small bump in profits after cutting so many salaries and products. But I find it hard to believe it is now wildly profitable, especially with the drunken bozos who still run the show.

Yet apparently the company has survived and is doing better because of the layoffs. Yippee! But I can’t help but think that those of us who were jettisoned deserve at least a small bonus—or at least a shout out—for making the ultimate sacrifice so others could keep their jobs and get a raise. I guess I’ll be waiting a long time for that.

One of the points the Newsweek article makes is that companies sometimes cut their most experienced employees. What is a company except a concept or a service put into action by the people who work for it? When you lay off seasoned employees, it must have a detrimental impact on the company as a whole. Quality suffers and the people who buy the product notice.

It’s also a myth that a company must cut staff to survive. There are examples of firms who make it a point not to cut staff even in bad times. Southwest Airlines is one of them. It didn’t lay off workers, even after 9/11 and it has thrived. Its former head of human resources is quoted in the Newsweek article as saying, “If people are your most important assets, why would you get rid of them?”

Yes, Virginia, there are some companies that believe that keeping people employed is for the greater social good of the nation. Employed people buy more goods and services so that companies can be profitable. Cutting workers serves no good purpose except to eventually starve corporate profits at more and more companies. It’s a vicious cycle: companies cut workers, laid-off employees spend less, more companies have to cut more workers, and so on and so forth.

Sadly, for many companies, the philosophy is to cut staff first and try to figure out how to survive later. They blame the recession, when, really, it was their own poor decisions that led to cutbacks. Why do some companies survive an economic downturn and others don’t? I think a lot of it has to do with a management team that is smart, nimble and proactive, rather than slow-footed and reactive.

Some companies and their employees work out concessions so the company can carry on without having to resort to massive layoffs. If the option were given to me to take a cut in pay, I would have considered staying. But I was never given that option. Not saying I would have taken a cut in pay, but I would have considered it.

Instead of cutting workers, why not find new revenue streams? Well, that takes time and perseverance, as well as brains and ingenuity, all things our corporate overlords lack.

Businesses today take a short-term view, and if cutting staff gives a quick boost in profits, well, that’s what a company will do. It may be damaging in the long run, but bosses don’t think that way. They want an instant fix so they can make it to the next happy hour by 5 p.m. and toast themselves on how they made the company more profitable and survived the recession. Well, I wouldn’t pop the champagne cork just yet. This recession is far from over (double-dip anyone?), and someday, you may be the sacrificial lamb.

That’s the problem with upper level managers and executives at U.S. corporations today. They are so interested in keeping their vaulted positions—and overblown salaries—that they will do anything, anything just to stay in power. It’s not about doing a greater social good by keeping people employed or devising innovative new products that will increase employment.

No, it’s all about lining their pockets and maintaining the appearance of making a “profit” at a foundering company.

And if hundreds or thousands of hard-working people must be sacrificed to do it, so be it.

Baaaa…