Unconfirmed: More Layoffs at WotC

[Mark]

People saying that they are happy with their jobs, even whilst aware of the possibility of getting laid off is not the same as being happy to be laid off, and it is rather disingenuous to suggest that Jdvn1 was suggesting that was the case.

Backhanded insult removed by Admin. Don't do that, Mark. ~ PCat My apologies. It is, however, rather ridiculous to suggest that people are happy with a corporate policy of "regular, scheduled layoffs" as "a stable way of maintaining a workforce." Do you disagree that he was saying that?

 

[Jdvn1]

That's the essence of what I posted.

So you agree that WotC has both short term and long term goals with D&D, and that it has been profitable?

You may like the practices, I do not, nor do I agree that "regular, scheduled layoffs is a stable way of maintaining a workforce."

Planning the size of your workforce ahead of time is a sign of stability. This is how large businesses are run. You may not be familiar with how large businesses are run.

I've already stated that I don't believe they are morons. I think that's evidence enough that anyone working in a corporation that thinks "regular, scheduled layoffs is a stable way of maintaining a workforce" ought to be keeping one eye on other employment opportunities.

Re this and less productivity:
That doesn't necessarily seem to be supported and might even be untrue if you consider that they took the jobs in the first place.

I've only thus far seen one post that glowingly referred to being laidoff as a happy circumstance.

This has nothing to do with the sentence of mine you quoted. Again: I've only heard that WotC employees are generally happy with their jobs, despite being aware of the employment practices. It is possible to dislike being laid off and yet to have enjoyed your job.

Now you wish to maintain that the non-mentioning of non-firings in other sections of the company is evidence of stability? You have a truly dizzying intellect.

Does that mean you concede that there isn't enough evidence to conclude that the lay offs are confined to the D&D brand, and that to make a claim one way or another is unfounded?

 

[Fifth Element]

It is, however, rather ridiculous to suggest that people are happy with a corporate policy of "regular, scheduled layoffs" as "a stable way of maintaining a workforce."

It seems to work for H&R Block. So it might work for certain businesses.

(Please do not read this as an endorsement for H&R Block. As a tax professional, I could not do that in good conscience.)

 

[Fifth Element]

Another human's well-being is more important than your opinion about a game.

Well said. I'd give you XP, but have done so too recently.

 

[mudbunny]

It is, however, rather ridiculous to suggest that people are happy with a corporate policy of "regular, scheduled layoffs" as "a stable way of maintaining a workforce." Do you disagree that he was saying that?

I don't think that is what was being suggested at all.

I read it as two things existing simultaneously.

1. People enjoying their job at WotC which would be a dream job for most wannabe RPG developers; and
2. people being aware of the regularity of layoffs at WotC.

Edit to add - There is no requirement for people to like the fact that layoffs happen regularly for people to enjoy working at WotC.

Jdvn1 is also saying that regular layoffs are a stable way of maintaining a workforce.

I didn't notice any attempt to imply that people who work at WotC are *happy* with the regular layoffs or that they think that it is the best way to do so.

 

[Fifth Element]

You have a truly dizzying intellect.

Wait till I get going!

 

[mudbunny]

Well said. I'd give you XP, but have done so too recently.

Covered.

 

[Mark]

So you agree that WotC has both short term and long term goals with D&D, and that it has been profitable?

I agree that is what they would like/hope/plan to do. I don't believe the evidence regarding the "regular, scheduled layoffs" supports a claim of "profitable."

Planning the size of your workforce ahead of time is a sign of stability. This is how large businesses are run. You may not be familiar with how large businesses are run.

You think all businesses of the size of WotC has "regular, scheduled layoffs" as "a stable way of maintaining a workforce?"

That doesn't necessarily seem to be supported and might even be untrue if you consider that they took the jobs in the first place.

So, you now claim that anyone who goes to work for WotC is a moron? That's cold, even for you.

This has nothing to do with the sentence of mine you quoted. Again: I've only heard that WotC employees are generally happy with their jobs, despite being aware of the employment practices. It is possible to dislike being laid off and yet to have enjoyed your job.

Like it is possible to enjoy an apple but not enjoy having one shoved down your throat, yet if you are largely sure that to enjoy an apple you have to agree that you will likely have to endure having it shoved down your throat, I am contending that it is considerably less enjoyable.

Does that mean you concede that there isn't enough evidence to conclude that the lay offs are confined to the D&D brand, and that to make a claim one way or another is unfounded?

I am conceding that we agree that the only evidence that exists is that there are "regular, scheduled layoffs" at WotC in the D&D department(s).

 

[Fifth Element]

You think all businesses of the size of WotC has "regular, scheduled layoffs" as "a stable way of maintaining a workforce?"

That doesn't seem to be what he's saying. He's saying that planning your workforce size is an indication of stability. The way in which you achieve the desired size can vary from company to company without invalidating this claim.

So, you now claim that anyone who goes to work for WotC is a moron? That's cold, even for you.

Or it would be, if that's what he were saying. That seems to be a rather serious misrepresentation.

 

[Jdvn1]

I submit that anyone taking a position at WotC is well aware of the regularity of layoffs.

Possibly, but that doesn't mean they spend a significant amount of time considering their options to the extent their productivity suffers. It's not like they make sure they have back-up jobs waiting for them (based on what the Rouse said). Linae Foster described that after layoffs, you grieve and then you get back to work.