Kicking people to the curb who have knowledge of inner Yahoo! workings without even trying to find other positions for them, nice.
Yahoo! if you're going to treat your own employees like that why should I think you're a better company that your competitors? Employees are the most valuable asset you have!
|Employees are the most valuable asset you have! |
Reminds me of this [dilbert.com]
Makes sense, given that they are hoping to have their search powered by Microsoft before the end of 2010.
Canning people as a first option never makes sense, unless your only loyalty is to wall street. The chance of finding work in that neck of the woods is brutal. the headline story in a local paper 3 days ago was "if you don't already have a job don't apply", which is what local recruiters are saying.
[edited by: Sgt_Kickaxe at 10:10 pm (utc) on Jun 22, 2010]
The fun is everywhere. Never, ever, will I get into the tech side again...
|RealNetworks slashed 85 jobs, including a quarter of its executive team, kicking off an overhaul aimed at reducing costs to offset declining revenue. |
The Seattle-based company, known for starting the Rhapsody music service and RealPlayer, said on Tuesday that it plans to record about $10 million in restructuring charges -- more than three times its first-quarter profit and about 8 percent of revenue -- in the second quarter.
How many jobs have been lost because the numbers in a quarterly report weren't ideal?
Now let me ask you, do you really believe the lower level employees are to blame for those numbers?
Fire Management First, now that I'd agree with! At least Realnetworks included management.
Actually I bet the RealNetworks announcement has more to do with Google's launch into the music sector.
if you don't already have a job don't apply
That has been the case for a long time in a lot of places.
Once upon a time laying people off was seen as a bad sign by the markets now it seems to be a sign of "prudent" management. In the early 90s companies would still throw a lot of money at you to leave "voluntarily". Not any more.
Let me share my old-guy perspective...
Businesses are in business to be profitable - not employ people. Smart businesses solve labor problems by looking for solutions to get the job done quicker, better and less expensive and to NOT hire more people.
Simple rule – work hard and be a valuable key contributor – smart businesses don’t let go people whom bring profit to the table.
Cold hard facts…
It has become a tradition for Yahoo to retrench resources. They are not making profit and recognition and will hardly do by laying off people. If these people were not beneficial to the company then why did they hired them at all? Is management responsible or somebody else?
I appreciate those cold hard facts Edge, I know they make the world turn and are required from a wall street perspective.
When I see it as a consumer however I lose mad respect for the company kicking employees to the curb without having done anything to earn the firing. Using people, unless you make it clear the relationship is temporary from the get-go, shouldn't be part of doing business.
It affects families and in the current employment situation it can destroy them. It wasn't a do or die situation for Yahoo!, heck they're gloating about their hot new partnership and this definitely rains on that parade.
Not to bash "search relevance testers" - but they aren't that high up in the food chain. Its not like these people had enginering/programming skills, etc. that would apply to other roles in the company... Why bash Yahoo b/c these "roles" have been eliminated. Yahoo can't just create other jobs where it doesn't have the need b/c the editorial staff isn't needed anymore. If these are CS, MBAs, etc. maybe they can be transistioned, but lets not assume other options weren't looked at for those who had skills.
[insert tounge in cheek]
Yahoo! had search relevance testers!?
[remove tounge from cheek]
|I know they make the world turn and are required from a wall street perspective |
Not just WALL STREET, but ANY STREET.
|unless you make it clear the relationship is temporary from the get-go |
Uh, do you think they were told their job was permanent? Do you really think a business should be forced to employ people they no longer have a need for?
What did the Yahoo Search Relevance Testers do?
|When I see it as a consumer however I lose mad respect for the company kicking employees to the curb without having done anything to earn the firing. Using people, unless you make it clear the relationship is temporary from the get-go, shouldn't be part of doing business. |
In my world I have never had a job guarantee - it has always been a business agreement. I work - they pay, if there is no work or money I have no work or money. If my employer changes the work force size and I'm not included in the plan - I'm gone.
|It affects families and in the current employment situation it can destroy them. It wasn't a do or die situation for Yahoo!, heck they're gloating about their hot new partnership and this definitely rains on that parade. |
Yes, I agree losing a job is not good - families tend to be broken up, in divorce, bankruptcy and other bad situations - nothing new. I have seen my father, uncles, friends and others folks suffer a layoff - always sad and tough.
This is our reality in the USA - survival of the fittest and sometimes luckiest- been this way for a very long time.
My advice as stated in my previous post is unchanged...