[Rob1]

On this mornings drive - 680 news (Toronto) reported the lay offs at RIM started yesterday with 200 people.........

Time will tell what will happen but for now my stock portfolio is down because of it.

Rob.

[ZMc1834]

I hate to see people lose their jobs, but if RIM actually did this for the right reasons, like getting rid of people that were not following through on their jobs, not performing at a top level, and putting RIM in this situation, I would understand, but more than likely the people at the bottom are losing their jobs for mistakes at the top.

[mjs416]

I hate to see people lose their jobs, but if RIM actually did this for the right reasons, like getting rid of people that were not following through on their jobs, not performing at a top level, and putting RIM in this situation, I would understand, but more than likely the people at the bottom are losing their jobs for mistakes at the top.

My question is why were these poor performers, slackers, bums permitted to continue to work and only laid off after RIM is in a slump? Why weren't these poor performers evaluated on a semi-frequent basis and either coached or fired?

If there really are a boat load of poor performers - that means management wasnt doing its job. Not executives - but management and supervisors.

I think they are laying people off in an attempt to better their bottom line if you ask me.

[trsbbs]

My question is why were these poor performers, slackers, bums permitted to continue to work and only laid off after RIM is in a slump? Why weren't these poor performers evaluated on a semi-frequent basis and either coached or fired?

If there really are a boat load of poor performers - that means management wasnt doing its job. Not executives - but management and supervisors.

I think they are laying people off in an attempt to better their bottom line if you ask me.

I think your being a little harsh here. No one said they were slackers and it was RIM that hired them.
Their projects may have no longer been needed or the product they supported
is hitting end of life.

Just because someone is laid off doesn't mean they did anything wrong.

RIMs sales to net ratio has been bad due to the investment in R&D and new products roll outs (if they actually roll them out someday). This is probably a move to improve that. The co-ceo's seem to be doing things to save their own skins. They should of received pink slips as well and they may yet.

So you are right in that it is a move to improve their bottom line,
but wrong in thinking they are all slackers.

So give the folks a break and lets see where this ends up.

I feel sorry for the folks that just got pink slips and wish them the best.

Tim

[domenic_lo_russo]

My question is why were these poor performers, slackers, bums permitted to continue to work and only laid off after RIM is in a slump? Why weren't these poor performers evaluated on a semi-frequent basis and either coached or fired?

If there really are a boat load of poor performers - that means management wasnt doing its job. Not executives - but management and supervisors.

I think they are laying people off in an attempt to better their bottom line if you ask me.

Not sure what the reasons are in RIM's case but layoffs are generally not a bad thing for corporations. It's like killing 2 birds with 1 stone...eliminate the underachievers and improve your bottom line.

We do it all the time, coupled with a hiring freeze, for the last few months before end of fiscal.

Unfortunately, it's almost impossible to know the 'real' motive behind it.

[SmakBerry]

Aw that's sad. I hope this doesn't mean more to come.

[LudwigvonKast]

Like everything on this funny little Earth of ours: Bad if you do and Bad if you don't!

[cwong15]

Don't forget, RIM had been on a frenetic acquisition spree the past couple of years. Acquisitions always result in some redundancies. Torch Mobile's incoming staff will overlap with the original crew doing the old BB browser. Cellmania's staff will overlap with App World's. QNX's staff will overlap with the BBOS team. Even if you keep all the R&D people, there is the administrative staff overlap (HR, legal, finance, marketing etc). If RIM only waited until now to rationalize their staffing, the question should be "what took them so long?".

[mjs416]

I think your being a little harsh here. No one said they were slackers and it was RIM that hired them.
Their projects may have no longer been needed or the product they supported
is hitting end of life.

Just because someone is laid off doesn't mean they did anything wrong.

RIMs sales to net ratio has been bad due to the investment in R&D and new products roll outs (if they actually roll them out someday). This is probably a move to improve that. The co-ceo's seem to be doing things to save their own skins. They should of received pink slips as well and they may yet.

So you are right in that it is a move to improve their bottom line,
but wrong in thinking they are all slackers.

So give the folks a break and lets see where this ends up.

I feel sorry for the folks that just got pinks slips and wish them the best.

Tim

Please dont get me wrong - thats not what I am saying that they were all slackers. I was simply replying to the above posters comment of "but if RIM actually did this for the right reasons, like getting rid of people that were not following through on their jobs, not performing at a top level, and putting RIM in this situation, I would understand,". If indeed that were the case - which we dont know.

I generally feel for these people losing their livelihood. It is a sad situation.

[Invader3K]

On this mornings drive - 680 news (Toronto) reported the lay offs at RIM started yesterday with 200 people.........

Time will tell what will happen but for now my stock portfolio is down because of it.

Rob.

Actually, the market may respond positively if viewed as RIM getting leaner and more efficient.

[ZMc1834]

Please dont get me wrong - thats not what I am saying that they were all slackers. I was simply replying to the above posters comment of "but if RIM actually did this for the right reasons, like getting rid of people that were not following through on their jobs, not performing at a top level, and putting RIM in this situation, I would understand,". If indeed that were the case - which we dont know.

I generally feel for these people losing their livelihood. It is a sad situation.

Yes, that is all I meant by my post was that if these people weren't following through with their jobs and/or had jobs that were no longer necessary then I could understand the layoffs, but we will never know. If these layoffs were just to help the bottom line and improve numbers then I completely disagree with the layoff and can't stand companies that do so. Just speaking hypothetical here, they lay off 200 workers from the bottom but keep 2 CEO's that probably make more than the 200 workers combined. I hope that RIM did this for the right reasons, but I am still sad for the people that lost their jobs due to the current state of the company. Hopefully RIM begins its recovery to prominence and everyone within the company kicks it into high gear realizing that lay offs are in the cards.

