Mixed Signals

Reading articles on the economy and the job market nowadays can give a person a severe case of whiplash.

Unemployment is down to around 7% after hitting a high of nearly 10% some three years ago. Hooray!

Yet major companies like Disney and Caterpillar have announced layoffs and jobless claims are up. Closer to home, my own company continues to cut positions and my gut feeling is that more layoffs are on the way.

So what gives? Which do we believe?

An article I read this morning puts it all in perspective. Yes, the unemployment rate is down, but that’s because many long-term jobless have simply given up looking for work. Either they have retired early (if they were in their 50s), gone on disability (if they qualified), or gone back to school (if they are younger).

“Unemployment dropped for all the wrong reasons,” summed up one economist.

This is happening in our supposedly recovering economy? When will it ever end? When will companies start to hire again and stop this vicious cycle of more and more layoffs?

I have to chuckle every time I read a politician or some commentator complain about people living off of unemployment benefits. First, we’ve paid into that fund with our payroll taxes, so we are, in essence, getting our own money back. Why is right for us taxpayers to bail out major companies when they make stupid mistakes, but honest, hard-working people can’t get funds to help them when they are going through a rough patch with no work?

Second, once those unemployment benefits run out and a person cannot find work, they are going to move to another social safety net, like foods stamps, disability or Social Security. Yet nobody, least of all the corporations, want to pay taxes that help support those programs.

And most likely, jobless people are receiving less income then they were when they were working, so they cannot buy goods and services, which forces companies to cut more workers.

So come on, Mr. CEO, how about hiring more workers? Let’s stop this vicious cycle. Put people to work and get this economy moving forward again. We’ll all benefit.

Potato Chips

Way back when, there was a popular TV commercial about potato chips. The clever tagline was: “Bet you can’t eat just one!” (Never could myself.)

In today’s corporate world, perhaps the mantra should be: “Bet you can’t cut just one employee!”

That point was driven home this week when we received an email from our CEO about some “exciting” transformations in one of our departments. Once you read beyond that cheery opening, he got down to brass tacks and used a word that strikes fear into every worker’s heart: outsourcing. Yes, some of the department’s functions were being outsourced and because of that, six people were being let go by the end of the month. (Side note: If you were informed your job was being eliminated in three weeks, would you stay or would say, Frug you, and leave immediately?)

Naturally, he expressed regret over those employees who were losing their jobs (spare me your faux concern). But it had to be done to “transform” the company.

By my count this makes 16 people who have been let go since the beginning of the year. This after an entire department was pretty much wiped out in the fall…and after the CEO said he wasn’t planning any more personnel cuts. Oh, really….

To be fair, I truly understand that companies have to make expense cuts to survive and unfortunately, that means jobs are eliminated. Corporations have been in survival mode for so long that they have adopted a bunker mentality and are simply hunkering down in an effort to stay afloat. When the next economic tsunami hits, they want to be ready. Hard to argue with that logic.

But sometimes I wonder if corporations are taking it to an extreme.

When does cost cutting mutate from being a means to an end (higher profits, a leaner operation) to an end in and of itself? Is it possible that cost cutting can become the sole purpose of the corporation, its raison d'etre? Let’s cut more and more! Build up those profits! But what about making new products and services? Have corporations forgotten their basic missions? Have U.S. companies become nothing more that cost-cutting, job-slashing machines? How much can a company outsource before it becomes nothing more than a desk and a modem?

Cost cutting and eliminating jobs are easy to do. But innovation, well, that’s a lot tougher. And if a company wants to expand they will have to hire more employees, right? But that’s against their corporate mission.

And just because a company may hire in one area while cutting in others doesn’t mean the company is expanding. It just means it is maintaining the status quo. Until you actually hire more and expand your employee base or add new goods or services, you are merely shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.

And what of our CEO, who clearly said he wasn’t planning any more job cuts. How can we believe or trust him? Which department will he and management target for transformation next? How many more of us will lose our jobs?

Because when it comes to employees, bet you can’t just cut one.

“Do you want to hire us?”

Dear Corporate Fat Cats:

It’s been a while since I last sent you a letter. I hope you are doing well, what with all the corporate profits you are racking in, you must be quite pleased with yourself.

And with the help of your friends in Congress, you will be paying less in taxes. How wonderful for you.

Alas, some of your corporations aren’t doing so well, like JC Penney. But you can always cut more staff. That is a surefire way to boost profits, right? Cut your way to profitability is always the path to take when you need to increase your bonuses.

It’s too bad that the people you have laid off can no longer buy your goods or services. But, hey, if things get worse, just lay off more people, right?

