WotC's Annual Xmas Layoffs

[Incenjucar]

I expect that, in the US, we take it much worse. Keep in mind that we have a terrible support structure, and little respect for our artists in many circles.

 

[S'mon]

I expect that, in the US, we take it much worse. Keep in mind that we have a terrible support structure, and little respect for our artists in many circles.

Reading "State of the Mongoose", I saw Matt Sprange does the typical thing for UK companies in bad times and boasts of their efforts to *avoid* redundancies. It seems like (many) US companies measure their virility by how many employees they've laid off.

 

[delericho]

Well, that sucks. Best of luck to those who were let go - hopefully they will quickly find themselves with better employment.

 

[delericho]

This sucks.

I hope those affected are able to find new, and better, employment in the near future. Good luck!

 

[3catcircus]

Reading "State of the Mongoose", I saw Matt Sprange does the typical thing for UK companies in bad times and boasts of their efforts to *avoid* redundancies. It seems like (many) US companies measure their virility by how many employees they've laid off.

Not really - its just the short-sighted "we're focused on next quarter's profits" mentality amongst the MBA set entrenched in middle and upper management at many US companies.

Letting people go to eliminate redundancies as part of a long-range plan is one thing, but artificially making your performance appear better at the end of the year by letting go people who are necessary for the long-term performance of your business is, and always has been, just plain stupid.

The best way to go about setting the number of positions within the company is to use a combination of attrition (not filling positions as they are vacated by employees retiring, quitting, promoting, or laterally moving within the company) and targeted shuffling of positions from one department (with an excess) to another (with an unfilled position).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Thats a thing to do. I see this every year , eventually I forget about it but then it comes up again. It's uncalled for to do this right before christmas or whatever holiday.

I am sure there is some perfectly logical and totally cold-hearted accounting reason why it has to be Christmas.

 

[IronWolf]

Hasbro's fiscal year-end is December 26th, IIRC. It has everything to do with budgeting for the next fiscal year.

This happens every year. They can adjust the budget as necessary to do layoffs they deem necessary at a time of year that doesn't seem so ruthless. No one likes layoffs. For some reason WotC feels they need to do them annually. There is no magic even to the end of a fiscal year that prevents them from budgeting appropriately and doing annual layoffs in the spring.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Sorry to see both layoffs.


Can anyone explain what the advantage is to the company to lay people off riiiiiight before the end of the company's fisal year?

I mean, as much as I dislike what happens on an emotional level with layoffs, if the positions need to be eliminated, why isn't that known in, say August?

Is it a balancing of the books that makes it apparent at this time of year that positions must be eliminated? Is it just looking good at the year end report?



I guess what I don't understand is the monetary motivation for doing so on a regular basis, with multiple employees, and always at this time of year...rather than on a more "as needed" or "this position has just become unneeded" basis wherein people are laid off one at a time (or more ideally, moved to other positions within the company/given new projects to use their considerable talents on).

 

[Remus Lupin]

This happens every year. They can adjust the budget as necessary to do layoffs they deem necessary at a time of year that doesn't seem so ruthless. No one likes layoffs. For some reason WotC feels they need to do them annually. There is no magic even to the end of a fiscal year that prevents them from budgeting appropriately and doing annual layoffs in the spring.

Or hey, here's a thought: How about coming up with a business model that allows you to sustain roughly the same level of employment for multiple years in a row, thus making layoffs a relative rarity instead of your special holiday gift to your employees.

Crazy, I know.

 

[talok55]

It actually, doesn't make any economic sense, in the long run.

When you let experienced people go and end up hiring them back as freelancers, you can save a few bucks. Eventually, though, they'll likely re-hire some of them as full-time employees, at which point any savings realized from letting them go are wiped out by the larger salary you have to pay them when you re-hire them. Not to mention all the extra overhead of processing them back into your HR systems.

They don't generally hire people back. They just keep laying people off continuously. Monte Cook is the only one I know of that they hired back. I don't know how they have enough people to do anything anymore. They must rely almost entirely on freelancers. I think labeling WotC as an evil corporation is not at all out of line. I hope karma comes back and smacks them down big time.