Does Anyone Really Care About The Little Guy? Gregory Freeman, P-D 8/29/1995

Headline: DOES ANYONE REALLY CARE ABOUT THE LITTLE GUY?
Reporter: By Gregory Freeman

Publication: ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
Last Printed: Tue., Aug. 29, 1995
Section: WAR PAGE, Page: 13B, Edition: FIVE STAR LIFT

McDONNELL DOUGLAS Corp. is laying off 44 workers at its main manufacturing complex today, and will issue notices to 30 others in St. Charles on Monday . . . ."
"MCI Communications Corp. said Wednesday it will cut its work force by 2,500 to 3,000 over the rest of the year . . . ." "Monsanto Co. will dismiss 200 employees from offices in the St. Louis and Chicago areas - and more employees can expect to lose their jobs within 18 months . . . ."

It's not right, you know.
   It seems no one cares about the little guy anymore.
   It's not just that companies these days seem to dismiss their employees with wild abandon. That's bad enough, of course. Countless loyal, hard-working employees are finding themselves tossed out like yesterday's bread in a bakery. People who have been hard workers at some places for 15, 20, 25 years and more are finding themselves being thrown out the door at blinding speed. It seems loyalty accounts for nothing.
   But what's worse is that the presidents and CEOs of these companies are often rewarded for chopping off heads. It seems the more people you can lay off, the better off you are. Many CEOs get bonuses for major layoffs because they're saving the company money. Others brag about their layoffs and about how many jobs they sent to foreign countries in annual reports and with other CEOs.

I can imagine the end of a fictional one-on-one basketball game where two CEOs are cooling off and shooting the breeze as they high-five each other over the number of layoffs they're responsible for. Picture the conversation:
   CEO 1: I just laid off 500 employees.
   CEO 2: Oh yeah? Well, I just laid off 750 employees.
   CEO 1: That's nothing. Last year, I laid off 1,100 employees. Top that!

I've always thought that the thinking behind the rewarding of company heads for layoffs was completely turned around.
Why, instead, aren't these company heads punished? In this life, I mean. I'm sure there's a place in hell waiting for many of those guys later on, but why wait until then? The punishments could start immediately.

Why punish them, you ask? Seems pretty simple. It's often an example of poor planning when a company suddenly has to lay off hundreds or thousands of employees.
Don't smart companies make plans for at least two or three years in advance? If they planned as they should, wouldn't they be able to reduce positions through attrition or early retirement incentives? Should company heads really be rewarded for bad planning?
Think about it. Botched planning on the part of most employees - especially where money is concerned - would surely mean punishment at best and firing at worst. So why should a CEO be any different?

It would be easy to set up a system of punishment. For every employee laid off, for example, the CEO would be fined a certain percentage of his salary. For every 50 employees laid off, for example, the CEO might be fined 5 percent of his salary. That's $50,000 for a million-dollar CEO. Of course, if the company laid off more than 1,000 employees, the CEO could find himself being fined more than his salary.

Maybe that sounds harsh, but is it any more harsh than letting go the guy who's given most of his life to a company and who's trying to put a kid through college? Is it any more harsh than laying off the woman who's trying to go it on her own after being in an abusive relationship? Or the guy who, after years of saving, has finally bought his first home?
All of this is much more than a game. It's life to the people involved. And those employees surely deserve as much respect and loyalty as a CEO would expect out of them. Respect and loyalty are two-way streets.

I don't expect to see my suggestion - to fine CEOs when they're responsible for layoffs - to take root any time soon.
Shareholders are interested in making money and much less concerned about the employees who help make that money. CEOs are interested in keeping their boards and shareholders happy.
So they lay people off. The CEOs look good and everyone's happy. The board is happy, the shareholders are happy and the CEO is happy.

The only one who's not happy is the little guy.
It seems no one cares about the little guy anymore.

Gregory Freeman's column appears Sunday, Tuesday and Friday. ... <deleted>

Daniel Schesch - Webweaver

back