I have nothing against hiring in general, but with several layoffs already this year and talk of even more, why do we keep adding more employees? Shouldn't there be a hiring freeze until they're done with cuts? It kind of makes no sense to lay off a bunch of people to supposedly cut costs and then turn around and hire more. Where's the cost saving in that?
6 replies (most recent on top)
@qg - Nice observation. I was the oldest person in my department let go in the January cut. Also, probably, the highest paid. There were other things going on as well. I'd been working with a lawyer and the EEOC and had a pretty solid case if I wished to pursue it. But, when the new administration canned the Equal Employment Opportunity Act for federal employees, I figured it would eventually cover private companies as well so I decided against it. Depending on how things go though, I might decide to resurrect my case.
@OP Are these new hires permanent employees or temporary/contract employees? When the first few hiring freezes came into effect that was for a reason. To deceive everyone especially those in IT. Did you notice that soon only contract/temp employees were coming onboard? They're not really temp or contract. They work for the consulting company that will facilitate the offshoring of just about every job in IT. Those hires are learning, taking notes, getting the lay of the land so that when the switch is flipped and US based IT is terminated overnight we can continue running without a hitch.
Also lots of folks are voluntarily leaving. Some are leaving without jobs lined up
Every time they find out there’s a cohort of people near 50 they lay them off to make space for more 23 year olds who’ve known a senior director since they were children.
“Whoops! We fired too many people! Oh well, we can rehire at a lower salary.” - HR
Hiring now makes no sense