Air Tindi Layoffs-Unprecedented

[frozen solid]

I wouldn't go back to an outfit that laid me off unless I had no other choice, personally.

Is this the general consensus or as no doubt an individual opinion? Establish vs re-establish, Senority vs experience

I can't help but agree with the sentiment. Of course if, when you were hired, it was understood that seasonal layoffs occur and you walk into the situation knowing that this is likely and have the chance to plan for it, fair enough.

But if you're a full-time employee, I believe it's reasonable to expect that you've entered a mutually beneficial relationship whereby the company provides you with an income, and you provide them with work. A full-time job is supposed to be a semi-permanent relationship. If times is hard, and you can't afford to buy my product anymore (work) then fair enough, but don't expect to have the same relationship with me anymore. I won't consider you to be a reliable customer anymore. Loyal customers get "loyalty" in return. You don't!

Imagine you woke up one day and saw that your bank account was pretty fat. You have a lot of fun things to do and you don't feel like going to work. You phone your boss and say "Hey man, I've just realised that I have enough money for the time being, and I've got more satisfying things to do with my energy which I don't feel I can afford to waste by working, so I'm not coming to work today. I'm not sure when exactly I'll be running out of money, but be prepared for me to call when I do... I'll be needing my job back."

Well, needless to say you probably would not be getting your job back.

I see little philosophical difference between this example of unreasonable behaviour and getting unexpectedly laid off, which is basically the inverse scenario. Your boss phones and says "Hey man, we've just realised that we have enough of the fruits of your labour for the time being, and we've got more satisfying things to do with our money which we don't feel we can afford to waste by paying you, so don't come to work today. We're not sure exactly when we'll be running out of the fruits of your labour, but be prepared for us to call when we do...we'll be needing you to come back."

Well, needless to say, I probably would not be coming back, if I could help it.

If I wanted to be in a relationship with an employer I knew I couldn't trust to provide me with gainful employment, I'd be just as apt to find one with someone other than the employer I used to trust.

[dhc#]

Is DA on shaky ground or are they doing ok ?

[CID]

Executives, especially at the "board" level often assume a great deal of financial risk. Many invest thier money heavily, sometimes back into the company. Imagine how much charities enjoy 5% of 1 million compared to 5% of "average Joe's" salary.

We all feed back into the economy but smart "rich" people tend to create jobs while assuming huge financial risk. What would that be worth to you? Knowing you could lose a few million overnight?

[frozen solid]

That is indubitably correct. I don't dispute the need for layoffs. I'm just talking about being willing to come back to a company that did it to you in the first place.

Your "huge financial risk" is YOUR problem, balanced no doubt by the potential for huge financial reward. Tolerance for risk is one of the reasons these people get to the positions they are in, but therefore I don't think the laid-off employee needs to be sympathetic. I'm not disputing layoffs. I'm commenting on the expectation some companies have that it's reasonable to expect their skilled employees to faithfully return. Transferring hard times onto the workers to deflect it from yourself might be fair ball, but it should also carry with it some of this "risk". The risk that you might have to train a whole bunch of new guys. I think that sounds fair. After all, the specialists are the ones who need to resort to some kind of creativity to stay fed while you protect yourself by throwing them onto the streets.

It's common sense that those with the most investment in a company should be entitled to the most reward from its success. But the "risk" we're talking about is borne by every employee. The loss of an "average Joe" salary is just as devastating to Joe as the loss of income would be to the "executives" we all seem to hold in such high regard. Seems like a lot of the time the "average Joe" is in the riskier position when he stands to be laid off.

This is all pretty much the "Law of the Jungle", I agree. People with the ambition and education (and let's face it, the stomach for that kind of work) should be entitled to the rewards commensurate with the position they have worked to attain. My only comment is that the loyalty and company culture they attempt to sow within the ranks all turns out to be a whole lot of feathers and not much chicken when things slow down. Expressing an expectation that the laid-off people should remain loyal enough to want to come back and further benefit the company is unreasonable. That's why I wouldn't come back to a company that let me down by laying me off.