11–20 of 57 posts
Layoffs are never fun... sad :( For the more biz-minded commenters out there: does laying off sales + recruiting signal a specific scenario (other than the obvious recent legal woes)? Rather than laying off engineers?
> Human resources and insurance software startup Zenefits > has announced that 250 employees are being made redundant, > representing 17 percent of the company’s workforce. Before "being made redundant' became empty buzzspeak, it had a very specific meaning: When things are restructured in such a way that two people end up doing the same job, one becomes redundant. For example, if you have an in-house recruiting team…
Similarly, if a catalog transitions to a website once that's done the legacy catalog team could simply be redundant.
Layoffs are never fun... sad :( For the more biz-minded commenters out there: does laying off sales + recruiting signal a specific scenario (other than the obvious recent legal woes)? Rather than laying off engineers?
Some possibilities are: 1. They have been trying to automate their sales infrastructure so less staffing needs. 2. Business is down but they feel confident to work on the product development.
> Human resources and insurance software startup Zenefits > has announced that 250 employees are being made redundant, > representing 17 percent of the company’s workforce. Before "being made redundant' became empty buzzspeak, it had a very specific meaning: When things are restructured in such a way that two people end up doing the same job, one becomes redundant. For example, if you have an in-house recruiting team…
> In this case, the company is laying off a lot of its sales force and recruiting team while mumbling further content-free buzzwords about refocusing its strategy. Meaning, they aren't growing any more, so they won't be selling as much or recruiting as much.
Given that affected parts of the company are those most directly implicated in the regulatory violations that have produced the immediate problems, I wonder if there isn't another level of spin here, and whether this isn't more a set of firings to purge the problem units than a layoff.
> Human resources and insurance software startup Zenefits > has announced that 250 employees are being made redundant, > representing 17 percent of the company’s workforce. Before "being made redundant' became empty buzzspeak, it had a very specific meaning: When things are restructured in such a way that two people end up doing the same job, one becomes redundant. For example, if you have an in-house recruiting team…
Not necessarily. If MS decides to build Windows 12 from the ground up they may have a separate team work on Windows 11. After that project is done most of the Windows 11 team would be redundant. Edit: They even did something like this with NT 4.0, ME, and XP. Similarly, if a catalog transitions to a website once that's done the legacy catalog team could simply be redundant.
If buggy-whips were to disappear as a business because Buggy 2.0 (a/k/a the automobile) comes along, it was not commonplace to say that buggy -whip manufacturers or their employees were "redundant," but to say they were "obsolete."
That seems closer to the Windows 12 vs. Windows 11 teams analogy to me.
> Human resources and insurance software startup Zenefits > has announced that 250 employees are being made redundant, > representing 17 percent of the company’s workforce. Before "being made redundant' became empty buzzspeak, it had a very specific meaning: When things are restructured in such a way that two people end up doing the same job, one becomes redundant. For example, if you have an in-house recruiting team…
I think "made redundant" has been the British term for laid off for quite a while; though this is, IME, far less common in American usage. I think the distinction you are positing between them could be a good one to make, but I don't think its one that has ever been consistently applied in general usage of the terms in reference to business. > In this case, the company is laying off a lot of its sales force and recru…
> Human resources and insurance software startup Zenefits > has announced that 250 employees are being made redundant, > representing 17 percent of the company’s workforce. Before "being made redundant' became empty buzzspeak, it had a very specific meaning: When things are restructured in such a way that two people end up doing the same job, one becomes redundant. For example, if you have an in-house recruiting team…
I think "made redundant" has been the British term for laid off for quite a while; though this is, IME, far less common in American usage. I think the distinction you are positing between them could be a good one to make, but I don't think its one that has ever been consistently applied in general usage of the terms in reference to business. > In this case, the company is laying off a lot of its sales force and recru…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think "made redundant" has been the British term for laid off for quite a while; though this is, IME, far less common in American usage. I think the distinction you are positing between them could be a good one to make, but I don't think its one that has ever been consistently applied in general usage of the terms in reference to business. > In this case, the company is laying off a lot of its sales force and recru…
Normally in British English the phrase "made redundant" implies there is a payment made to the departing employees, normally of several months salary. The phrases "sacked", "fired" and "let go" do not imply that. It is unclear which applies from the article - it sounds like lay-offs in prose, but the words "made redundant" muddy this.
The same is generally true in American English, with "laid off" replacing "made redundant" and "sacked" being uncommon for the other alternative (but "fired" and "let go" being quite common.)
From the CEO: " These changes are almost entirely in the Sales organization, with about a dozen employees in Recruiting. "
I wonder how many of them were thrown under the bus for cheating on the insurance broker licensing exam using Conrad's script.
This means companies still view their engineering workforces as "scarce" and hard to get, because they aren't paying market wages. Why is it only sales that gets the ax?