[trsbbs]

Actually, the market may respond positively if viewed as RIM getting leaner and more efficient.

RIMM up .53 right now, but then most tech stock seems to be making up
some lost ground this morning.
Google up $4.48...

Tim

[mmcpher]

Its sad to see people losing their jobs in this economy. But RIM had acquired several companies recently and in addition, it was one of the few companies that was actually hiring during the recession. Unfortunately, RIM had too much company when it comes to this sort of thing.

I understand, dimly, at least, the economic benefit from "becoming leaner" and more efficient, but I don't understand the impulse to characterize the people being laid off, whom none of us know and whose performance is equally unknown to us, as lazy slackers who were asking for it. In a down economy with so little investment in human capital, plenty of good people and good workers suffer.

[lnichols]

It sucks to see people getting laid off, and I hope that some of those people are higher ups in management that have been mismanaging the resources. RIM has done a lot of acquisitions, especially for companies with software talent, so their has to be a lot of overlap. Hopefully RIM can get R&D costs down and do more with what they have.

[ZMc1834]

Its sad to see people losing their jobs in this economy. But RIM had acquired several companies recently and in addition, it was one of the few companies that was actually hiring during the recession. Unfortunately, RIM had too much company when it comes to this sort of thing.

I understand, dimly, at least, the economic benefit from "becoming leaner" and more efficient, but I don't understand the impulse to characterize the people being laid off, whom none of us know and whose performance is equally unknown to us, as lazy slackers who were asking for it. In a down economy with so little investment in human capital, plenty of good people and good workers suffer.

I don't think most of us are characterizing these people in that way at least not stating it as a fact. I just merely mean that if RIM did this to people that weren't fulfilling there duties than it is justified. I can not say one way or the other, that is why I used the word if. As a person whose mother lost her job during the recession due to down sizing and a college graduate that graduated in the worst part of the recession, I completely feel for these people and if it was out of the blue for no apparent reason than that is just plain despicable, but if there was reasoning behind the decision that involved the workload, performance, or a factor regarding the job at hand than I can understand, but I want to specifically state that I have know knowledge of the layoffs at hand and would never state facts about someone that I do not know, I only mean if.

[nomoredroid]

To these companies, most employees are "just a number". I was recently laid off from a pharmaceutical company after six years of working 80 hours a week. The earnings report was bad and they cut 50% of the company. It didnt matter what i did

[boldman4]

What the RIM co-CEOs announced broke the number 1 rule of maintaining employee morale: Never pre-announce layoffs.

Everyone knows that if you want to maintain productivity, you do the layoffs all on one day, one time.

The last thing you want to do is have employees spending their hours preparing CVs and scouting other job opportunities.

I feel real bad for RIM employees right now, as no one knows if their job is safe.

[valorian]

To these companies, most employees are "just a number". I was recently laid off from a pharmaceutical company after six years of working 80 hours a week. The earnings report was bad and they cut 50% of the company. It didnt matter what i did

Unfortunately this is the way of the corporate world. When sales are down, the stocks drop. When the stock drops enough, jobs get cut. Doesn't matter how well or poor you performed. I go caught up in this with Motorola after 9 years.

The worst part about it is Management is going to make cuts, revenue will improve, management looks like heroes and get large bonuses. Meanwhile hundreds of workers are without a job.

I hope these people are able to find a job soon. Unemployment sucks big time.

[cwong15]

The worst part about it is Management is going to make cuts, revenue will improve, management looks like heroes and get large bonuses. Meanwhile hundreds of workers are without a job.

It's not all rosy in management: nobody is immune from layoffs. At one software company I worked, I witnessed turnover of the entire senior staff (VPs, COO, even the CEO) over 4 years. The engineering staff, however, remained fairly stable up until the end. The reasoning is simple: management folks are paid a lot more per head, so given a choice between eliminating 2 or more productive staff members and 1 management position to save X amount of money, it makes sense to go for the latter. Moreover, there are far fewer executive level positions out there compared to staff level positions. Laid off executives tend to remain unemployed far longer.

[valorian]

It's not all rosy in management: nobody is immune from layoffs. At one software company I worked, I witnessed turnover of the entire senior staff (VPs, COO, even the CEO) over 4 years. The engineering staff, however, remained fairly stable up until the end. The reasoning is simple: management folks are paid a lot more per head, so given a choice between eliminating 2 or more productive staff members and 1 management position to save X amount of money, it makes sense to go for the latter. Moreover, there are far fewer executive level positions out there compared to staff level positions. Laid off executives tend to remain unemployed far longer.

Yes, I have seen this happen too but this is rare. I agree with your logic but Executives are usually the last to go in the corporate world. Only after other cuts are Executives looked at usually.

[zingbats]

Supply and demand rules. Hard work is essential, but lack of direction and planning put you "outstanding in your field" along with the cows... sorry for those affected.

[google123]

It sucks that people have to loose their jobs because of lack of vision from the people up top. Instead of getting rid of them, I'm sure they will instead get a raise, or bonuses while people below them are loosing their jobs. That's bull****.

[cwong15]

Yes, I have seen this happen too but this is rare. I agree with your logic but Executives are usually the last to go in the corporate world. Only after other cuts are Executives looked at usually.

All I can say is that my experience with my last 2 employers is that executives were the first to go. It does vary.

[1812dave]

someone here thinks RIM might have laid off "slackers'?? are they kidding? Most of the time, companies lay off based on seniority (presuming we are discussing the rank and file)

[BoldtotheMax]

Feel for the people that were doing their job, but were the low man/woman on the totem pole and got axed because of these lay off's. Really sucks in today's economy.

I can almost guarantee the higher ups who have been there haven't even had to worry about much, even if they were jacking up.

Just how the world works it seems. The rich keep getting richer.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com