Hi Guys,
I have seen a lot of perspectives here and must say that most of us do not agree with the Hire & Fire tendency.
I am also not in favor of the same; however, I would like to express that Hire & Hire is not just about playing with the employees' careers. I am sure that most HR professionals would agree with me that we hire employees based on Manpower Plans, which in turn are based on projected income and projected business.
Due to global disturbances and a lot of political turnovers around the world, many corporations are facing business losses, and hence all the plans for projected income, gains, and business at times go awry. They may not project their financials properly and hence may rely on good-looking paperwork (to attract shareholders) and subsequently lose track of the business.
I would say that at times, it is not in the hands of the big corporate houses, as they can't cope with the employee costs as well. Therefore, they have to let some employees go.
From India, Faridabad
19I have seen a lot of perspectives here and must say that most of us do not agree with the Hire & Fire tendency.
I am also not in favor of the same; however, I would like to express that Hire & Hire is not just about playing with the employees' careers. I am sure that most HR professionals would agree with me that we hire employees based on Manpower Plans, which in turn are based on projected income and projected business.
Due to global disturbances and a lot of political turnovers around the world, many corporations are facing business losses, and hence all the plans for projected income, gains, and business at times go awry. They may not project their financials properly and hence may rely on good-looking paperwork (to attract shareholders) and subsequently lose track of the business.
I would say that at times, it is not in the hands of the big corporate houses, as they can't cope with the employee costs as well. Therefore, they have to let some employees go.
From India, Faridabad
Shweta, maybe it's because companies are so concerned about cutting corners that they try to squeeze every penny possible from their employees. But if an employee just isn't able to do a competent job, and the company has given the employee a reasonable opportunity to succeed, then termination will often be seen as appropriate.
Thank you.
From India, Mangaluru
Thank you.
From India, Mangaluru
This is a true fact, and you have to live with it. If you try to raise your voice against it as an HR professional, then you should start looking for a new job too. Books are too good to be true, and reality bites.
Regards,
Fahd Khan Sherani
From Pakistan, Karachi
Regards,
Fahd Khan Sherani
From Pakistan, Karachi
HR is a set of processes such as recruitment, induction, performance appraisal, training, promotion, transfer, etc.
Hiring is one process; therefore, firing is also another process.
However, if your organization is not professionally managed, these processes can be misused. For example, a well-balanced organization plans its manpower needs carefully and avoids excessive recruitment based on the business plan's forecast for the next five years.
Once manpower planning is completed, the salary budget is prepared based on revenue generation and profit margins to reward employees through compensation or remuneration.
In cases where management is unaware of HR operations, they may recruit surplus staff without proper analysis, influenced by certain department heads or other reasons.
This practice is not advisable because an organization should not hire employees if they cannot provide better prospects within the company. Companies unable to afford salaries or maintain surplus staff are not economically viable. The salary or wage costs of any organization should not exceed 10 to 12 percent of operating costs.
It is unfair when employers do not share revenue windfalls with employees during market booms or protect employees during downturns. Many CEOs resort to downsizing to reduce operating costs and impress business owners, a common error among employers.
Every time I join an organization in India, employers often claim to have surplus manpower and consider engaging them as a form of charity. However, in reality, they are using outdated technology from the 1970s, 80s, or 90s, which is labor-intensive and cannot be compared to automation in the 2000s.
Today, except for some sectors, technology is automated and less labor-intensive. The workforce now requires more intellect and is target-oriented. Employers should not resort to such drastic measures unless absolutely necessary.
However, the question remains, who will hold accountable those greedy individuals who make employees scapegoats for their actions?
Kind Regards,
Sawant
From Saudi Arabia
Hiring is one process; therefore, firing is also another process.
However, if your organization is not professionally managed, these processes can be misused. For example, a well-balanced organization plans its manpower needs carefully and avoids excessive recruitment based on the business plan's forecast for the next five years.
Once manpower planning is completed, the salary budget is prepared based on revenue generation and profit margins to reward employees through compensation or remuneration.
In cases where management is unaware of HR operations, they may recruit surplus staff without proper analysis, influenced by certain department heads or other reasons.
This practice is not advisable because an organization should not hire employees if they cannot provide better prospects within the company. Companies unable to afford salaries or maintain surplus staff are not economically viable. The salary or wage costs of any organization should not exceed 10 to 12 percent of operating costs.
