Individuals get fired when they fuck up, companies layoff workers when they fuck up. Large scale layoffs are the outcome of poor planning and organization. You can’t predict markets completely, suppliers charge, etc which accounts for small # layoffs, but large, mass layoffs should be accompanied by replacing executives and leadership roles like board members first to prevent such poor management.
it’s cheaper to hire in bulk and fire “low performers” or whatever than it is to put more effortinto hiring.
and even then, tmk, it’s really only so common in amerikka because worker protections are practically non-existent. if it were more expensive to fire people…then maybe the corpos would plan/hire better
How is a small company realistically going to test if someone is worth hiring or not.
we got into this stupid market because we spent decades neglecting training. When you don’t train for what you need, you don’t get good at identifying what skills you really need in order to succeed.
So this question is already too far gone. If someone has most skills but is missing one: train them for it. Even if the training is as informal as "give them a few weeks in a low stakes environment to work on less valuable (but less risky) work.
Individuals get fired when they fuck up, companies layoff workers when they fuck up. Large scale layoffs are the outcome of poor planning and organization. You can’t predict markets completely, suppliers charge, etc which accounts for small # layoffs, but large, mass layoffs should be accompanied by replacing executives and leadership roles like board members first to prevent such poor management.
it’s cheaper to hire in bulk and fire “low performers” or whatever than it is to put more effortinto hiring.
and even then, tmk, it’s really only so common in amerikka because worker protections are practically non-existent. if it were more expensive to fire people…then maybe the corpos would plan/hire better
Would that be good though? How is a small company realistically going to test if someone is worth hiring or not.
Oh yeah, have you got 10 years experience in the same role?
we got into this stupid market because we spent decades neglecting training. When you don’t train for what you need, you don’t get good at identifying what skills you really need in order to succeed.
So this question is already too far gone. If someone has most skills but is missing one: train them for it. Even if the training is as informal as "give them a few weeks in a low stakes environment to work on less valuable (but less risky) work.
You can’t train someone who can’t be brothered
well that makes the hiring or trial process much easier, no? I don’t think the problem here is “I can’t tell if my employee gives a fuck”.
And I can tell you that passion is not something lacking in the games industry.