From:	"Paul J. Adam" <paul@********.demon.co.uk>
Subject:	Re: Killing in Shadowrun...
Date:	Sun, 26 May 1996 13:45:02 +0100

>>No it isn't, and again I speak as a veteran. What happens is that those
>>people with bright ideas that were troublesome find themselves
>>jettisoned: those "careful" plodders who never offended anyone entrench
>>themselves. The capable and competent seek jobs elsewhere, and you find
>>yourself left with those who can't or won't go elsewhere. Which are the
>>old and the stubborn and the stupid: the smart vote with their feet.
>
>And I speak as the son of a Vice President of a large consulting firm and a
>Union/Management & User/Programmer Liason for the Illinois Department of
>Revenue. I've watched downsizing for YEARS and have seen it illustrate my
>previous material (see above) unerringly.

>From your point of view it would, TC. The MD was happy with the result,
compared to the worst-case.

Of course, the actual employees weren't quite so happy.

They still aren't happy now.

We can't recruit because "you're the firm that laid off half its people
five years ago". I got turned down for a bank loan because I couldn't
get payment protection insurance on it: three years after the axemen
came, our employees still are not considered secure credit risks by
local businesses. Nationally, word hasn't gotten out, luckily, or
getting a mortgage could have been... interesting.

Good for morale? Encouraging employees to support the company, take
risks that might pay off, raise their profile? Or promoting the idea of
being inconspicuous and offending nobody? And, crucially, persuasive
that you should stay with the company if you get a better offer from
elsewhere?

>>The point remains - if employees are "assets" why get rid of them?
>
>Employees are only assets if they can do the job. If they can't, then they
>become liabilities. It is actually possible for one employee to be an asset
>while another is a liability. Liabilities get nailed in downsizing.

A very optimistic view, and one that suggests more experience of
observing from the top than the bottom.

>>We saw a trend everyone saw. That was the collapse of the Soviet Union
>>and the peace dividend.
>
>You reacted to it late, then.

It was a little quick. Months rather than years.

>>Unfortunately, it happened a little rapidly for anyone to be able to do
>>much about it.
>
>Someone made money off the deal somewhere. Every time money is lost
>somewhere, somewhere else pulls in a gain.

Sure, sure, just like in the States. Tell that to Grumman's airframe
division.

>>The point remains: accountants merely tell you where you were and where
>>you are. They are no use at all at telling you where to go next.
>
>If that's all you believe accounting is good for, I can see why the company
>failed.

We didn't fail: mostly because we kicked out the accountants and pushed
hard on the engineering and marketing side, and played a lot of
politics. If we'd left the accountants in charge, we would definitely
have collapsed or been sold off.


"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk