Decision day and my reply to "D"

How many Thralow reps decided to make the move? Is it really 3 of 50 like I've been hearing?

For those of you electing to be laid off, here is information on how to file for unemployment benefits.

Now, onto D's posts.

D said

Communication definitely broke down with the old org chart. Since the
layoffs and the revised org chart, the structure makes a lot more sense, in my
humble opinion. Also, depts are now being tasked with creating SOP (standard
operating procedures) which is par for the course with most companies of this
size. The SOPs are going to specifically address accountability and provide
training material. We are long overdue for them.

The old (August 06 - Feb 07) 'stage' org chart was similar to the store management way of doing things. That 'style' of management worked well in stage 1 & 2. Stages 3 & 4 seemed to lose something - in my opinion it was because of a reduced # of staff in each area working on the sites.

SOP's should have been something done over a year ago when the operations team was in place. Accountability and real, definable measurements of job performance was something that should have been handled by that team as well. (Maybe then we wouldn't have the fraternization issues we have now. Is Paulette going to KC on a shoe run again anytime soon? How many days off did she take unpaid last year? Did all the employees get treated the same way or was she given special treatment?) Yes, Netshops is a 'growing' (or is that immature?) company and 'these things take time to develop' - sort of like the supplier score cards. When I was there, I didn't find a single one that had been completed. I hope Doug hasn't been led to believe that they were....

Maybe if someone was actually accountable for getting these projects done, Netshops wouldn't have needed to lay off 60+ employees in February. Those employees would have moved out of the company on their own based on clearly defined criteria based on their jobs, instead of just a (seemingly) random bloody swath being cut through the work force.

D also said (about the layoffs)

I went directly to the exec in charge of my department and asked for an
explanation. And I got one.
NetShops is not a failing business nor is it run
solely by Doug. Doug is a visionary leader who often asks for the seemingly
impossible while the other two's pragmatism provides the balance. NetShops also
has a unique business model - only our copycats like CSN come close - and we're
still trying to figure out how to make it run like a well-oiled machine. Growing
pains with such rapid expansion were inevitable. At one time only human bodies
could get the job done but now with so many technological advances being made
internally, humans are being replaced by computer applications. Do you think it
was a coincidence that the first layoff occured immediately after Site Manager
was rolled out? You may recall a chunk of merchandisers were let go or
repositioned.

Very interesting thoughts D. "Growing pains with such rapid expansion were inevitable." Sure. I can appreciate that. However having fewer people to do the same amount of work is insanity. Having fewer people to do more work (if Netshops rolls out another 50 - 60 sites again this year) is just plain stupid. Now, Netshops has applied for some tax breaks, namely the Nebraska Advantage Act. As you can see from the article, Netshops indicated they are going to invest 9.2 million and create 440 new jobs. So, if "growing pains with rapid expansion" really was inevitable and those laid off were being replaced due to technological gains, such as the use of Site Manager, why would Netshops need an additional 440 employees? Again, this strikes me as an easy way to look profitable for the investors. It is corporate churn and an example of how little the employees doing the job day to day are really valued by Doug and Co.

NetShops is getting itself ready to go to the next level. Much like when you
negotiate a mortgage with a banker they talk accounting ratios to get an
approved loan amount. The same is happening to NetShops - we had ratios that
made us unattractive to investors and they needed to be fixed. You can bitch and
moan all you want, but these rules are applied to any business with the goals
NetShops has. Doug telling potential investors that he couldn't let go of
employees because they're good loyal workers would have meant proverbial doors
slammed in our faces and the inevitable tanking of NetShops as a whole.

Again, "ratios that made us unattractive to investors" does not make sense when Doug is applying for tax breaks and claiming he's going to add 440 new jobs. If the ratio was wrong in the first place, why would he need to hire new people? I don't know about you but when I bought my house, the bank didn't tell me I had too many children and I'd need to let some of them go.

Once you go "corporate", there's no going back and the Dougs of the world don't
make all the rules anymore.

That's true. Why do you think Netshops isn't as fun as it used to be anymore? Why did a special 'activity committee' need to be created? Where are the patio umbrellas on the call center side? Where are the hammocks/daybeds and adriondack chairs where people can meet and exchange ideas? Those have been traded for more traditional conference rooms to look more 'corporate'. I guess that's what we need to do when the Buffetts and Blumkins of the world come to tour the office.

I once worked at a plant that was profitable for 33 years straight with no
layoffs. And what happened? The plant was shut down for the better of the entire
company. Fair? Nope. Look at the Big 3 and their job security policies - all
three are so far in the red they may never recover.

By 'big 3' do you mean Doug, Julie and Mark? If you think they aren't making money in this venture you're crazy. Do you think they're doing this for the fun of it? Also, how do you know they're 'in the red'?

I'm still working at NetShops but I admire the balls it takes to follow through
with a very difficult decision.

A 'difficult decision'? It wasn't a difficult decision - it was a quick fix. If profits were really down, why weren't more of the upper managers let go? Why was it store managers on down? If things weren't working, why are the same people still in place in the upper portions of the company? Tina, Dave, Marina, Dawn, etc are all still in their positions. While the store managers and buyers had input on what happened to the sites, ultimately the responsibility falls on the stage directors. If the 'stage' approach wasn't working, why is the person who thought of it still there? Oh wait - she's an owner. (Not that she's going to be there much longer from what I've heard. Once she leaves for the baby, I've heard rumors that she may not come back...)

A healthy, growing company does not let 60+ people go because of 'technological advances'. Especially not when they're applying for tax breaks and claiming they'll be adding 440 new jobs to the city/state economy. (So, really after Netshops lays off the Thralow reps, that will bring the total laid off to approximately 100 employees let go in 90 days. In reality, they're only creating 340 new jobs, not the 440 as submitted on their application.) Netshops has issues and those issues start at the top and roll down from there. As always, I look forward to your emails and comments.