Why is AT&T getting rid of people it takes two people to replace? I've seen this happen several times and I can't figure out the logic behind this. I understand (I don't justify it, but at least I can understand it) laying somebody off because they earn much more than somebody you can replace them with, but if you have to hire two people who will most likely make the same amount together as the original person alone, what was the point?
12 replies (most recent on top)
Or they surplus people who work on an older product because someone above says it’s converting to D2. But there is no funding provided for the conversion and AIC and NFV are dead On the vine. And now that old product is still making money and seeing new customers. And here we are with a handful of people who understand it or even want to work in it.
The executive level can’t make one good. What is the opposite of having the midus touch?
because senior management l3 and above has their heads where the sun doesn't shine.
Because upper management doesn't have any idea what front-line people do.
A bunch of guys in my group got laid off, then two weeks later our director (who tagged these guys to go) sat down with the remaining folks to find out what we did. Of course, a few months later he started blaming the guys who were laid off for all the state of the company.
It's like working for Crazy Inc.
The simplest explanation is: Executive Incompetence. In leadership, management, skills, maturity, or even common financial sense. If this company has not been able to recognize and deploy its still considerable product assets to generate success for DECADES - while other companies in the same environment did -, then there is not much else that failure can be blamed on. No need to blame 'market pressure', COVID or 'disgruntled employees who failed to execute'. Because every employee that saw through that, knew too much or pointed out the fatal flaws has already been pushed out the door, because the C-suite and Board cannot handle the proof of its own failures.
The two new people don’t get a pension
Also they are likely younger and thus likely aren’t a drag on the health insurance
And don’t discount the two people might actually make less combined
But most likely, as you say, it’s just stupidity. Layoffs decided at a high level without consideration of who is needed or what task will need to be continued.
Of course the strategy is to fire one and make two jobs out of it.
Look at Ratty, they got rid of him but created two different jobs. Another for Ratty and then one for Stinky! All good - for Ratty and Stinky!
Indians + H1-B= AWESOME
Keep in mind, that many of these deals go beyond the simple transition of work. I remember the IBM deal where they would use our telecommunications if we outsourced work to them. Same for DXC where last year we were well behind the numbers and needed to move more folks over.
Let’s face it, the goal is to put every job they can in India. They don’t give a damn about the quality of the work, or the livelihoods of Americans. It’s all about short term gain until the wheels fall down off. Don’t believe their rah-rah BS they put out at Town Halls.
Two people still may not be able to do the work that the original person did. You take a thousand monkeys and give them typewriters. They still will never be able to reproduce the works say of William Shakespeare.
The bigger issue is too many people with not enough work. So in most cases the better solution is to reduce - and not replace - headcount.
Gives them two people they can later outsource.