layoffs?

[TheGM]

Nope. But many people work hard. Not everyone has the same benefits. This makes certain people more, some times much more privileged that others. This situation draws bad feelings and I am sure you can understand it.

Understand it? Yeah. Have the same understanding as you do? Not likely. I'm into the whole "level of responsibility" thing. Haven't found the company that I'd want to be responsible for heading/destroying, so I'm not too worked up that the CEO makes X times more than me. Simply put, the counter person at McDonalds doesn't deserve the benefits that the CEO gets. It's all about level of impact. Sorry, it's true.

But we've sidetracked their thread enough...

Don.

 

[Mistwell]

Last month, U.S. employers cut 533K jobs, the most in 34 years. The last time this many people were laid off in a single month, it was the Ford administration I believe. The U.S. is also in the worst financial crisis since the 1930s.

Given those facts, I think too many people are naively assuming these layoffs are not the result of the general economy. You can make up excuses out of anger like "poorly run" and "greedy" and "didn't prepare" and "does this every year". But realistically, the U.S. is in a serious economic crises that was unexpected (it started on a specific date - when Lehman Brothers went under). Economic recessions have a direct, fast impact on hobby industries as people cut back on their purchases (and people have cut way back on their purchases in general, and that is provable).

The primary cause of these layoffs, or at least the extent of these layoffs, is probably due to circumstances entirely beyond the control of WOTC, and that is the sudden financial crises and recession. And when that happens, companies have to lay people off or else fall into the red. Which is exactly what thousands of companies did last month, to an extent unseen in 34 years. It's not a coincidence that all those companies did the same thing as WOTC. They are reacting to a real, tangible economic crises.

 

[Melba Toast]

Understand it? Yeah. Have the same understanding as you do? Not likely. I'm into the whole "level of responsibility" thing. Haven't found the company that I'd want to be responsible for heading/destroying, so I'm not too worked up that the CEO makes X times more than me. Simply put, the counter person at McDonalds doesn't deserve the benefits that the CEO gets. It's all about level of impact. Sorry, it's true.

Don.

Perhaps not... but I don't think the point is to compare CEOs to fry cooks.

Rather, the point, if I understand correctly, is that the CEOs and Executive Staff often lack the insight or the passion that the -CREATIVE STAFF- do, and that -CREATIVE STAFF- most often get the shaft.

In the current market economy, creativity is dramatically undervalued. Creatives are the people who innovate, the people who find new solutions. Historically, it has been the creative that has driven the economy as society's entrepreneurs and artisans. Unfortunately, creatives today rarely have the business acumen or the financial foundation to be self-employed or maintain control of their product. So they turn ownership over to exploiters, the businessman.

Of course, the best thing a government can do to stimulate the economy is to stop sending money to the major businesses and start putting more funding toward small-business grants, post-secondary and adult education for self-employment training.

But, of course, there's no lobby group for that.

(PS - Fry cooks get paid exceptionally well considering the required skill level)

 

[Psion]

Last month,
Given those facts, I think too many people are naively assuming these layoffs are not the result of the general economy. You can make up excuses out of anger like "poorly run" and "greedy" and "didn't prepare" and "does this every year". But realistically, the U.S. is in a serious economic crises that was unexpected (it started on a specific date - when Lehman Brothers went under).

Sure. But just like predators claiming the sickly and weak from the herd, and certain vulnerable segments aside, economic downturn job losses impact the most poorly run companies first.

 

[xechnao]

Understand it? Yeah. Have the same understanding as you do? Not likely. I'm into the whole "level of responsibility" thing. Haven't found the company that I'd want to be responsible for heading/destroying, so I'm not too worked up that the CEO makes X times more than me. Simply put, the counter person at McDonalds doesn't deserve the benefits that the CEO gets. It's all about level of impact. Sorry, it's true.

But we've sidetracked their thread enough...

Don.

Oh I see the results all around. So can we say they have they done a good job?

So who has the responsability for the financial mess and the hit to the economy? Have they at the very, very least been punished? Not to speak about the lawyers they can afford these golden guys.

 

[firesnakearies]

Wow, your brush is a little broad there, no?
Sure, Enron happened, but it's such a memory for everyone because it doesn't happen all the time, not because it's the norm.

Or because they just don't get caught all the time.

I think people were shocked less about what unethical actions actually occurred, and more about the fact that the people involved managed to let themselves face accountability for it.


Call me a cynic, but I don't think there's any realistic push in the upper echelons of our economic/social system to "do less wrong", but just to "hide it better".



$

 

[Mistwell]

Sure. But just like predators claiming the sickly and weak from the herd, and certain vulnerable segments aside, economic downturn job losses impact the most poorly run companies first.

Or the industries most vulnerable to a sudden and unexpected reduction in spending.

It's a hobby company. When people cut spending suddenly, hobbies are almost sure to be near the top of the list. Buying a new D&D book is always in the "discretionary spending" category for everyone except those who actually work in the industry.

I don't see how this has anything to do with how well or poorly WOTC is run. There is no good functioning business plan that assumes every month will be an economic crises unseen in our lifetimes that smacks your company particularly hard. Sometimes, life throws a company a serious curve ball, and the only realistic way to roll with it and stay above water is to lay people off. It looks to me like that is what happened here.

It's not like WOTC had no reserves to deal with a "normal" economic issue - they did, and you can see they are spending some of those reserves in severance checks to those they are laying off (something they are under no obligation to do). But to pretend there is an realistic business plan that could absorb a massive sudden hit this big without WOTC cutting spending is naive.

My guess is we have not even seen the last of the layoffs at WOTC, and another waive will hit again in a few months. This is not normal stuff they are having to deal with, and it's probably going to get worse. I'd rather WOTC do what is necessary to stay above water, then have them try and cling to every employee until they go belly up.

 

[Melba Toast]

. There is no good functioning business plan that assumes every month will be an economic crises unseen in our lifetimes that smacks your company particularly hard.

I don't know. I think a lot of businesses are using the "economic crisis" as an excuse to cut the fat. I don't really think WotC have been, nor will they be, that adversely affected by a crisis that is primarily a concern to the financial industry, the luxury industry, housing and auto industries.

Role-playing has weathered 3 decades by appealing to a core demographic (young males) who, as a group, have never had much significant buying power. A lot of us have never even managed to hold down a steady job, nor do we particularly care if we lose the ones we have.

Anyway, the economic crisis is a bunch of b.s. It'll pass just as soon as the banks get their money. (I mean, honestly, do you really think the bank was just being stupid when they gave that $400,000 mortgage to the single mother of two based on her salary as a cashier at Walmart. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing!)

 

[Wonka]

Anyway, the economic crisis is a bunch of b.s. It'll pass just as soon as the banks get their money. (I mean, honestly, do you really think the bank was just being stupid when they gave that $400,000 mortgage to the single mother of two based on her salary as a cashier at Walmart. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing!)

(emphasis mine)

Yes, yes I do. If you are implying they purposely gave out lending they knew was a bad idea, solely to get bail out money, all I have to say is wow. Just, wow. Because thats my interpretation of your post, This crisis is the worst the US has seen since the 1930s, and you are calling it B.S? Ok then! Im sorry if I have misunderstood you.

 

[justanobody]

The fact that banks got the money and not the people is the BS, because people laid off could be using the money, while the banks won't lend to people that have recently been laid off as they have no collateral the bank can steal claim should the loan not be repaid.