Well, it's almost been a year since being laid off by Doug and Netshops. Hope everyone who was let go in the past 12 months has been able to move on and have found a satisfying position.
To those still employed by Netshops keep your resume updated and keep your eyes open for the next opportunity to come. When it does, jump on it! After all, we can't all open an ice cream shop with a Netshops owner. If I did, I wonder if I'd be exempt from future layoffs....
As always, any info you want to share can be submitted as comment here or emailed to me.
Stay classy Netshops.
Showing posts with label Lay off. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lay off. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Monday, March 19, 2007
Hodgepodge of Netshops layoff related info today
A little fun for all you Netshoppers reading right now, because I know you aren't doing anything job related....
Take this quiz
Duluth News Tribune picks up on the impending layoffs.
Read the comments on the article here.
Another person not happy with how they were treated by Netshops.
Amanda Collier's blog
As always, feel free to email me or post a comment.
Take this quiz
Duluth News Tribune picks up on the impending layoffs.
Thralow employees offered jobs in Omaha
Jane Brissett Duluth News TribunePublished Friday, March 16, 2007NetShops, the Omaha, Neb., company that that bought Web sites from Proctor-based Thralow Inc., has begun offering jobs in Omaha to employees of the local e-commerce firm. Those who aren’t hired will be given a severance package, said NetShops’ human resources director.
All operations from Proctor are moving to Omaha, said Dana Coonce, human
resources director at NetShops. Dan Thralow, who founded Thralow Inc. and now
works for NetShops, said that 35 of the 39 employees who work in Proctor elected
to go to Omaha at NetShops’ expense to see the headquarters and learn about the
company.
NetShops is just beginning to assess how many people it needs and to make offers to workers in Proctor, Coonce said. If Proctor employees aren’t hired to work in Omaha and aren’t retained by Thralow Inc., they will be cut from the payroll and given a severance package, she said. NetShops, which has more than $100 million in annual sales, bought 40 of Thralow Inc.’s Web sites — but not the company itself — in November. The sites include Binoculars.com, Telescopes.com, Peepers
.com and others.Thralow said the company named for him will remain in Proctor at 9803 Westgate Boulevard in the JOBZ tax-free zone where the company’s warehouse building was recently completed. Thralow said he “can’t answer” what Thralow Inc. will do or how many people it will employ. “There will be a payroll,” he said.
Thralow said he has no plans to move to Omaha.
When the sale was announced, NetShops said it would keep all of Thralow Inc.’s employees. NetShops is a private firm that owned about 120 retail specialty sites — such as PatioUmbrellas.com, Hammocks.com and Dartboards.com — at the time of the acquisition. It was named Inc. magazine’s 13th fastest-growing company in America in 2006.
Thralow Inc. started as a retail outlet called Peepers in downtown Duluth’s Holiday Center. The company began selling sunglasses online in 1996 at Peepers.com and expanded to binoculars and other optical products with various Web sites. Thralow sold the business to Eye City Inc. in 1999, then bought it back at a fraction of the
original sale price when EyeCity folded in 2001. Thralow Inc. was named the
203rd fastest-growing company in America in 2006 by Inc. magazine.The Omaha World Herald reported on Feb. 7 that NetShops laid off about 50 people to achieve efficiencies and didn’t plan more cuts. Coonce said that was due to a
reorganization unrelated to the current transition.
The integration of the Proctor and Omaha work forces probably will take several months, she said.
Read the comments on the article here.
On a positive note, Laura Erickson's new blog appears to have been pulled. Maybe she's getting Birderblog.com back? Right now, Birderblog.com goes to Binoculars.com, so I have to assume something's going on with the two sites. Laura, if you can, please give us details.
Another person not happy with how they were treated by Netshops.
Amanda Collier's blog
As always, feel free to email me or post a comment.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Karma's a bitch.
Piss one person off and they'll tell 10 of their friends. Piss two off and they'll tell 20 people, those 20 will tell another 5 - 7, those 5 - 7 will tell 3 -4, and soon, hundreds will know about problems within a company.
I wonder how many more people we'll see start to speak out about Netshops and Thralow now....
Just read the blog after the jump
Laura, good luck in your fight. Go get 'em.
Funny - I don't remember hearing anyone say the 60+ people laid off by Netshops were 'not growing with the company'. Is that what Doug and Co said to the Thralow reps when asked about the layoffs? If so, I've got performance reviews to prove otherwise. Heck, I've even got year to date store performance reports from some of my stores. If I wasn't 'growing with the company' I wonder why my stores were all profitable.
Makes you go "Hmm..."
One last thought for the day. Duluth is about 2.5 hour's drive from Mall of America - the biggest mall in the United States, not to mention these other attractions. Knowing that, why would Netshops take the Thralow reps to area malls (and Chuck E Cheese - mustn't forget Chuck E Cheese) as a selling point of moving here? Talk about not understanding the people you're selling to. Could be an indication of how well the current Netshops staff will understand Thralow's group of sites...
