Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tomBitonti" data-source="post: 5924409" data-attributes="member: 13107">What constitutes a &quot;firing&quot; vs. what constitutes a &quot;layoff&quot; is a technical/legal detail.&nbsp; Without know the specific details of each of the listed cases, all I know is that there was a termination of employment.&nbsp; The actual detail could have been a layoff, a firing (without cause), a firing (with cause), a resignation, or maybe some other variation that I can't think of.Layoffs can be&nbsp; built in to the employment process.&nbsp; If a work environment is &quot;competitive&quot;, with folks who consistently reviewing on the lower end of the scale being at risk for losing their job.&nbsp; That is, I don't agree that a layoff is necessarily a mistake.&nbsp; Although, there are better and worse ways to manage the details.&nbsp; Slow adjustments over time (folks retire, or move to new positions, or take leave), without there being new hires, will create a downward trend, and will remove the need for a termination.&nbsp; That is up to a degree.&nbsp; Business priorities shift, along with that particular employment needs.&nbsp; A savvy employee is looking ahead to adapt themself to the incoming changes.On the other hand, abrupt employment actions (&quot;firings&quot;) can mean that the employees (and perhaps the business) are being badly managed.&nbsp; That is very possible.&nbsp; I just don't have particular evidence to show that that is the case.&nbsp; I am definitely not here looking to be a Hasbro advocate: I detest their business strategy, for various reasons, which I don't think are appropriate to present here.&nbsp; But I don't find a strong reason to dislike Hasbro simply based on the fact of the firings.Thx!TomB</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tomBitonti, post: 5924409, member: 13107"] What constitutes a "firing" vs. what constitutes a "layoff" is a technical/legal detail. Without know the specific details of each of the listed cases, all I know is that there was a termination of employment. The actual detail could have been a layoff, a firing (without cause), a firing (with cause), a resignation, or maybe some other variation that I can't think of. Layoffs can be built in to the employment process. If a work environment is "competitive", with folks who consistently reviewing on the lower end of the scale being at risk for losing their job. That is, I don't agree that a layoff is necessarily a mistake. Although, there are better and worse ways to manage the details. Slow adjustments over time (folks retire, or move to new positions, or take leave), without there being new hires, will create a downward trend, and will remove the need for a termination. That is up to a degree. Business priorities shift, along with that particular employment needs. A savvy employee is looking ahead to adapt themself to the incoming changes. On the other hand, abrupt employment actions ("firings") can mean that the employees (and perhaps the business) are being badly managed. That is very possible. I just don't have particular evidence to show that that is the case. I am definitely not here looking to be a Hasbro advocate: I detest their business strategy, for various reasons, which I don't think are appropriate to present here. But I don't find a strong reason to dislike Hasbro simply based on the fact of the firings. Thx! TomB [/QUOTE]

Verification