Is anyone in this bizarre but real situation?
8 replies (most recent on top)
You're talking about a some trees and I'm taking about the forest. It's two views of the same situation. Not mutually exclusive.
Post ID: @1wtc+1t9U1Yz6 Wrong Citi "manager". Citi and Employers in general erroneously believe and assume that the position is fungible and other employees can replace the Laidoff/Fired employees and simply step-in and do the work. When the latter are unable to do the work or not as good as the Laidoff/Fired employee Citi then blames the surviving, current employees for not being able to "do their job" or the work that was done by the Laidoff bloke. Citi then needs to search for a new Hire/Svcker and pay them the higher Salary that Citi was Not willing to pay the Laidoff bloke. And so, Citi and Employers lose on several fronts and levels: need to pay a higher base Salary, breaking-in / retraining the new Hire/Svcker, the new Hire/Svcker needs to learn Citi's ways, processes, procedures and culture (which are All Fvcked Up), etc..
They let people go, see what breaks, see if it matters that it broke, and if so, they'll hire back that position. You're witnessing the relatively rare case where it broke and it mattered. They may pay more for that spot, but have come out way ahead overall because most situations don't meet those two conditions.
Its like getting rid of the firewall admin. No one sees what it takes to make things run smooth. Because things are running well, its assumed “its all easy”. They never hear of any issues because its all being handled. So, they let the firewall admin go…then later…there’s a scramble to hire a firewall admin. They dare not call the guy let go to come back, that’d be embarrassing. So, they rush to hire someone usually at a higher salary than what they were paying the poor guy they ran off.
I’m sure there’s plenty of “oops….didnt know how intricate X process was to do since [he/she] made it seem seamless”. Institutional knowledge is Citi gold especially the things top performers know.
This happened on my team. They laid off the top performer (she was told her skills weren’t needed which is a joke. C16 just was jealous and didn’t like her). After she left it was clear how she was needed!!
Yup. I think what the OP means is:
Citi told ppl they were redundant, laid them off… only for it to be revealed after they left that nobody was trained to do what they do/know how to perform that function… thus showing those ppl weren’t actually redundant
I have no idea what you are talking about but let me answer as best I can. Details are needed. “redundancy paid but not made redundant” ?? Details are needed.
You might as well say “Door opened but not open”. Here , let me answer as best I can.
wrench, ocean, apple, squirrel.
There, that’s all I got.