layoffs?

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by seankreynolds

No, it was inevitable because Wizards does this every year around this time They lay off people, switch to using more freelancers, realize that they need more in-house people to help things run smoothly, hire more in-house people, then have a layoff when your projected budget starts looking wrong. It's a crappy way to run a company, and a crappy way to treat your employees. I have friends there that have been laid off and rehired by Wizards two or more times now ... Wizards just keeps repeating the cycle.

See, Hasbro is a dying company. They don't produce anything new or innovative, they're too "east coast" and set in their "old business" mindset. What they do is find interesting, profitable young companies, buy them, squeeze as much money as they can out of them, crush everything that is unique and innovative about them, and then discard them when they're no longer profitable. As a former Wizards person pointed out to me, Wizards of the Coast (and other Hasbro acquisitions like Galoob) are "chemotherapy" to Hasbro. In a year where every division of Hasbro lost money except for Wizards, Hasbro had a company-wide flat headcount reduction, even for Wizards (still flush with money from Pokemon, Magic, and 3e). Hasbro started "fun alerts" in its daughter companies, pushing the employees to have fun at work (net result: "fun alert" Mr Potato Head posters popped up at the Wizards office), ignoring that people at Wizards were already having fun making great games. So when you see things like these layoffs, it's corporate types saying, "making $8 million profit per year on this brand isn't enough, you have to make $10 million profit," and then letting go of the people who make your profit in order to cut costs (i.e., salaries) and give the appearance of extra profit. Far too many companies act this way, whether it's cutting benefits, shipping jobs to cheaper workers overseas, etc. ... it looks good on paper in the short term, but 1, 2, 5, or 10 years down the road you look at the ruins of your business and wonder why profits are still down and your employees have no loyalty.

Now this here? There is some evidence in here that WotC is a badly run company, though it seems some of it comes trickle-down from Hasbro. Assuming this isn't all cynical misrepresentations, which I doubt it is.

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by seankreynolds

See, Hasbro is a dying company.

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

Assuming this isn't all cynical misrepresentations, which I doubt it is.

CEO of the Year.

[Kid Charlemagne]

Good luck on future endeavors, Jonathan!

(and thanks for leading the bonus tools effort, as I've found those to be highly useful, and made sure to download them all so as to make sure that I'd have them going forward if Wizards ever decided to get rid of the 3.5 era stuff...)

[davethegame]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Tweet

Thanks for all the kind words and thoughts. Personally, I'm in good shape financially and emotionally. Wizards has offered me a generous severance package, things are in good shape on the home front, and work hasn't exactly been wine and roses for me lately. No one needs to worry about me.

The next thing I plan to do is nothing, and when I'm through doing that I'll look around for something new. Maybe RPGs, maybe games of some other stripe, maybe something entirely different.

Someone asked what I've been doing in the last however many years, so here's a list: Chainmail (metal D&D minis game), D&D Minis, Star Wars Minis, Axis & Allies Minis, Omega World, beginner products for Magic, and various unpublished new business efforts. I've been involved with D&DI for a little over a year, led the Bonus Tools effort, and recently started working on the Compendium.

-Jonathan

Jonathan,

Very good to hear that you're going to do well. I think it should be obvious from the out-pouring from the fans and your peers that you are the man. So here's one person saying that I hope you don't stay away from RPGs too long: I'd love to see the next Ars Magica/Over the Edge/Everway/etc!

[billd91]

Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane

CEO of the Year.

MarketWatch has it's standards and if they think a CEO retreading a lot of nostalgia brands (including making moves of them... again) is worth recognizing, more power to them.

I notice that Goldner did a lot of work out of Tiger Electronics, a company snapped up by Hasbro shortly before WotC. An example of the chemotherapy SKR commented about?

[gribble]

Originally Posted by Maggan

As an employer, I would not be able to offer a position to any applicant that requested a position to be truly permanent.

Well, it seems workplace rules are very different in Sweden than New Zealand (and other countries I've worked in, although I have heard that NZ is particularly pro-employee).

Also, there may be a terminology misunderstanding. I'm using permanent to mean "long term employee", as opposed to contractor which usually means someone who isn't considered an employee of the company and is only working for the company for a defined period and/or project.

Regardless - I wasn't trying to imply that someone offered a permanent position should expect a guarantee that the position would last forever, or seek any kind of contractual guarantee from a company (I doubt any company would be foolish enough to agree to something like that).

Rather, IME at least, the difference between a contract and permanent position is that when offered a permanent position the employee should be able to reasonably expect that the company intends for that position to be required long-term, and that the position isn't a temporary one or one related to a specific (short-medium term) project. Unless, of course, the company and employee have agreed to a short-medium term position (which IMO, is really more akin to a contract worker).

