What’s happening there? Long time employees are suddenly out sick for extended periods of time due to stress and horrible leadership. Not just one, several.Any insights?
88 replies (most recent on top)
@e9n Ha ha!!!!! Finally…….. a department is not safe !!!!! LOL
Let’s count the seconds before we hear again from the old guy. :)
@e9n was this recently?
@27d Art & Scenics/Print Center lost at least half of their people in a round of layoffs. What’s that about being protected? Oh right, you actually have no idea who is in those departments and what they do.
Related?
AI Ki-led My Job: Translators
Few industries have been hit by AI as hard as translation. Rates are plummeting. Work is drying up. Translators are considering abandoning the field, or bankruptcy. These are their stories.
https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/ai-ki-led-my-job-translators
The Art Department, which is safe, is the department with all the artists. There are certainly more than 3 or 12 people in it. There are probably 125 by now.
@1v3 there is no where close to 125 people in the Art Department! There is about 3 people that work full time on Art and framing and installation. That whole department is around 10-12 people but they make all the booths for all the shows. All signs around campus. All your company awards etc. There are some freaking geniuses that work over there. SAS will be in trouble when and if TR ever retires, let’s just put it that way! I’ve worked adjacent to them and they make great quality sets etc.
@3jp+1jzq0haak Both assertions can be true at the same time…
Imagine being so basic that you use a completely unrelated comment to somehow mean thelayoff.com doesn’t have an intelligence problem.
@3fc+1jzq0haak
Stupidity isn't thelayoff.com's problem. Imagine a multi-billion dollar company with decades of first-mover advantage, an earned reputation as the "premium" option, a billion dollars to invest in the future of the company, and a management team with the complete support of the company's founder and CEO. Now imagine that the only way the company's management team can turn that into a return on investment and maintain profitability is a series of early retirements and reductions-in-force.
Imagine having to have this explained to you. Now that's stupid.
“ Be thankful because you would not make the cut lol.”
If only. Ignorance is bliss.
@3fc Be thankful because you would not make the cut lol.
There honestly needs to be a spin-off of thelayoff.com that screens for stupidity before allowing anyone in.
Don't throw too much shade on the Art Department because at least it did not get some corny look at me name like Jim's Art Product(J-P) Unlike the other junping John pet....
Nobody likes a teacher's pet, except the fellow teacher's pets.
The joke always makes me laugh! And to think that it bothers someone enough to complain makes me laugh harder.
There's a truth to it that you don't want to acknowledge -- perhaps that's what bothers you about it.
Thanks for the laugh!
Ho ho ho the art department is safe!
Zip it with that tired joke. It wasn't funny before and it still isn't.
TheLayoff can be sued, and forced to reveal our "anonymous" IP addresses. For this reason, TheLayoff policies quite reasonably prohibits personal comments that might arguably be defamatory.
https://www.thelayoff.com/rules.php
That's one reason people tend to use initials or titles or nicknames rather than names (although, not being a lawyer, I don't know what effect that has).
A few days ago, a thread was started about IDeaS, a SAS company, attacking each and every member of its leadership team. The author did a truly blistering and thorough job. The moderators quickly deleted it.
Some comments get deleted if they break the site rules in some way, I think.
@2kn The arts are a personal charity of the CEO and his wife. They donate to the NC Museum of Art. They also donate by purchasing art for SAS.
They are entitled to donate to any cause they chose, anywhere they choose.
You believe they should only donate outside the company they own.
But it’s their money. It’s not yours to say how they should donate.
"Companies must make money, so they try to give resources to divisions that perform better than the rest, and cut those that perform worse."
It is a relief to hear that the Art Department is cutting the mustard! I was begin to think they were a zero revenue area.
Just noticed certain comments have been deleted from this discussion. Isn't that .... curious.
@2g2 Actually, in the real world, companies do not generally try to cut fat in every division. Performance matters. Companies must make money, so they try to give resources to divisions that perform better than the rest, and cut those that perform worse.
Intel, years ago, shut down its memory chip business, because it was not performing well. More recently, they shut down their automotive chip business for the same reason.
IBM famously invented the IBM PC business, and then exited it. Once the clone manufacturers came in, that business stopped performing well.
Microsoft recently laid off from its Windows and Office units. Those are surely profitable, but they believe they can make more profit elsewhere.
Warner Bros. Discovery recently shut down multiple video games, including Wonder Woman. They want to focus resources on better performing titles such as Harry Potter.
