Wouldn’t it cost less to actually keep experienced and competent people onboard, while taking on new talent and making sure they learn from the previous generation and want to stay on, than having high turnover, paying out severance to the stream of laid off people, and losing money by constant training of newcomers who leave at first opportunity? I’m seriously asking this. I think mgmt bought into cuts by layoffs as the easiest solution and best smoke and mirrors show for markets instead of actually managing employees in the long-term most beneficial way. I mean, we saw recently with many tech failures how costly this relaxed attitude towards experience and expertise combined with excessive greed can be.
10 replies (most recent on top)
Case in point, Joliet is struggling like he-l on restart because of all the experience that is gone and you’re left with very few who actually know what to do while the execs spin on decision lockup. Keep promoting this BS and your facilities will take forever to do turnarounds and site startups.
It is always about cash flow.
The former CEO of Mobil Oil Corporation stated publicly at a hotel dinner for 3000 guests in circa 1994 that "We no longer control the price of gasoline at the pump. All we can control is our OPEX".
News flash there is no future need of domestic engineers. Only need engineers in whatever country happens to cost the least at whoever given time.
I mean, this is basically the way of American business at present. Appease short term shareholder needs by whatever means possible, which are likely detrimental in the long term. Doesn’t matter for CEOs, because there is virtually no accountability or labor laws to prevent it. Shelf life of the CEO is like 4-8 years, at about the time the poor decision making makes impact. The. They glide off on golden parachutes to their mega yacht.
But yeah, sc--w federal oversight.
@OP If the goal is to reduce labor costs then yes, absolutely.
Is your question supposed to be rhetorical?
No exec today will pay the costs of the actions being taken today. They’ll be gliding down onto their yachts with golden parachutes. GE, IBM, and now Boeing are all prime examples of companies that have become ruined by MBA/cheapest vendor/cheapest employee brain rot. It may not happen this decade but the debt being created by these execs will have to be paid and by then there’ll be no one left to pay it. Cue slow descent into irrelevance and eventually being sold for parts like so many companies that took this simpleton route before.
I wonder this everyday. I’m a site lifer and have asked this to every plant manager I’ve worked for for the last 5 years. None of them agree with the strategy either. Our own data tells us we’re only reliable with experienced people and we’re purposely attriting people we can’t replace in 5 years while obliterating our engineering. At some point you’ll have no engineers left domestically, and no pipeline for executives and only people left to pip will be too old to get rid of and no one will no how to actually run a facility.
For Exxon, it surely pays off, because DW gang as no other way to show value. What innovative products or services the company has developed to capitalize revenue on, absolutely nothing. Banking on Mobil 1 and the fluffy synergy brand. And on top it doesn't Motivate employees to be innovative and rewards them as deserved. So yeah, this is the company's business strategy until it completely decimates to the ground. Look at the labeled "leaders" around you and what true capabilities (other than brown nosing) they bring, again nothing.
Beyond simple retention, they could likely reduce salary requirements considerably if people actually enjoyed the culture.
XOM doesn’t believe in retention- we are a training company. Come get your foot in the door, get some experience and then start applying for higher pay.