Are you saying that people should have a “right” to a job and that companies should keep them on the payroll no matter how much it affects the firm negatively?
No, he's saying that there are other management methods than layoffs that appear to have superior results. Better to become "lean and mean" BEFORE layoffs might be needed, and not have layoffs. Well-managed companies don't need layoffs.
I don't think so. But it is true that layoffs cause a climate of fear in the work place and that fear tends to result in lower productivity.
Now a few well places firings can have the opposite result.
>>Are you saying that people should have a “right” to a job and that companies should keep them on the payroll no matter how much it affects the firm negatively?
It’s more complicated than that and I hope you know it. Employees aren’t meat robots that can be used and discarded and jobs aren’t a lifetime entitlement either. There has to be some middle ground where we can work together.
When I was an industrial electrician in a factory, the company announced that there “might” be layoffs. I mailed out resumes and found a new job. On the day after they announced that 1/3 of the plant’s labor force would be laid off in two months, I gave my two weeks notice.
The plant manager called me in and YELLED at me for letting him down because, “with these staff cuts, I’ll need your expertise (as an automation programmer) more than ever.” (He had announced the day before that I was in the group that would still have a job for 6-12 more months). I told him that it’s nothing personal and that it’s just business (the exact phrase he had used the previous day), but he still said that he felt betrayed.
I think what they are saying is that companies who lay workers off to cut costs and boost profits usually do neither.