SAS sometimes acts like the real world. They shut down their Retail Division. It was a good move; that Division never made money.
Under current conditions at SAS, it’s best to work in JMP, Fraud, Risk, or some other Division that is important and performing well. There is surely fat in every Division, but the ones performing better are safer than the ones performing worse.
"There is fat in JMP, of course; there’s fat in every department. But as long as JMP is doing better than the rest of SAS, a rational management will not look there to cut costs."
In a public company in the real world, fat is fat and cutting any fat would be mandated by the BOD when cuts are necessary. Neen there, seen it, and "Doing better than the rest" doesn't factor into it.
@27d "When trying to cut expenses, the luxury stuff that does not generate revenue usually goes first."
At my orientation, they made a big deal out of how everyone worked for SAS. And as my years went on, I noticed housekeeping got outsourced; then the cafe people in the renovated R and new cafes in Q, C, and A; landscaping; reception and security. At the start of the COVID shutdown, my friend in childcare went from working for SAS to working for Bright Horizons. Sometimes I'm surprised they haven't cut more from the RFC.
@27d “JMP… is also protected.”
There’s no evidence for that. As long as JMP makes its numbers, there is no reason to do layoffs there.
SAS Revenue per Employee: $3B / 12,000 = $250,000
JMP Revenue per Employee: $150M / 500 = $300,000
There is fat in JMP, of course; there’s fat in every department. But as long as JMP is doing better than the rest of SAS, a rational management will not look there to cut costs.
If and when that happens, we expect you to put your money where your mouth is.
(Don't worry...this won't happen)
What Business Owner would knowingly have a non-productive department on staff? They hire Business Analysts to look for areas where expenses can be cut, and cashflow improved.
Come to think of it, I don't recall encountering any Business Analysts in my time at SAS. I did at all the other companies I worked at.
“Defending the indefensible looks foolish.”
Most posts on here sound foolish.
"Yet people disparage these two departments, while the problem lies in the other 94%."
They are not mutually exclusive. When trying to cut expenses, the luxury stuff that does not generate revenue usually goes first. That would be the Art Department. The fact that it is immune to layoffs suggests it is protected.
At least JMP generates revenue. Only a fool would believe it is fat free. It isn't, but it is also protected.
Those two departments being protected from layoffs can't be bolstering employee morale in the other 94 percent of the company.
Defending the indefensible looks foolish.
@234+1jzq0haak I would. Show the conversation we are talking about.
If those with little knowledge of the real inner workings and decision making commented with effusive, but undeserved praise, would you feel the need to correct them?
“ This forum is so fascinating—little acknowledgement of an issue, but loads of defending the status quo.”
It is fascinating. Little knowledge of real inner workings and decision making but quick to attack anything and everything SAS related and label anyone who calls it out as a defender.
This forum is so fascinating—little acknowledgement of an issue, but loads of defending the status quo.
The Art Department is the department with all the artists. That other department hangs and cleans paintings.
“ Given any other company, what Business Analyst would state "oh, that department adds no value, but it's simply a rounding error in the scheme of things." None of them. ”
That is why they are business analysts instead of business owners.
I would give you lists of companies that have such departments but you are incapable of processing anything other than art department bad.
"There's probably 125 people in the Art Department… Not a rounding error.”
I stand corrected also; am surprised it’s that large.
Still, The Art Department is only ~1% of the headcount of SAS, and JMP only ~5%.
Yet people disparage these two departments, while the problem lies in the other 94%.
"There's probably 125 people in the Art Department, each with a fully loaded cost exceeding $100k+. Not a rounding error."
Yikes! I had zero clue. I thought it was a couple of people who procured artwork for campus. So, I stand corrected.
There's probably 125 people in the Art Department, each with a fully loaded cost exceeding $100k+. Not a rounding error.
Given any other company, what Business Analyst would state "oh, that department adds no value, but it's simply a rounding error in the scheme of things." None of them. There's no such thing as rounding errors. There is "revenue generating" and "overhead". The "Art Department" is overhead. They produce "art" for products that don't sell; it's simply for show.
as many comments have said in these threads, probably easy ability for heirs who will have the actual equity to liquidate and divide assets. employees who stick around for whatever odd reason able to be paid well until retirement or being laid off or finding a better gig (seems unrealistic they would benefit from IPO or acquisition).
@1sa I can think of happy endings, but I cannot think of one that is likely.
Let's see what others think. I put your query in a new thread:
https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1k0j468cb