There are literally hundreds of openings just in the US, some of them published this month. Can somebody please explain to me why wouldn't they simply put a freeze on hiring instead of bringing on all these people just to have major layoffs a month or two later?
Where is the logic in that?
When talk of layoffs came up, I’ve seen managers competing with their employees to see who would get to keep their jobs. The managers controlled access to important information that would help employees do their jobs (and were able to withhold that information), and the managers provided annual reviews of those same employees. Guess who had the advantage there? Some of those same managers have been demoted to fill the positions they opened by laying off those employees.
I (and probably many others like me) have been replaced by a "new position" into which they hired a younger person who earns less.
I feel bad for anyone about to be hired there, or who just got hired. I have been baffled over the past several years by hiring decisions that were simultaneously occurring during layoffs.
Well MGH just fired a few hundred folks today, so there's going to be plenty of headcount available to fill all those "open" positions. From what their site, and the news services are reporting the DOJ is demanding quite a bit of divestment of key author/titles on the MGH side to merge.
How many “why would Pearson,” questions do we all have?!
The fact is the leadership at Pearson is TERRIBLE. And it’s been terrible for a decade. The terrible decisions are just now hitting...and compounding exponentially.
There is literally ZERO vision at the top and all of the VPs, DMs, etc just accept the BS that flows down stream as marching orders with zero push back in an effort to preserve their own neck and paycheck.
Once you start the process of leaving or have an exit strategy, this all becomes SO clear and leaves you with a twinge of symphony for real talent that is too young or doesn’t understand what a professional time s— Pearson is. I honestly wish these issues were obvious when I was a young(er) professional.
@12V good point. "Let's use warm bodies to create a perception of growth to our investors (deception) and then send them on their way", nothing surprising here, but hey, give me my guaranteed $$ RB
Perception of growth? Pearson is a publicly traded company.
I mean both McGraw & Cengage we’re hiring like crazy knowing full well they would merge and have to lay off a ton of people.
What was the logic in people being hired spring 2018 and let go June 2018?