I can see the logic in getting rid of older employees who earn more and replacing them with younger and cheaper workers. I don't justify it and I think it's a mistake, but at least I can see the logic behind it. What I don't understand is why hire new people and get rid of them within a year or so just to replace them with somebody new. There is no big save with the pay difference like with the older employees. So what's the logic behind that?
3 replies (most recent on top)
Troll here but HR logic includes hire young and cheap so that when layoffs and firings come we can fire/layoff both old and high salary as well young low salary to balance the appearance that we didn’t just target older folks. But we do. It’s just truth. So young people can find something else quick but older workers can’t. I am not HR but have discovered this after being old and laid off myself. Sucks but true
You are assuming that there is some logic and rationale behind the WFR's and that is a mistake as they are usually just a last minute reaction to quarter end numbers looking bad.
Possibly there are tax breaks for taking on a new person that meets certain criteria and when those tax breaks run out?
I have felt for a long time that DXC sees employees as being utterly replaceable, possibly in some roles they are. A lot of roles have have intangible qualities - people build up networks of contacts that allows things to get done so much quicker, people build up experience of systems and processes that makes them so much more productive than a new starter.
As the saying goes - you can't teach experience - and in many roles that's exactly what you need.