It really takes too much time and effort to come up with new goods and services people will actually want to buy. Better to cut expenses than build new plants to manufacture products that will put people to work. Who needs new revenue streams when you can simply cut more workers? Wall Streets loves, absolutely loves, a company that lays off more and more workers.

But aren't you supposed to be the job creators? 

But it’s not your fault, Mr. Corporate Fat Cat. You want to hire more people, you really do, but they don’t have the skills you need, or so you say. Lower your taxes and you may hire more workers, you tell us.

How about paying your fair share of taxes so our high schools and community colleges can educate future workers with the skills you need? Just a suggestion.

Even if applicants came to you with the skills you say you need, would you hire them? I mean, that would mean spending money on their salaries, and that would cut into your annual bonuses. Not so sure about that, are you? Why ruin a good thing.

So I have to ask, Do you want to hire us?

Sincerely,

The American Worker

Somebody I used to know

Sometimes, I think working in the Decade of Mass Layoffs is a little like being in an old World War II movie.

You know the kind I mean, the type of movie they show on Turner Classic Movies. Movies made in the late 1940s and 1950s, when the war was still fresh in the minds of the public.

It usually featured a Major Hollywood Movie Star (well past draft age) in the lead role as the Grizzled Veteran. Whether he lived or died was the major theme of the movie. But there is usually a fairly standard subplot that goes something like this:

A New Recruit to the Army/Marine unit tries to buddy up to the Grizzled Veteran, who quickly rebuffs the newcomer with a line like, “I don’t want to get close to anybody. You could be killed tomorrow! Leave me alone!”

Cue the screeching rocket that scores a direct hit on the New Recruit and obliterates him, or watch as the New Recruit makes a dumb move and gets blown away in a barrage of bullets. Next shot: A look of horror and pain on the Grizzled Veteran’s face.

Why do I bring this up? What connection does this have to the workplace of 2010s? Because on Friday, a woman colleague who I had become friendly with at the workplace was, you guessed it, laid off.

Now, the reason was her position was eliminated. And honestly, she knew it was coming and had not been getting along with her bosses for quite some time. So there was nothing unexpected about it.

Yet how often has this scene played out in offices across the country since 2008? How often have workers been given their walking papers? How often have workers had to say good-bye to colleagues they had known for decades?

Intellectually, we may understand the reasons. Companies shift direction, make budget cuts, have different staffing needs, and employees will lose their jobs because of it.

Yet that doesn’t mean the people being thrown away can’t be angry or bitter. It doesn’t mean those left behind can’t be sad to see a colleague go. We have every right to feel those emotions just as much as companies have the right to make staffing decisions. It doesn't mean we can't feel sad for what was lost.

Corporations may think they are doing the right thing, and that might be true. But they fail to understand the real-life impact on those they are jettisoning, or the workers left behind. Walking past cleared-out, empty cubicles doesn’t exactly give the impression of a thriving workplace.  Any worker who sees that is going to take the first train out of town.

How often have I heard family members or friends talk about how their workplace changed after so many colleagues were let go? “It used to be such a friendly place to work. Now…”

In this particular instance, my former co-worker’s job had been causing her a lot of stress, so in sense, she was relieved. But having been through the situation myself, I know she is merely trading one set of stresses for another.

Though the employment picture has improved somewhat since 2009 when I was laid off, it is still a pretty unforgiving market for job seekers. Companies don’t seem to want to hire workers (more on that in another entry). And they know they can be very, very picky when it comes to whom they do hire.

She could find another job in six days, or six weeks, or six months. Or her unemployment could stretch to 16 months, or longer. I hope for her sake she finds something quickly. However, there is no assurance her new job will be any less stressful than her former job.

Or she could follow her dream of owning her own bookstore. I wish her the best of luck.

In the meantime, she’d better grow a hide as a thick as a buffalo’s. Looking for a job means you are subjected to near-constant rejection. Even when you are lucky enough to get called in for an interview, you can expect at best, condescension on the part of the interviewer, or at worst, downright insults. I should know. I was subjected to both. It can be a stressful, demoralizing exercise, trying to find work.

What makes it even worse is that laid-off workers are characterized as “takers” or freeloaders. Nothing could be further from the truth. We want to work, but the so-called job creators don’t want to hire us. They’d rather rake in profits than put people to work. Some firms still have a bias against hiring laid-off workers. Absolutely shameful and possibly illegal.

But let’s get back to my original premise. Like the Grizzled Veteran stomping across Europe or the Pacific, just how close should we get to our co-workers, when we know any day our jobs could be terminated and we’re tossed in the dustbin, the unwanted litter of corporate cost-cutting?

We could see each other outside the office, of course. But in some cases, we may live hours apart, making it hard to get together. In all likelihood, the relationship ends once we no longer see each other at the office. That's kinda sad.

