Since the whole world accepted as an undeniable fact that it was facing a huge financial crisis, the centimetry in newspapers and magazines has focused on talking about it, its effects, its opportunities and how much is considered important to highlight to prevent actions, guide the strategies or take advantage of the situation. And that is fine.
What is not right is to turn a global event into a particular reality to justify decisions that, in times past, would not have been carried out without being subjected to criticism and / or censorship, based on the persecution of appropriate measures to face the crisis.
There is no doubt, the global financial situation requires making quick and effective decisions that guarantee business continuity and occupational health. The company must overcome limitations and strengthen itself by making some sacrifices… but which ones?
One of the most widespread sacrifices is found in the layoffs that companies have carried out.
It is curious to see how concepts change when the financial landscape also changes; When the economy was not unbalanced, the phrase "human capital" had a different connotation than it does now. Yes, people, "the most important asset" becomes "the first thing to be rationalized". And we see how throughout the world corporations lay off staff justifying their exit in the financial crisis because it is no longer possible to guarantee their jobs. Interesting. Valid in some cases, but not in all.
The paradox of these decisions is that the positions that are usually subject to reduction are not those that represent a real weight for the company, since they occupy basic or middle positions. Yes, in most cases the people who do the most operational work or those with the lowest strategic percentage are fired, placing the burden of responsibility on the so-called “survivors”.
It is worth asking: Wouldn't it be more efficient to decrease the salaries and benefits of executive and / or executive personnel? Or, at the same time, lower the percentages of profits of the products and services that are marketed to guarantee their flow?
In some companies the salary of a top executive may represent not less than twenty times the minimum salary of the workers of a company, without adding bonuses and other royalties specific to their position. If executives are constantly looking for the best for the company, being the first to demand the same from others to keep them active, what prevents them from sacrificing for a time for what they have given so much? What prevents them from reducing their income and conditions for the benefit of the company?
The reduction of income of senior management, as a momentary strategy, to guarantee the jobs of those who not infrequently call their "most precious asset", would be a sign of true commitment to those who make the company possible, a way to demonstrate that they are truly connected with their needs and understand that leaving them on the street is not the best way to thank them for their services.
Of course, not only senior executives and managers should embrace this strategy, both union representatives and other entities of similar impact are called to lead by example and seek everything for "human capital". As the slogan of a famous brand points out, “everyone is invited”.
To this should be added the initiative to reduce percentages of profits, since by lowering the marketing prices of products and / or services they become more accessible and therefore more susceptible to being acquired or used by those who have or want to do so.
Now, it is not a secret for any organization that there is little that can really be saved when the workforce is reduced if, in addition to the measure, no others are taken that really impact the company's expenses, it is also assumed that in times Crises should not only be the average or grassroots employees who should experience the crudest part of it, since such practice is completely opposed to the discourses that require employees to commit to the company.
Although this approach could be simplistic, since the labor costs, the requirements present in collective contracts, the decrease in production due to the reduction in demand and many other items have not been discussed, it is not. Capitalist economies require consumers, if people lose their jobs, consumption will obviously be affected and with it the income of the companies that offer their products and services, making it more logical to ensure that there are people who, although little, continue consuming, rather than suffocating the economy by increasing unemployment and showing people that it is valuable and has to be seen as the most needed asset only until economic conditions change in a way that disfavors the company.
