this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2023
657 points (97.8% liked)
Asklemmy
43937 readers
443 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Previous company decided that not only would they make people redundant but they'd also gut the benefits of those who stayed and worsen working conditions all whilst trying to transition their entire manufacturing process to entirely different equipment.
Unsurprisingly all the experienced and skilled workers took their generous payouts or bailed as soon as the new process and working conditions went to shit.
Literally 10s of millions invested in machinery and a few million in redundancy all to end up making less and worse product at a higher cost than before. Combined with the few that stayed having zero morale and it was cluster fuck that's irreparably damaged a 140 year old company.
I bounced once I'd got enough experience to be of value elsewhere.
I just canβt understand the rationale for all that. Was it all for cost cutting? You would think after 140 years they would be relatively stable.
My guess is that they made two contradictory policies and didn't realize the combined effect.
Ah my mistake to omit that bit.
It was new ownership combined with an actual need for new machinery. The old lines were multiple decades old and being held together by creative engineering.
Now new more efficient machinery and some redundancies would be normal and kind of expected. But the manner in which it was done was the issue. Immediately alienated the entire workforce and lost the most skilled workers to boot. All tied together with a nice little bow of utterly incompetent planning regarding the implementation and procurement process. The final cherry on top was the complete inability to market the new product.
It was sad seeing a company that was profitable with good brand recognition and actual competitive advantages literally piss it all away inside 12 months of a 140 year history.