h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6255049.stm

I'm sure there's a twisted logic to it somewhere, but I really don't understand how getting rid of staff can increase productivity. It's like a builder saying "if we use fewer bricks we can build more houses".

Call me cynical:

No, there's a very simple logic to it. The org behind this is 'Hudson' who say "Hudson provides professional staffing, outsourcing and human capital solutions on a global basis."

So, a resourcing/outsourcing agency grabs the spotlight by saying many managers want to lay off staff. No ulterior motive there then...

Not at all... It's obvious that Hudson are offering this advice through the goodness of their hearts and that at no point have they thought of money.

There is no doubt unions are still needed - unfortunately they need teeth and nowadays they don't have them.

The sorting office in Coventry is being closed (the largest postal district in the country) and all mail will be sorted in Nottingham instead. This of course isn't so they can lose 100+ staff - its for greater efficiency.

Yeah - right.

Just b/c they're cutting 20% a year doesn't mean they aren't also hiring back 20% a year.

They might actually regret a decision like that when their HR costs skyrocket.

There is something to be said for getting new people in the job, and moving people out. I have no idea what the appropriate "level" is.

>>"More than three quarters of UK bosses think their companies would benefit from an annual quota of staff dismissals, a report has found."

I guess the reverse is probably true - 'more than 75% of workers think their company would benefit from an annual quota of boss dismissals.'

Indeed, if who to get rid of was decided democratically, the deadwood at all levels would probably be identified rather more fairly and accurately than if done by management.
Workers probably know very well who amongst them is shirking, swinging the lead, or doing work that then takes more work by everyone else to put right, but they also know which low-to-middle managers would best benefit the company by falling under a bus.

my company is trying to introduce something like this via yearly employee appraisals (they keep rejecting my idea that the staff should also appraise the managers - i think they would be surprised by the results)

They even told us that for the part where we assess ourselves we were to not exceed marking ourselves as average (now, if that's not an excuse to fire someone for slacking I don't know what is) I totally ignored that and with the help of a manager who is about to jump ship, managed to get a really good grade. But I hold no illusions: they like a climate of fear and they want us all to work around 20 hours overtime in order that we know we are seen to be giving our all to the company etc etc

while the managers swan in and out when they like and play a lot of golf...

But then, I'm a shiny new union member - so of course I think they're the best thing since sliced bread.

(perhaps a rotation where the managers do the operational work and the minions get to manage fo a while might help?)

Morning Potholer,

A really sensible and sound post. Conratulations, credit where it is due.

I must have spent at least 25% of my working life putting right the idiot ideas or complete inaction on the part of my 'superiors'

One company I worked at employed a firm of 'Management Consultants at £400 per day, (several years ago) who still couldn't reach the sensible conclusions already arrived at by the technical and shopfloor staff.

The best MD I ever worked for was a retired Major from the RA . He would wander on to the shopfloor and quietly say " Look lads, we've got this problem......." He usually left with more than one possible solution.

Novo

Morning Sho,

My employers do have a reverse appraisal system for employees, to do what is referred to as 360degree feedback on their line managers. It's done anonimously, with a thrid party feeding back the comments and ratings from several staff members.

Guess what though - it is optional for the managers to invoke the process and so far not many have been brave enough to take it up. I wish that I could have an option to have or not have my appraisal.

One of my line managers at two levels above me asked for it to be done by staff at my level and when he got the results he blamed the layer between him and us for the poor feedback despite the questions being specifically about his performance.

I am a member of the union in my company but because there is a choice of two and it is not compulsory to belong at any they don't have the 'teeth' so to speak. I merely maintain my membership for the unlikely event I may need them personnaly to fight my employer for something - how useful they would be in that instance is debateable but I wuld prefer to have someone in my corner if needed.
Sam

I read somewhere that people (managers) rise to the level of their own incompetence, so that at every level you have people who have been promoted above their own capabilities and make a hash of the job.

And I'm another who, from the "shop floor" has spent (yet) another day ironing out problems caused by inaction caused by a paralysis and fear of being seen to make the wrong decision.

Wrong decisions I can, by and large, live with because once something is done there is a concrete starting place for a solution if it's needed.