If the above is true, then (barring unforecast disaster), the position should exist as long as the employee is willing and capable of performing it... and speaking for myself, I'd certainly do a bit of research to ensure that the company was planning growth and could reasonably support the position it was offering me long-term.

So yes, I guess I would go into that position expecting to hold the position as long as I was willing and capable of doing it, as I expect most people in a similar position would.

[xechnao]

Originally Posted by mudbunny

Because the person who ends up being the driving force in a plan like this gets known as the person who brought a union into a non-union workplace. That is a big black mark on your reputation that gets you labelled "troublemaker".

Man when this world is going to fix its wrongs? Generations long propaganda I guess..
These men should be labelled as "heroes".

[malraux]

Originally Posted by billd91

MarketWatch has it's standards and if they think a CEO retreading a lot of nostalgia brands (including making moves of them... again) is worth recognizing, more power to them.

I notice that Goldner did a lot of work out of Tiger Electronics, a company snapped up by Hasbro shortly before WotC. An example of the chemotherapy SKR commented about?

I dunno, a quick glance at the financials of HAS show that its doing ok. Heck, from 2001 (ie the last recession), it looks like the dividind has either stayed the same or gone up, from 3c to 20c. I'm too lazy to dig deeper, but I don't see a lot of evidence in the numbers to justify SKR's claim.

[Mistwell]

Originally Posted by xechnao

Man when this world is going to fix its wrongs? Generations long propaganda I guess..
These men should be labelled as "heroes".

Can we not turn this thread into a unions vs. non-unions debate? We have CircvsMaximvs for that!

[xechnao]

Originally Posted by Mistwell

Can we not turn this thread into a unions vs. non-unions debate? We have CircvsMaximvs for that!

Ahh, I see you wanted to say it is a debateable question? Nevermind, my post above already gets you covered whatever.
So be it for me: nothing more to say

[Zaruthustran]

Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane

CEO of the Year.

Good find, Wulf!

Honestly, he sounds like a smart guy. And I'm pleasantly surprised that he's a gamer and a Star Wars nerd.

And he knows how to make things happen in Hollywood, apparently. Who knows? Maybe with him at the reins, we'll finally get a decent D&D movie.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane

CEO of the Year.

Is that something like the awards given to mutual fund managers? You know, the ones where the next year they underperform the market and are quietly forgotten?

Anyway, one man does not a management team make. Even if he is the CEO.

[seankreynolds]

Originally Posted by drothgery

Layoffs right before the holidays are quite commonplace, as is deciding to end indefinite-term contract employee's contracts (I've had both happen to me, for one). Nobody likes it, but companies don't lay off people before the holidays just to be mean; they do it because laying people off early the next year would be considerably more costly.

1) Ignoring the human cost of a decision merely for the sake of the numbers is shortsighted and irresponsible.

2) Just because everyone is doing it doesn't mean it's okay.

3) Changing their fiscal year to something other that Jan-Dec means that having these annual layoffs wouldn't happen 3 weeks before Christman.

Then again, smarter management and less slavish adherence to the numbers ("Oh no, we only made $8M when we predicted we'd make $10M, it's like we're losing money, let's lay off people!") would mean they wouldn't have to follow this layoff-contract-hire-layoff cycle. But hey, gotta protect the shareholders, right?

[mlund]

Originally Posted by gribble

Rather, IME at least, the difference between a contract and permanent position is that when offered a permanent position the employee should be able to reasonably expect that the company intends for that position to be required long-term, and that the position isn't a temporary one or one related to a specific (short-medium term) project. Unless, of course, the company and employee have agreed to a short-medium term position (which IMO, is really more akin to a contract worker).

In the United States, a Contractor is typically simply a worker who is not part of the Payroll of the company that uses his services.

They come in two basic types:

1099 Contractors are self-employed, handling the payroll taxes and withholdings that an employer would set aside for an employee. They have to budget for their own insurances, sick time, and vacations out-of-pocket but get to deduct business expenses related to earning their income.

W2 Contractors are employees of Agencies. The Agency handles their taxes and benefits and cuts their paychecks. The Agency bills the Company that needs the Contractor's services based on an agreed-upon contract between the two companies.

Employee-at-will is the typically non-contractor status for workers at a company. They work at a company as long as the company wants them there. They are paid directly by the company and are part of their company's payroll - including taxes and benefits.

Most Employees-at-will who earn a Salary rather than an Hourly Rate are considered "permanent" employees since their salary is agreed upon on an annual rate. They can still be terminated at any time by their employer.

If the above is true, then (barring unforecast disaster), the position should exist as long as the employee is willing and capable of performing it... and speaking for myself, I'd certainly do a bit of research to ensure that the company was planning growth and could reasonably support the position it was offering me long-term.