Perhaps the best course is to be cordial, helpful and respectful of our colleagues. A workplace of grumpy loners and backstabbers would be a pretty toxic place to work. So be friendly, but don’t make good friends at work.

Because when you or one of them is let go, they will be just somebody you used to know.

For the Greater Corporate Good

Hate to say I told you so, but I called this one pretty accurately.

Back in the fall, our new CEO unveiled his new (rather vague) vision for the company. Yes, some positions were eliminated, but, no, more staffing cuts weren’t planned.

Well, about two weeks ago, another note from the CEO was sent around. Two product lines were cut and nine jobs were eliminated. I thought back in the fall he shouldn’t have made any comments on future cuts, and that more layoffs were possible. Turns out I was right.

His justification? The product lines were unprofitable and didn’t fit in the overall plan for the company. He may be right, but since none except the All White Males Club get to see the financials, we really don’t know how unprofitable those products were.

As for those who lost their jobs, to his credit, he did say it was hard decision. Yet in the same sentence, he went on to say that it had to be done so the company could move forward with its new strategic plan.

Ah, now I get it. Those workers were sacrificed for The Greater Corporate Good. Because in today’s business world, it’s about profits, corporate strategy and pleasing the board and shareholders. Workers? Who gives a rat’s butt about them? In our society, corporations trump actual human beings. There once was a time when companies cared about their workers. Not anymore.

On one hand, I give this CEO props for being as candid as he can be. At my former job, they told us nothing and if you asked any questions, however innocuous, you received a severe reprimand.

I also believe it was a difficult decision for him. I saw him the morning of the day the cuts were announced and he did not look happy. But if he truly felt that bad, why not find a way to keep those people employed? Just asking. I have seen many managers make some pretty amazing maneuvers to save their favorite drinking buddies and lapdogs, shifting them to other positions or giving them outright busy work to keep them employed. Many times fine, productive workers are laid off to save a manager's happy hour BFF. So I don't buy the argument that another job couldn't have been found for us.

Nevertheless, as someone who was jettisoned for The Greater Corporate Good, the whole incident makes me a bit angry and fearful. Could I be next? How many more cuts are coming? One of the people cut worked at the cubicle next to mine. He was a young guy with a young family. How painful must the layoff have been for him and his family?

The note, of course, did include a fair amount of Corporate Doublespeak. The cuts were done, so we were told, in order that the company could someday undertake future acquisitions. Well, methinks you should get your current house in order before you start thinking about expansions.

Then there was a line about “managing legacy operating systems.” To me, those are code words for: Some product lines better start showing a profit soon or more people will be out on their asses. Music to every employee’s ears.

Yet companies persist in cutting workers and justifying it for The Greater Corporate Good. But if the past decade has taught us anything it’s that any behavior can be justified, whether it’s flying a plane into an office building and killing thousands or undertaking mass layoffs. There is always a reason to justify our actions, whether good or bad, especially the bad.

Considering how many companies have cut loose employees, I’m amazed by how they bungle the process every time. Presumably, they have professional HR people who should know how to handle these situations better. Their actions have harsh real-life consequences for those laid off. How about treating us with a little dignity and gratitude for our service?

Instead, they treat us horribly and leave behind a trail of humiliated and upset laid-off workers (and whiny bloggers). I was left with the impression that after 16-plus years I was no longer of use to the company and that my salary was keeping the company from succeeding. Honestly, when I was told to pack up my desk and leave I felt like a criminal!

They also fail to take into account the impact on the remaining workers. How they feel when longtime co-workers are shown the door. How they feel about a stepped-up workload. The anxiety it causes them about their own job security.

And let me ask this: Were the salaries of those eliminated workers really dragging down the company’s profits? Is the company automatically more profitable now? How come they were useful one day and not the next, all based on some vague strategy? Will this grand plan actually work out? Or were these layoffs done in vain?

And what of this CEO’s grand plan? What happens if it doesn’t work out? At this point, they are just words on a piece of paper. In my experience plans either work out spectacularly, work out but not as great as we hope, or fail miserably. If the plan fails miserably, will the CEO take the fall and resign? (Don’t bet on it.) Or will others make the sacrifice for The Greater Corporate Good?

The whole thing stinks in my opinion. It also proves what a losing proposition it is for any worker to be loyal to any company.

So be loyal to your family, good (non-work) friends, your hairdresser, and sports team (even when they break your heart), but never, ever your employer. Your employer will cut you in a minute—all in the name of The Greater Corporate Good.

Behind the Numbers

It was a brief item in the newspaper, no more than 100 words. Morgan Stanley is planning 1,600 layoffs.

I’m not sure if I hadn’t been laid off myself, I would have even noticed the headline. But having been of one of those numbers personally, I look at such news items much differently.

