Company Rank: Not Available

Average length of employment : 7 years

Average salary of employees: $57,500

	05|
Were your performance expectations clearly communicated?		0.0
Were you recognized for meeting or exceeding expectations?		0.0
Did you feel like your personal contribution was important?		0.0
Was your career path clearly outlined and discussed?		0.0

	03|
I would recommend this as a place of employment.		0.0
I believe in the purpose of this organization.		0.0
I would work for this organization again.		0.0
I feel employees are fairly compensated.		0.0

Climbers who worked at Family Social Services Administration had these interests:

Books
Lean Thinking	James Womack & Daniel Jones analysis of the Japanese process model and how it influences the American Business model
Executive Orders	Recreational reading

Climbers' Joblogs at Family Social Services Administration:

The man with a new idea is a crank, until the idea succeeds

Like most other IT professionals, my workspace is piled high with the obligatory stack of technical publications which must be perused in order to keep abreast of the latest and greatest technical wizardry. Additionally electronic in box is constantly bombarded with their softcopy counterparts, both solicited and unsolicited, which clamor for my attention upon their arrival.

Today, among the latter, I received an article penned by Carlton Vote , entitled "Examining Layoff Ethics".

Briefly, the author contends that with the way the economy has been hemorrhaging lately (depending entirely upon which new analyst you listen too) companies forced by financial circumstances to trim jobs, often in an effort to stay in business. But this raises serious, or at least puzzling, questions about the ethics involved in layoff decisions.

While , like the author I'm not so naive as to contend that people are owed a job for life, I do at times question the reasons a company takes that may belie the need for shedding jobs in the first place.

A company can choose the layoffs option for the right reason or the wrong reason. Many times layoffs are simply the laziest way to improve the bottom line. Rather than find other expenses to cut or, better still, find ways to increase income, unimaginative executives simply start dumping workers until they reach the numbers they want.

An obscene practice , which I've witnessed first hand is a company in financial trouble desiring to create the illusion of "profitability" , will laid-off workers. to "send a message to Wall Street." in order to pump up the stock price -- at the expense of the now displaced workers. However questionable ethics involved, this type of corporate conducted is indefensible.

Leave us face it folks, it is a simple business reality , the P&L statement rules, expenses must kept in line. But, except for seasonal employment or in industries in which variations are to be expected -- layoffs should be a last resort, taken only after all other options have been considered , and when necessary, layoff decisions with the understanding we are dealing with real people, whose value can't be quantified by a spreadsheets bottom line.


Now, let's flip the coin.

I've heard this argument before, employees being downgraded to "human assets", but the sordid truth of the matter is , we asked for it. We want to be treated like a commodity. We wanted to paid for the skill set we had and if someone was willing to pay more, we'll jump to the highest bidder without regard for the company we were leaving.

Actually, that's not entirely true, we want it both ways. We want the freedom to jump when it's advantageous to us, plus we want the company to be obligated to show us loyalty when times are tough.


You have to have a relationship with someone in order to have an obligation, and the stronger the relationship, the larger the obligation.


It is unrealistic to call what exists today between a company and it employees a relationship. Companies are not people; they are a composite of many people. The illusion of relationship occurs because the "relationship" actually is between the many people who all work for the company for long periods of time. As the workplace changes and people don't stay employed at one company for a lifetime, the illusion of relationship to the company brakes down.


Having a relationship with a company today is like having a relationship with a person with multiple personality disorder. One day you'll able to treat them like any other person, the sooner go "postal" on them as look at them.

Granted a company will cut employees just to get a spike in the share price, but up until a short while ago, employees would cut a company for a 10% raise.

I'm not saying that either side is more ethical or even ethical at all, but I've got to question the wisdom of vesting our prosperity in a global system that can be crippled by a bunch of guys with bread knives.


The market will punish businesses who are not seen to at least match their peers in cost cutting to maximize financial performance. This means cutting jobs in reaction to a potential loss of revenue, just as the airlines did after sept-11.


This is an all too-common experience and, It would seem that at the very least the company should make an effort to see whether current workers would be willing to work for a lower salary.

If the alternative is unemployment, the employee might just be willing --I would .


G.D. Bowling

---