The thing about #tech #layoffs that people who haven’t been through it often don’t understand is that morale never recovers. The employees who remain will never have the same relationship with that company, bosses or peers.

Watching people you respect pack their stuff and crying on the phone with their spouses is something that never goes away. When I survived a layoff in my 20s I became a “do exactly what the ticket says” person. I stopped suggesting ideas, providing feedback, believing anything a manager told me.

If you are a company considering layoffs, especially a profitable company, you should approach it as “this department will have 100% turnover”. The second I got another job offer I left that company and six months later nobody who had been there at the time of layoffs remained.

I’ve seen that pattern play out multiple times.

@matdevdug @femme_mal When I was laid off from a tech co. in 2013 it altered my world view. I had won an award for performance only 2 months earlier! I’ve never trusted an organization to have my back again.

@suzka @matdevdug No profitable company should layoff personnel. Unprofitable companies should do so only after all other cost cutting measures and efficiencies have been attempted and proven ineffective.

Layoffs cost money because they're demoralizing and reduce productivity. They cost more money to implement which doesn't yield more product/service.

Hiring new people in the future also costs $$$; Fortune 100 co I worked for calculated cost of recruit/hire/onboarding at +$50K/new hire.

@femme_mal @suzka @matdevdug

I did an analysis in the early 2000s of cost to hire in telecom, including recruiting, onboarding, training & lower productivity during the first year compared to an 'old hire'. It varied by position but it ranged from 40-80% of total compensation.

That's excluding the cost of the inevitable occasional bad hire, which adds another 50-100%.
At the height of the .com boom, I saw some companies with a bad hire rate >25%.

@johntimaeus @suzka @matdevdug that $50K was an average figure for US hires for a Fortune 100 transnational manufacturing firm about year 2000. It hasn't changed much because of cost savings in process improvement and in stagnant wages at bottom of employment ladder.

In other words that last bit of cost savings came from increased precarity forced on prospective new hires. Likely a 'benefit' of corporations lobbying legislators to keep minimum wage low.

@johntimaeus @femme_mal @suzka @matdevdug I saw the same in the Netherlands at the time. The dotcom bubble started right when there was massive unemployment. The sentiment in the government was that here we have a heap of unemployed people, over there we have a pit of vacancies. Fill the pit with the heap, that will cut down benefit payments and stimulate the economy. Everyone can be a programmer with a little training, right?