As always, I look forward to your emails and comments!
I wonder how many more people we'll see start to speak out about Netshops and Thralow now....
Just read the blog after the jump
Laura, good luck in your fight. Go get 'em.
Funny - I don't remember hearing anyone say the 60+ people laid off by Netshops were 'not growing with the company'. Is that what Doug and Co said to the Thralow reps when asked about the layoffs? If so, I've got performance reviews to prove otherwise. Heck, I've even got year to date store performance reports from some of my stores. If I wasn't 'growing with the company' I wonder why my stores were all profitable.
Makes you go "Hmm..."
One last thought for the day. Duluth is about 2.5 hour's drive from Mall of America - the biggest mall in the United States, not to mention these other attractions. Knowing that, why would Netshops take the Thralow reps to area malls (and Chuck E Cheese - mustn't forget Chuck E Cheese) as a selling point of moving here? Talk about not understanding the people you're selling to. Could be an indication of how well the current Netshops staff will understand Thralow's group of sites...
As always, I look forward to your emails and comments!
Monday, March 12, 2007
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
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)
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.
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.
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.
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'?
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.
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.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
So, what would you say...ya do here?
I already told you: I deal with the god damn customers so the store managers* don't have to. I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?
* Yeah, I changed it to be more Netshops specific. So what?
I just wish I could have taken a copier with me when I left....
Monday, March 5, 2007
Busy weekend!
LOTS of emails over the weekend! Just want to answer a few questions - both from emails and from comments posted below.
"CrazyMama" said
Actually Crazy (I can call you crazy, right? If you are who I think you are, its a fitting name..) this blog has taken all of, 20 minutes to post. That's about the length of one of your 3 smoke breaks per day, isn't it? I never took a break. I was at my desk 9+ hours a day. The only time I was gone was for lunch - and that was usually 30 minutes, not to mention any work I did from home after leaving the office. How's that teaching degree coming?
Then "CrazyMama" said
Pretty lengthy way to say what I've already said.... I said (in an earlier post) 'Were some of those individuals let go due to be released based on poor performance? Possibly.' However, I went on to ask, "Were any of them told about their poor performance? Only one that I've heard about - and that was through her comment on this blog. If the employees let go were distracted, unmotivated or just simply in the wrong position, perhaps a solid career path would have helped motivate them." Maybe you missed reading that. Where are you going to be in the company in 6 months? Will you even be with the company in 6 months?
Oh and CrazyMama? Your jealousy of Leigh won't get you very far in life. Just because she had a backbone and stood up for herself when a member of upper management decided to mane an unwarranted negative comment (FYI, Leigh's immediate supervisor heard the comment and failed to do anything about it. Could that be because the two managers are dating? Can you say 'fraternization policy'? I knew you could...) doesn't mean you get to try to talk down to her here. My respect for Leigh jumped about 100 points when she told Netshops she was done. She remained professional - which is more than I've ever seen out of you.
On to other questions.
To "J" who emailed from a far off place, yes, last I heard Paulette is still employed. I guess buying shoes for the call center manager gets you some job security at Netshops. Maybe I should have given her a Coke bottle for Xmas.
Oh well, live and learn.
Lastly, here's a fun message that was sent to me. All of you still employed at Netshops should give this a try at Doug's next all company meeting.
Before (or during) your next meeting, seminar, or conference call,
prepare yourself by drawing a square. I find that 5"x5" is a good size.
Divide the card into columns-five across and five down. That will give
you 25 one-inch blocks.
Write one of the following words/phrases in each block:
* synergy
* strategic fit
* core competencies
* best practice
* bottom line
* revisit
* expeditious
* to tell you the truth (or "the truth is")
* 24/7
* out of the loop
* benchmark
* value-added
* proactive
* win-win
* think outside the box
* fast track
* result-driven
* empower (or empowerment)
* knowledge base
* at the end of the day
* touch base
* mindset
* client focus(ed)
* paradigm
* game plan
* leverage
* scaleable
* on track (or on pace)
** last, but certainly not least, that ol' Netshops stand by, it is what it is
Check off the appropriate block when you hear one of those words or
phrases. When you get five blocks horizontally, vertically, or diagonally,
stand up and shout "BULLSHIT!"
That's all for now. I've got some jobs to apply for. As always, I look forward to hearing from you!
"CrazyMama" said
Just a thought, but maybe if you had put this much time and effort into your job at Netshops, you would still be there. Then again, the largest portion of this blog was coppied from someone else, so maybe that says a lot about your work.
