As opposed to doing what? Keeping these workers on board as an act of charity? IBM operates for the benefit of its shareholders, not its employees; also, water is wet.
Layoff is a blunt instrument that swings in one direction, and cannot be undone. It's easy, but it results in too much unnecessary casualties.
When you've been with a company for 10, 15 years, you accumulate wealth of business knowledge that can always be re-deployed in other areas through careful planning.
That takes more skill than just swinging hammer. But with the absurd money we're paying the executives, shouldn't we expect a little more than just a hammer in their toolbox?
Comments
As opposed to doing what? Keeping these workers on board as an act of charity? IBM operates for the benefit of its shareholders, not its employees; also, water is wet.
Layoff is a blunt instrument that swings in one direction, and cannot be undone. It's easy, but it results in too much unnecessary casualties.
When you've been with a company for 10, 15 years, you accumulate wealth of business knowledge that can always be re-deployed in other areas through careful planning.
That takes more skill than just swinging hammer. But with the absurd money we're paying the executives, shouldn't we expect a little more than just a hammer in their toolbox?
Might as well fire everyone and sell everything then. Maximum shareholder return!