It's Almost the Season for WOTC layoff!

[nedjer]

Given that the layoffs have happened regularly in the past, regardless of the many year-to-year variables (good vs. bad economy, late vs. early lifecycle of an edition, heavy vs. light release schedule, etc.), I don't know that these developments alter the picture much. The layoffs aren't a special case that happens only when D&D is "in trouble", they happen every year like clockwork (and they always suck).

An inflexible regime of bleeding out talent as a notional motivational technique - just says so much about the childhood of anyone coming up with such a policy

 

[LordObsidian]

Now wait a minute...

I know it's all well and good to poke fun at Wotc, but the reason why they wait until now to lay off people is very likely connected to the fact that their fiscal year ends in a little more than two months and they have to give people 60 days notice in order to lay them off.

In other words, this time of year is very likely as late as they can possibly go and keep the people upstairs from bugging them.

I mean, it's not like Wizards enjoys laying off people and only do it this time of year to increase dramatic tension. Sheesh.

 

[Alan Shutko]

They probably don't need to give 60 days notice. The WARN act only kicks in if they lay off 50 or more people and if that constitutes 33% of the people at a single site.

I agree that the timing is surely due to the fiscal year. My company has done the exact same thing for the exact same reason. I still think it's very unfortunate and likely to add stress to an already stressful time of year.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Now wait a minute...

I know it's all well and good to poke fun at Wotc, but the reason why they wait until now to lay off people is very likely connected to the fact that their fiscal year ends in a little more than two months and they have to give people 60 days notice in order to lay them off.

In other words, this time of year is very likely as late as they can possibly go and keep the people upstairs from bugging them.

I mean, it's not like Wizards enjoys laying off people and only do it this time of year to increase dramatic tension. Sheesh.

Because they cannot define the boundaries of their own fiscal year?

Sheesh.

 

[Mark CMG]

IMO, it's a despicable business practice that has annual layoffs as part of the business plan.

 

[Umbran]

An inflexible regime of bleeding out talent as a notional motivational technique...

Nedjer, do you have some actual evidence that it is intended as a motivational technique? Have you seen an internal WotC upper-management memo that says, "The whippings will continue until morale improves," or something of the sort?

No?

 

[Umbran]

Because they cannot define the boundaries of their own fiscal year?

Thinking about it for a moment, no, maybe they cannot. It may be that WotC's fiscal year is defined by Hasbro's.

 

[TheYeti1775]

Thinking about it for a moment, no, maybe they cannot. It may be that WotC's fiscal year is defined by Hasbro's.

That would be a correct assumption in my experience.
Many parent companies dictate the FY's of the child companies as to spread the work out on the parent company. It also has the effect of keeping the profit/costs spread through out the year.

-----------
Yeah a perfect world would have no need for annual layoffs but again it is a practice that happens.
I can't begrudge them that and expect them to stay in business.
Because you want to know the alternative.
Not hire the person in the first place.
Which would you rather have, no job or one that each year has a risk of layoffs.
I'm quite sure that many of us would jump at the chance to work at WotC molding our beloved game. But each of us would weigh the fact of continued work versus it prior to jumping on board.

 

[OnlineDM]

Yeah a perfect world would have no need for annual layoffs but again it is a practice that happens.
I can't begrudge them that and expect them to stay in business.
Because you want to know the alternative.
Not hire the person in the first place.

This is dead on. I work for a large corporation, and in a recent business update meeting the CEO flat-out said that, having gone through rounds of layoffs in the past he wants to avoid them in the future. In order to do that, he specifically said that he wants to make it difficult to add staff.

I go back and forth on this, but I ultimately feel okay about my company's approach. If you only hire people that you really NEED, then you're less likely to lay a bunch of people off when belts have to be tightened since you won't have a lot of excess staff.

It sucks for people who are currently looking for jobs, of course, but I think it's an okay strategy (for both companies and workers) in the long run.

 

[Mark CMG]

Yeah a perfect world would have no need for annual layoffs but again it is a practice that happens.
I can't begrudge them that and expect them to stay in business.
Because you want to know the alternative.
Not hire the person in the first place.
Which would you rather have, no job or one that each year has a risk of layoffs.

Reducio ad adsurdum only works if the two extremes you outline are the only options, and suggests that there is no middle ground wherein a less extreme bottomline includes the retention of employees. When layoffs are built into a business plan, it is no longer a matter of risk but rather as an inevitability. I reject your premise, conclusions, and sentiments as highly begrudgable.