I don’t just see the numbers. I see a middle manager who has to go home and tell his wife and children he longer has a job and they aren’t going to buy as much as they did before; a single middle-aged cancer survivor worries about how she will pay for health insurance; a 20-something in an entry level job has to move back home and put his adult life on hold.

Just this week, our company cut two product lines and terminated nine people. This recession is far from over. More layoffs are coming and I don’t see an end to it as long as corporations want profits more than want to employ people.

You see, there are real people, with real lives, behind those numbers. But how often are they given a voice, how often are their stories told? No, it’s usually just a number (and a rather shockingly large one) and some corporate spin about cutting expenses to please shareholders and Wall Street analysts, as if those are the only people that matter.

To be fair, the mainstream media has written about the human cost of layoffs, if only occasionally. Scott Pelley of CBS News has done some fantastic stories for 60 Minutes. One focused on a single father with two kids living in his van; another was on a family living in a motel room in Florida. He did another feature on a southern town devastated by the economic downturn and how it was slowly coming back to life.

Not too long ago, HBO aired a documentary on how layoffs devastated a group of people on Long Island. One man who had lost his job contracted a virus and died.

However sad, it’s good to see these stories of the long-term unemployed being told. Good to see us portrayed not as freeloading losers, but educated, hard-working people who just got caught in an economic malaise that rendered us useless to your former employers.

My only quibble with these stories is that they focus near exclusively on white, middle-class Americans. Surely people of color have been hit even harder by the lingering recession. Let’s tell their stories as well.

Considering how many people have lost their jobs since 2009, there is no shortage of stories. Whenever there is a natural disaster, like a hurricane or tornado, the media always focuses on the people who lost their homes. But when there is an economic calamity, precious little is said about the impact on those who have lost their livelihood, even though those people could lose their homes just as surely as someone hit by a flood or tornado.

Perhaps it’s because Corporate America doesn’t want the focus on the harsh human cost of their layoffs: the home foreclosures, the lack of health care, the families that are sinking lower and lower on the economic scale, busted retirement savings, and so much more.

No, we mustn’t think about them, not when there are corporate profits to be made.

“It’s not personal, it’s business,” Part 2

“When people say it’s business, it’s not personal, well that just means it’s not personal for them.”

--RA Dickey, major league pitcher

Never were truer words spoken about a corporation from a soon-to-be discarded employee. Soon after RA Dickey uttered those words at his former team’s Christmas party, the Mets traded him to the Toronto Blue Jays for a bunch of so-called high-ceiling prospects.

When I read that quote, I couldn’t help but think ruefully back to the day I was laid off. On cue, I was given the “it’s a business decision, it has nothing to do with your work” line. And we’re expected to swallow that bullcrap?

How many times are laid-off employees given that line? To the company, it may be simply a business decision, but to the person being kicked to the curb, it’s very personal indeed. The same company you were so loyal to for many years has rejected you. You’ve lost your paycheck and possibly much more. You’re entire life and livelihood has been throw into disarray. Yet we can’t express an ounce of resentment about it or even question the decision. Why not?

Many commentators pointed out that Dickey probably should not have expressed his displeasure over the pace of contract negotiations with the Mets at the team’s Christmas party, a party attended by kids displaced by Superstorm Sandy. I partially agree with that. He could have selected another, more appropriate venue to vent his frustration. He later apologized for that.

But I can’t fault him for giving his honest answer when asked the question.

Nor can I fault the Mets for making the trade either. Yes, Dickey was asking for a fair contract extension, but chances are the Mets would have risen no further than fourth place in the division in 2013 with him. Once the team let it be known they were willing to trade him, it left open the possibility that another team would come along and disgorge its farm system for a Cy Young award winner.

In reality, Dickey was their most tradable commodity. The team was also dealing from a position of strength. Despite their horrid season in 2012, their starting pitching was relatively decent. Trading one of their younger pitchers made no sense.

And I believe that despite what he said, the Mets would have kept Dickey had not a team made an appealing trade offer. Lots of harsh things are said in contract negotiations. Even in a losing season, he put fannies in the seats every five days. Management was not going to turn away those dollars.

But just because a company can justify layoffs from a business sense doesn’t mean the workers left out in the cold can’t be hurt by their actions. And that goes for desk drones or famous athletes.

Will Dickey win 20 games for Toronto? It’s possible, but not probable. Will those prospects pan out as major league stars? Too soon to say.

Nevertheless, I was sorry to see Dickey go and I applaud him for expressing his true feelings. When a company is getting ready to dump its employees, its workers are rarely given a chance to voice their true feelings. So good for Dickey for standing up for himself and saying he didn’t like the way he was being treated by the team.

So many of us discarded employees never do so, and that’s sad. We should have spoken up, just like RA Dickey did.