Live data from Hacker News

GM offers buyouts to ‘majority’ of U.S. salaried workers

cnbc.com

11–20 of 54 posts

Re: GM offers buyouts to ‘majority’ of U.S. salaried workers

#11
post #7

Maybe I miss the point, but why wouldn’t the ones that easily find a job (or maybe even have a next job at hand) take the payout for extra money while the ones that desperately don’t do any work or are not performing would stay? Wouldn’t this result in the wrong outcome?

CEO is not a visionary, not even a leader. Few are. Just an accountant. Probably a bad one too.

Re: GM offers buyouts to ‘majority’ of U.S. salaried workers

#12
post #7

Maybe I miss the point, but why wouldn’t the ones that easily find a job (or maybe even have a next job at hand) take the payout for extra money while the ones that desperately don’t do any work or are not performing would stay? Wouldn’t this result in the wrong outcome?

Correct.

It's the only legal option though. "We're gonna lay off all the lazy ones in bulk" gets you into trouble

Re: GM offers buyouts to ‘majority’ of U.S. salaried workers

#13
post #7

Maybe I miss the point, but why wouldn’t the ones that easily find a job (or maybe even have a next job at hand) take the payout for extra money while the ones that desperately don’t do any work or are not performing would stay? Wouldn’t this result in the wrong outcome?

[deleted]

Re: GM offers buyouts to ‘majority’ of U.S. salaried workers

#15
post #7

Maybe I miss the point, but why wouldn’t the ones that easily find a job (or maybe even have a next job at hand) take the payout for extra money while the ones that desperately don’t do any work or are not performing would stay? Wouldn’t this result in the wrong outcome?

You're not missing the point, though maybe it won't go as badly for a older company like GM. I got to witness this failed strategy first hand at AOL around 2010.

The people who opted into the VSP were the ones who could easily find another job, and were happy to take the money. Some of them even came right back in a consulting role after a 2 month cooling off period. The people who never even considered the offer were the low performers who knew they were getting paid far more than they could hope to command on the open job market.

GM already has a list of employees they have considered laying off to cut costs. They're hopeful that the people who volunteer are mostly on this list. Now GM can refuse to accept volunteers who they consider critical to business operations. Those people should immediately demand large pay raises.

That being said, this is pretty shitty severance package, especially since it's only being offered to people with 5 years or more of service. Unless you know you can find another job quickly why would you take a 5-12 months of pay with no extra benefits? (COBRA is about the most expensive way I can imagine to pay for private health insurance for many people.)

I suspect the worst case scenario for GM is they are about to have a ton of experienced and competent employees with important institutional knowledge walk out the door, and find themselves left with a bunch of new hires that aren't really sure how to keep the business operating at corporate.

Re: GM offers buyouts to ‘majority’ of U.S. salaried workers

#17
post #7

Maybe I miss the point, but why wouldn’t the ones that easily find a job (or maybe even have a next job at hand) take the payout for extra money while the ones that desperately don’t do any work or are not performing would stay? Wouldn’t this result in the wrong outcome?

Oh wow you actually see people as individuals!

It's often a numbers game and where anyone that passes the interview at the same level = the same so to them (management) it's just about reducing the numbers. No 1 is better or worse so it makes no difference who goes.

Re: GM offers buyouts to ‘majority’ of U.S. salaried workers

#18
post #7

Maybe I miss the point, but why wouldn’t the ones that easily find a job (or maybe even have a next job at hand) take the payout for extra money while the ones that desperately don’t do any work or are not performing would stay? Wouldn’t this result in the wrong outcome?

Is there a way to easily target layoffs at under performers?

I've never seen layoffs done well. The selection has always seemed somewhat arbitrary, and not through want of trying.

Re: GM offers buyouts to ‘majority’ of U.S. salaried workers

#19
post #7

Maybe I miss the point, but why wouldn’t the ones that easily find a job (or maybe even have a next job at hand) take the payout for extra money while the ones that desperately don’t do any work or are not performing would stay? Wouldn’t this result in the wrong outcome?

Maybe they didn’t offer buyouts to the ones that they want to keep around.

Re: GM offers buyouts to ‘majority’ of U.S. salaried workers

#20
post #2

> General Motors will offer voluntary buyouts to a “majority” of its 58,000 U.S. white-collar employees, > The buyout offer comes after the Detroit automaker said last week it would terminate about 500 salaried positions globally. How does that work? The only sensible explanations I currently see is that either there's some new technology that replaces _hundreds_ of people or that... they had _hundreds_ of people tha…

It’s a forcing function. In the army people get shot and you fill the gap somehow. Same concept here. They squeeze and the remaining people deal with it as best they can.

Remember these companies are run by Excel. They kicked themselves in the ass when the pandemic started by shutting down and running “We’ll miss you” ads. This is a similar, equally dumb move.

Post reply on HN