Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As a manager I learned that the bottom 10% of your workforce should most likely be terminated. Also never hire the people that have been laid off during the first rounds of a workforce reduction.
It appears that some of us (including me) don't follow the posts in a linear fashion. I quoted:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell
Half of the population is below average. There is no fix for that.
Go after Larry Caldwell as I did for stating he didn't quote a source. His post is without merit. He is the one you want to question.
Are you willfully denying that if you choose any metric, such as intelligence, motivation, employability, emotional stability, strength, courage, Weight, ANYTHING, that, ranged across the 300,000,000 Americans, or the billions of people in the whole world, using YOUR choice of mean, median, or mode, there will be, within statistically acceptible variation, approximately 50% of the population above, and 50% of the population below that mean, median, or mode point? Across such a large 'n', we approximate a bell curve, there is no way around it.
It it not necessary to cite the source of a mathematical truth.
If you do not understand mathematics or statistics, no number of citations can help you.
Last edited by rugrats2001; 02-15-2015 at 09:12 AM..
As a manager I learned that the bottom 10% of your workforce should most likely be terminated. Also never hire the people that have been laid off during the first rounds of a workforce reduction.
Everyone can contribute in some fashion, yet you propose that once they have been laid off that people should be forever unemployable?
Why not just execute them rather than laying them off? It would be far kinder than forcing them into slow dissolution.
This callous and cruel attitude in the name of "it's just business", and "what is best for the company must take precedence" is pure evil.
Even in the most primitive of societies, everyone contributes to the welfare of the tribe. They don't just cast people out into the wild because they don't measure up to some arbitrary standard. Yet we see them as living like animals, and think of ourselves as a superior society?
Originally Posted by txfriend As a manager I learned that the bottom 10% of your workforce should most likely be terminated. Also never hire the people that have been laid off during the first rounds of a workforce reduction.
TheMaleman"Everyone can contribute in some fashion, yet you propose that once they have been laid off that people should be forever unemployable? "
Read carefully. txfriend is correct, and the words you selectively omitted paint a far different image than what you chose to copy. Corps do get rid of the deadwood FIRST in the early rounds of downsizing. They want to function, so they pick those whose absence hurts them least. Why hire those people?
Most idiotic thing I've read in weeks. I don't know anyone, even Obama supporters, who would refer to the job market as an "unstoppable freight train."
The working age population has increased by 8M people since 2007.
The number of jobs has decreased by 500K.
Quote:
The working-age population of persons aged 16 to 65 has jumped by more than 8 million since before President Barack Obama assumed office in 2009. At the same time, the total population in the U.S. has increased by approximately 15 million.
But there are now 531,000 fewer people employed today in the United States than there were in 2007, the year before the start of the global financial meltdown.
Originally Posted by txfriend As a manager I learned that the bottom 10% of your workforce should most likely be terminated. Also never hire the people that have been laid off during the first rounds of a workforce reduction.
TheMaleman"Everyone can contribute in some fashion, yet you propose that once they have been laid off that people should be forever unemployable? "
Read carefully. txfriend is correct, and the words you selectively omitted paint a far different image than what you chose to copy. Corps do get rid of the deadwood FIRST in the early rounds of downsizing. They want to function, so they pick those whose absence hurts them least. Why hire those people?
As per the red text, it maybe be based around company culture. Not every worker is a bad worker in every company. Maybe the boss wanted the moon from a recent hire and not a graduated increase of moving the target. If they want 4 accounts in the first month opened, that maybe a tough metric to reach considering sales cycles. Sure some would but that is far more an exception to the rule rather than the rule.
It's hard to spin facts like these, but the media will try.......
And that is because of a little immigration, millennials entering the workforce (after high school, some college, associates, bachelors, masters or even trades) and the size of the boomer cohort (though they have been in, life expectancy is MUCH higher today than it use to be.) Meanwhile you have DRASTIC downsizing and combining job titles.
In the first round of cuts, the least desirable employees go. Why would someone else want your under-performers? While I agree they may perform well elsewhere, one would not buy a car not running well, thinking "Hey, maybe under these conditions..."
So I can fully understand why an employer does not wish to find out if this under-performance was an anomaly. Perhaps when there are no more high performers available to hire, that changes. Until then, the decision not to hire first cuts is sound.
Originally Posted by txfriend As a manager I learned that the bottom 10% of your workforce should most likely be terminated. Also never hire the people that have been laid off during the first rounds of a workforce reduction.
TheMaleman"Everyone can contribute in some fashion, yet you propose that once they have been laid off that people should be forever unemployable? "
Read carefully. txfriend is correct, and the words you selectively omitted paint a far different image than what you chose to copy. Corps do get rid of the deadwood FIRST in the early rounds of downsizing. They want to function, so they pick those whose absence hurts them least. Why hire those people?
I omitted nothing, thank you.
I take exception to the word never.
And I sincerely hope that you one day experience being classified as "deadwood". Perhaps then you will develop a little empathy.
I'm sure you are convinced that you are so superior it can never happen to you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