It is unfair when employers do not share revenue windfalls with employees during market booms or protect employees during downturns. Many CEOs resort to downsizing to reduce operating costs and impress business owners, a common error among employers.
Every time I join an organization in India, employers often claim to have surplus manpower and consider engaging them as a form of charity. However, in reality, they are using outdated technology from the 1970s, 80s, or 90s, which is labor-intensive and cannot be compared to automation in the 2000s.
Today, except for some sectors, technology is automated and less labor-intensive. The workforce now requires more intellect and is target-oriented. Employers should not resort to such drastic measures unless absolutely necessary.
However, the question remains, who will hold accountable those greedy individuals who make employees scapegoats for their actions?
Kind Regards,
Sawant
From Saudi Arabia
Dear Jaitly,
Cutting costs, downsizing manpower is one of the tools. There are other tools/practices such as cost reduction in the usage of materials, reduction in manufacturing time, reduction in utility costs, etc.
If the company is really in trouble and in the red and is following all the above-mentioned methods, it is fine and acceptable as it is the right of the employer. If the company is only downsizing manpower and not taking any other steps to reduce costs, something is wrong and the motive is different.
Being in HR, you must understand one thing - whether the manpower deployed is in accordance with the approved organogram or in excess, or the company has opted for more sophisticated technology where downsizing is necessary.
In the case of workers/employees falling under the definition of workmen under the ID Act, a different procedure is to be followed, whereas in other cases, a different approach is needed.
Now you can judge whether your employer is doing the right thing for the right purpose or otherwise.
Patrudu
From India, Hyderabad
Cutting costs, downsizing manpower is one of the tools. There are other tools/practices such as cost reduction in the usage of materials, reduction in manufacturing time, reduction in utility costs, etc.
If the company is really in trouble and in the red and is following all the above-mentioned methods, it is fine and acceptable as it is the right of the employer. If the company is only downsizing manpower and not taking any other steps to reduce costs, something is wrong and the motive is different.
Being in HR, you must understand one thing - whether the manpower deployed is in accordance with the approved organogram or in excess, or the company has opted for more sophisticated technology where downsizing is necessary.
In the case of workers/employees falling under the definition of workmen under the ID Act, a different procedure is to be followed, whereas in other cases, a different approach is needed.
Now you can judge whether your employer is doing the right thing for the right purpose or otherwise.
Patrudu
From India, Hyderabad
Hi Shweta,
There are lots of facets to this discussion. Hire and Fire is what the Private Sector is all about! It's only over the previous decade or so, with technology revolution and overall development and growth, there was a definite need for skilled and talented employees, and HR gained importance like never before. Various HR practices were relooked at and reinvented to attract, motivate, and retain employees.
Rapid expansion and competition in the markets drove various employers to expand their employee base, giving focus to deeper aspects like personalized marketing, customer service, door-to-door service, etc., to achieve business targets over and above the existing competition. But whenever there is a setback in the market conditions, the companies suffer and are forced to cut costs, and the first chop falls on the redundant staff.
We cannot truly state this is wrong or right because it's a situation of survival for the company. On the other hand, it is a blow to the employee's budding career. The recent incident at Noida where the employees attacked the CEO clearly reflects the reactions and consequences arising out of this situation.
Another important aspect now adding a new dimension to the scene is the diminishing loyalty of employees in pursuit of higher pay scales and benefits. Employees also do not exhibit deep attachment and loyalties while jumping for new jobs despite existing employers offering higher pay, at times. There is a high rate of churning in BPOs/KPOs despite the attractive incentives they offer. So it's a "No Obligation" either side situation!
Prudent organizations always adopt the policy of systematic Manpower Planning. It is wise to continue to do so and engage temporary staff for any work expansion that is required for the short term. On the other hand, the advice for employees is to continuously qualify themselves academically and be aware of the market conditions and aspire to seek employment in companies having a reasonably safe and good track record of recruitment practices. Higher academic qualifications would offer self-employment opportunities and also enable one to set up own consultations, etc., to tide one over during the non-employment period.
It is always imperative on the part of employers to be extremely sensitive to the method adopted in conducting the cost-cutting exercises, communicating to the employees, and affording all possible cooperation in making the handshake pleasant. Employees, on the other hand, have to demand a more participatory role and try to assist in suggesting ways to the management to reduce the impact of drastic cost-cutting measures. Again, an active HR role.