The moment someone else (or something else) comes along who can perform your tasks more ably or at the same level of ability (and I include trustworthiness and experience as relevant components in my definition of ability) but for less money the company should make plans to move you to a different job or lay you off. That's how competition and innovation work. It cuts both ways too - plenty of managers find their way out the door due to HR and Accounting specialist firms out-competing in-house departments. Advances in software have eliminated a lot of middle-managers from various fields over the years, just as machines have reduced the ratio of laborers-to-products in industrial work.

So yes, I guess I would go into that position expecting to hold the position as long as I was willing and capable of doing it, as I expect most people in a similar position would.

I don't have that expectation. I try and approach each day as if I'm trying to get hired anew rather than just serving time in a position that "belongs" to me. Jobs don't "belong" to employees, just like customers don't "belong" to businesses.

Originally Posted by Jonathan Tweet

Thanks for all the kind words and thoughts. Personally, I'm in good shape financially and emotionally. Wizards has offered me a generous severance package, things are in good shape on the home front, and work hasn't exactly been wine and roses for me lately. No one needs to worry about me.

I'm glad to hear this, Mr. Tweet. Thanks for all your outstanding contributions to our games. I look forward to seeing what you come up with next!

- Marty Lund

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by seankreynolds

Then again, smarter management and less slavish adherence to the numbers ("Oh no, we only made $8M when we predicted we'd make $10M, it's like we're losing money, let's lay off people!")

Well, if they could have invested the capital elsewhere and made more than $8 million, it is like they're losing money.

Originally Posted by seankreynolds

Changing their fiscal year to something other that Jan-Dec means that having these annual layoffs wouldn't happen 3 weeks before Christman.

I don't think that has much to do with it. If they're just trying to reduce costs to make the year-end numbers look better, they wouldn't do it with so little time left in the fiscal year. If you have a December 31 year-end, and you lay people off just before Christmas, that's not going to help your bottom line, especially when you consider the severance.

[mlund]

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

I don't think that has much to do with it. If they're just trying to reduce costs to make the year-end numbers look better, they wouldn't do it with so little time left in the fiscal year. If you have a December 31 year-end, and you lay people off just before Christmas, that's not going to help your bottom line, especially when you consider the severance.

Indeed. Rather, you'd be better served by keeping the footprint the severance package leaves on your financial statements off the books for the next fiscal year. Coming up short in 2008 is a problem. Not having a good financial projection for 2009, however, compounds the problem immensely. Publicly traded companies have a lot riding on their annual fiscal reports. A poorly designed fiscal report can cause massive short-term capital losses for your shareholders just due to stock prices. Shareholders (especially Income and Fix-Income investors) hate massive short-term screw-ups in stock prices.

- Marty Lund

[gribble]

Originally Posted by mlund

The moment someone else (or something else) comes along who can perform your tasks more ably or at the same level of ability (and I include trustworthiness and experience as relevant components in my definition of ability) but for less money the company should make plans to move you to a different job or lay you off.

I agree 100%. I didn't think this needed to be stated. I certainly wouldn't be going into a position thinking there was someone else who could do the job better than I could, and if it was later brought to my attention that someone else could do my job better than I could, I wouldn't be willing to try and keep it - I'd be finding something (inside the company or elsewhere) more suited to my talents.

Originally Posted by mlund

I try and approach each day as if I'm trying to get hired anew rather than just serving time in a position that "belongs" to me.

As do I. Frankly, as far as I'm concerned anyone just "serving time" isn't really willing or capable of doing their job anymore, as I can't think of many (if any) jobs where it's a core requirement of the position...

Again, I didn't think it needed to be stated that striving to do the best job you can and being passionate about what you're doing were prerequisites for being considered capable in your job.

[seankreynolds]

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

I don't think that has much to do with it. If they're just trying to reduce costs to make the year-end numbers look better, they wouldn't do it with so little time left in the fiscal year. If you have a December 31 year-end, and you lay people off just before Christmas, that's not going to help your bottom line, especially when you consider the severance.

So we're in agreement that the timing is poor, as well as stupid.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by seankreynolds

So we're in agreement that the timing is poor, as well as stupid.

If that's the reason, then yes. If they're doing it just to improve the financials, they did a poor job of it.

[Scribble]

Originally Posted by seankreynolds

3) Changing their fiscal year to something other that Jan-Dec means that having these annual layoffs wouldn't happen 3 weeks before Christman.

That would be kind of tough to do though. Aren't the pretty much universal accounting quarters? Wouldn't that mean all businesses would then have to change to account for Christmas?

Layoffs suck, and I agree it's a crappy way to make the numbers work, but I'm not sure changing the fiscal quarters would be all that easy...