I'm hearing that a 3rd Party has been brought in to handle the layoffs. Also, that managers input is not being taken into consideration? Has anyone else heard this and does that even make sense?
8 replies (most recent on top)
its only a job... dont expect these corporations to be loyal to you... they hired you and they fired you... the question is why didnt you leave before they fired you?
Can't say for all, but I do know as fact that some managers found out the following week their employees were let go, because they didn't show up for work. This says the decisions came from the director level or higher, likely higher. It would seem likely the director would provide a heads up to his subordinates of the decision if they had known. Possible 3rd party affiliate is plausible. Higher than director level making the decision to cut, plausible.
GM always hires 3rd parties to do any dirty work. Much of GM is run by 3rd party organizations. They hire the best of the best from the highest quality schools and they absolutely do no sort of work they have studied for. Most if not all of GM is farmed out. From parts, to design, to engineering to human resources to finance. IT folks are left overs from EDS, HPE, CSC, Cap Gemini and more. So are there really any GM employees that do any work except trying to keep the position they are in or to feed the network of good ole boys and girls. GM is a joke when times get tough.
Third parties are typically hired to help those impacted by the layoff with their job transition. That includes helping the individuals with resumes, interview skills, job searching, etc. This third party company would not be selecting who is let go.
GM may also have third parties providing input on strategic direction. If so, the input would only influence which areas of the company may be more heavily impacted by the layoffs. The third party still would not be selecting specific employees to let go, only recommending which segments of the company should be grown, reduced, or eliminated.
Depending on the decisions made by executive management, the lower tiers of management will have varying degrees of control in the workforce reduction process. That can range from none at all if the whole plant is shutting down, to full input if they oversee a critical area of the company but are asked to let go 10% of their staff (for example). Even in cases where they have some control, they may still be pressured to layoff a certain type of employee.
Hiring a 3rd party is the only thing that makes sense. Otherwise management will just hang on to their cronies. A 3rd party will be more objective.
Where are you hearing this? Purely with regards to the question of "does this make sense" - yes, there are 3rd party firms whose sole purpose for existing is helping companies perform layoffs in the most "efficient and cost-effective" manner. Hopefully this isn't the case- because the gains are often short lived. It would be worrisome with a manufacturing firm such as GM- operations like this would almost certainly result in a lot of excellent (but highly paid) individuals being let go, and when you create that many gaps all at once, you're going to have safety issues down the line.
It could be for the involuntary layoff because a bunch of contractors were gone in Warren MI without any prior notice and I heard it's due to security purposes.
Probably an armed security force wearing suits to assist people to the door. Very common practice these days.