Ironically, despite all the importance and contribution of the HR department to Organizational Development, in typical layoff conditions, it is the HR dept that is targeted first for redundant employees!
Good topic for discussion. If we discuss at various forums continuously, some amicable solutions might arise somewhere. After all, Man himself is a Survivor!
Good luck.
Jyothi
There are lots of facets to this discussion. Hire and Fire is what the Private Sector is all about! It's only over the previous decade or so, with technology revolution and overall development and growth, there was a definite need for skilled and talented employees, and HR gained importance like never before. Various HR practices were relooked at and reinvented to attract, motivate, and retain employees.
Rapid expansion and competition in the markets drove various employers to expand their employee base, giving focus to deeper aspects like personalized marketing, customer service, door-to-door service, etc., to achieve business targets over and above the existing competition. But whenever there is a setback in the market conditions, the companies suffer and are forced to cut costs, and the first chop falls on the redundant staff.
We cannot truly state this is wrong or right because it's a situation of survival for the company. On the other hand, it is a blow to the employee's budding career. The recent incident at Noida where the employees attacked the CEO clearly reflects the reactions and consequences arising out of this situation.
Another important aspect now adding a new dimension to the scene is the diminishing loyalty of employees in pursuit of higher pay scales and benefits. Employees also do not exhibit deep attachment and loyalties while jumping for new jobs despite existing employers offering higher pay, at times. There is a high rate of churning in BPOs/KPOs despite the attractive incentives they offer. So it's a "No Obligation" either side situation!
Prudent organizations always adopt the policy of systematic Manpower Planning. It is wise to continue to do so and engage temporary staff for any work expansion that is required for the short term. On the other hand, the advice for employees is to continuously qualify themselves academically and be aware of the market conditions and aspire to seek employment in companies having a reasonably safe and good track record of recruitment practices. Higher academic qualifications would offer self-employment opportunities and also enable one to set up own consultations, etc., to tide one over during the non-employment period.
It is always imperative on the part of employers to be extremely sensitive to the method adopted in conducting the cost-cutting exercises, communicating to the employees, and affording all possible cooperation in making the handshake pleasant. Employees, on the other hand, have to demand a more participatory role and try to assist in suggesting ways to the management to reduce the impact of drastic cost-cutting measures. Again, an active HR role.
Ironically, despite all the importance and contribution of the HR department to Organizational Development, in typical layoff conditions, it is the HR dept that is targeted first for redundant employees!
Good topic for discussion. If we discuss at various forums continuously, some amicable solutions might arise somewhere. After all, Man himself is a Survivor!
Good luck.
Jyothi
Hi Shwetha, Im sure you would be having much more experience and exposure than me, and every one have their own mindset. So thanks for your reply. Regards, Shahed
From Qatar, Doha
From Qatar, Doha
Hi Shahed, I doesn’t have much knowledge & experience but yes off course all of us do have different Mindsets...... Hope we will expand our knowledge through this CITE HR Regards Shweta
From India, Coimbatore
From India, Coimbatore
Dear all,
Asking for resignation is the shortcut method for cost-cutting. Employees are forced to resign for silly reasons to reduce the manpower. But in my view, it is a costly affair for the long term. Firstly, good employees will not be available when needed. Secondly, recruiting and training new employees will cost more than retaining the talent. Thirdly, due to the lack of job security, no one will refer their colleagues to the company. Lastly, the company will lose faith in the market, and not only will placement agencies refrain from working with the company, but clients will also try to avoid it.
Most importantly, in these types of companies, their bosses get promoted or receive good increments based on these actions. At that time, nobody comes forward to explain the true meaning of cost-cutting.
Thanks and Regards,
Manoj Kamboj
From India, Ahmadabad
Asking for resignation is the shortcut method for cost-cutting. Employees are forced to resign for silly reasons to reduce the manpower. But in my view, it is a costly affair for the long term. Firstly, good employees will not be available when needed. Secondly, recruiting and training new employees will cost more than retaining the talent. Thirdly, due to the lack of job security, no one will refer their colleagues to the company. Lastly, the company will lose faith in the market, and not only will placement agencies refrain from working with the company, but clients will also try to avoid it.
Most importantly, in these types of companies, their bosses get promoted or receive good increments based on these actions. At that time, nobody comes forward to explain the true meaning of cost-cutting.
Thanks and Regards,
Manoj Kamboj
From India, Ahmadabad
Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.
