Free: Contests & Raffles.
Quote from: baldopepper on February 14, 2025, 10:52:22 PMI was employed several years ago by a fairly large, international company with offices literally around the world.. With profits down two years in a row, a decision was made to cut costs by closing some offices and letting people go. They offered what they called an early retirement offer to nearly every employee. 6 months pay and 6 months health insurance coverage. Problem was that every good employee who knew they could easily find employment (mostly with competitors) were the ones who took the offer. (Myself included) That was not enough so.they laid off another large group starting with the newest employees and worked their way up to reach their goal This left them with a management group who should have been selectively let go for poor preformance. Additionally the younger ones who made the cut were concerned about future cut backs and most of the better ones started immediately looking elsewhere..Company never really recovered, sold off some divisions and is now a shadow of its old self. Their record has made it difficult to recruit top people. Hope we're not seeing that same type thing in our government.I think you will see a lot of the good government works go to private contractors and make a ton of money selling the same services they were performing back to the government. Likewise the government won’t be properly staffed to see how the private sector is fleecing the government. You thought $40k hammers were bad just wait until this generation of federal workers buy $400k “hammers” and they show up with a squeaky rubber head and a plastic handle. Baldopepper I am currently in a situation with my employer that you were in several years ago. Big private equity money came in and bought the company I worked for and started making a bunch of changes to increase value so they can resell their investment in a couple years. Now 2 years in the company value is tanking and the people are leaving. They can no longer attract decent talent and every KPI is going in the wrong direction. 2 weeks ago they increased prices dramatically after last year saying don’t lose on price. Now they are going to be the highest priced business in the field in our area. And I was told that I am required to maintain the margins I was getting before the 50% price hike. (They inflated the cost of labor and materials to the branches to cover corporate expenses)Well last night I just ironed out the details of the offer letter I should be receiving next week to go to a competitor. Hoping for the best from a fresh start.
I was employed several years ago by a fairly large, international company with offices literally around the world.. With profits down two years in a row, a decision was made to cut costs by closing some offices and letting people go. They offered what they called an early retirement offer to nearly every employee. 6 months pay and 6 months health insurance coverage. Problem was that every good employee who knew they could easily find employment (mostly with competitors) were the ones who took the offer. (Myself included) That was not enough so.they laid off another large group starting with the newest employees and worked their way up to reach their goal This left them with a management group who should have been selectively let go for poor preformance. Additionally the younger ones who made the cut were concerned about future cut backs and most of the better ones started immediately looking elsewhere..Company never really recovered, sold off some divisions and is now a shadow of its old self. Their record has made it difficult to recruit top people. Hope we're not seeing that same type thing in our government.
Some real TDS around here. No wonder WA is CA Lite.~3% of the employees took the "early retirement". There's 2.5MM civil Fed employees.
Quote from: EnglishSetter on February 15, 2025, 09:45:22 PMSome real TDS around here. No wonder WA is CA Lite.~3% of the employees took the "early retirement". There's 2.5MM civil Fed employees.And the salaries of those 2.5 million federal employees comprise of roughly 1% of federal spending...Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
That's my thought, defense and intelligence are something like 70-80% of discretionary spending and like always nobody is talking about that.My guess is the reason they are going after the employees is that they want to prevent those employees from spending the money, not just the savings in their salaries. The president doesn't have control over the spending directly, but if he fires the guy who cuts the check the outcome is similar. This is what some of the early lawsuits are considering.
