6 Responses to It is imperative that you not discuss staffing reductions with staff

  1. Omg says:

    Communication with those doing the “jobs” can really benefit the institution. Perhaps they have ideas or skills that need consideration. Perhaps they know the needs and places to flex better than administrators because they are actually doing the “jobs”. Nahhh…. My God this makes me sick. At all costs, remember, DON’T BE TRANSPARENT and DON’T CONSULT WITH THE UNDERLINGS.

  2. Deplorable Duck says:

    It might seem rather grim, or even heartless, but having been through a number of such situations, I think this is ultimately for the best (or at least the least bad).

    One imagines that there’s some kind set of steps that could reduce the shock or make things easier. But it never really works.

    If I’m to be eliminated, I’d just as soon be dropped on the same day and in the same way as everyone else. There’s a consolation of sorts in that.

    • uomatters says:

      Cut our money losing baseball program instead.

      • Deplorable Duck says:

        As far as that goes, if I were king, there would be no “pro” sports programs at any public university. Perhaps the U would rent their imprimatur and some practice and performance space, but certainly no salaries, scholarships, etc. But to the detriment of the greater good, alas, I am not king.

        As to the prior point of how to handle redundancies, in my experience it’s kinder to just rip the band-aid off. Preferably not in the latter half of December.

  3. Hart says:

    “there is no need to include vacant positions that will not be filled in your report to HR…”

    Yes, because God knows contextual information is never useful to anyone. Also, transparency schmansparency. Also, yes, please prepare this report in secret so no one can sanity-check you and/or make sure you haven’t done anything absurd with your arithmetic. This should work gr8.

    I just typoed gr8 as gr6, which I guess is less than gr8 so was probably more accurate, but gursix doesn’t make sense as a word.

    This whole memo is basically a tidy picture of what is wrong about everything. Honestly, working the problem together allows everyone to see why things unfold a certain way/what the priorities are (I don’t have to agree with my employer’s priorities to understand that they are criteria) and allows for things like reassignment in a way that meets people’s interests less poorly (e.g., if you have two people who currently have the job of using the leaf-blower to clear off the sidewalks, and you are going to transfer one of them to the job of polishing stairway railings, it might be good to know whether either of them would be happy with that transfer, or whether one of them is uncomfortable working at heights, or whether one of them is allergic to an ingredient in the polishing solution), so it’s not just an issue of whether a process is humane, but also an issue of actual efficiency. <– oh wait. Now I get it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.