Actually Crazy (I can call you crazy, right? If you are who I think you are, its a fitting name..) this blog has taken all of, 20 minutes to post. That's about the length of one of your 3 smoke breaks per day, isn't it? I never took a break. I was at my desk 9+ hours a day. The only time I was gone was for lunch - and that was usually 30 minutes, not to mention any work I did from home after leaving the office. How's that teaching degree coming?
Then "CrazyMama" said
I couldn't disagree with Leigh more. Many of the efficiencies created by the layoff and the upgrades / changes made to the systems and procedures were to the benefit of the customer. As for loyalty to the employees, Netshops is loyal to those employees who are loyal to Netshops, not those who give 8 hours notice of their departure (and that notice was given only when confronted). Those employees who work hard, help find solutions to the inefficiencies and truly see the future of Netshops are rewarded and valued. Those who show up everyday in their pajamas and slippers only to bitch and moan about what is wrong have/had no loyalty to Netshops, and were probably on the list to go. Of course money and profit are important; this is a business, not a slumber party. It is understandable to see resentment from those let go, but maybe those people should take a hard look at the time they spent with Netshops and the value they actually contributed. This isn't to say that everyone let go was not a good employee. I am sure there were many cases where there was just a need to reshape positions and processes and some positions were no longer necessary. I have no doubt that those people will find great things at another company.
Pretty lengthy way to say what I've already said.... I said (in an earlier post) 'Were some of those individuals let go due to be released based on poor performance? Possibly.' However, I went on to ask, "Were any of them told about their poor performance? Only one that I've heard about - and that was through her comment on this blog. If the employees let go were distracted, unmotivated or just simply in the wrong position, perhaps a solid career path would have helped motivate them." Maybe you missed reading that. Where are you going to be in the company in 6 months? Will you even be with the company in 6 months?
Oh and CrazyMama? Your jealousy of Leigh won't get you very far in life. Just because she had a backbone and stood up for herself when a member of upper management decided to mane an unwarranted negative comment (FYI, Leigh's immediate supervisor heard the comment and failed to do anything about it. Could that be because the two managers are dating? Can you say 'fraternization policy'? I knew you could...) doesn't mean you get to try to talk down to her here. My respect for Leigh jumped about 100 points when she told Netshops she was done. She remained professional - which is more than I've ever seen out of you.
On to other questions.
To "J" who emailed from a far off place, yes, last I heard Paulette is still employed. I guess buying shoes for the call center manager gets you some job security at Netshops. Maybe I should have given her a Coke bottle for Xmas.
Oh well, live and learn.
Lastly, here's a fun message that was sent to me. All of you still employed at Netshops should give this a try at Doug's next all company meeting.
Before (or during) your next meeting, seminar, or conference call,
prepare yourself by drawing a square. I find that 5"x5" is a good size.
Divide the card into columns-five across and five down. That will give
you 25 one-inch blocks.
Write one of the following words/phrases in each block:
* synergy
* strategic fit
* core competencies
* best practice
* bottom line
* revisit
* expeditious
* to tell you the truth (or "the truth is")
* 24/7
* out of the loop
* benchmark
* value-added
* proactive
* win-win
* think outside the box
* fast track
* result-driven
* empower (or empowerment)
* knowledge base
* at the end of the day
* touch base
* mindset
* client focus(ed)
* paradigm
* game plan
* leverage
* scaleable
* on track (or on pace)
** last, but certainly not least, that ol' Netshops stand by, it is what it is
Check off the appropriate block when you hear one of those words or
phrases. When you get five blocks horizontally, vertically, or diagonally,
stand up and shout "BULLSHIT!"
That's all for now. I've got some jobs to apply for. As always, I look forward to hearing from you!
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Churn and what it means
In the business world, hiring people while laying off others is called churn.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, Netshops laid off 60+ employees 2/1/07. This was done because they've "gained some efficiencies" according to Doug Nielsen (per the Omaha World Herald article).
If they've "gained some efficiencies" then why are they hiring more folks?
"Churn" (also known as "attrition") is a term used commonly to mean all kinds of departures from companies, including voluntary resignations and those fired as well as those laid off. Looking at the intentional churn created solely by layoffs gives insight into how much companies are controlling how their workforce changes. - Mercury News 12/21/2006
Was this layoff a tactic to appear more profitable? If so, maybe upper management doesn't fully understand the cost of an employee. Were some of those individuals let go due to be released based on poor performance? Possibly. Were any of them told about their poor performance? Only one that I've heard about - and that was through her comment on this blog. If the employees let go were distracted, unmotivated or just simply in the wrong position, perhaps a solid career path would have helped motivate them. (At least, that's what an article from Inc.com suggests. What would they know? They only put out the annual list of the 500 fastest growing US companies.) With as many reorgs as I was part of in the time I was there, it was tough to figure out what my current responsiblities were, much less where I was headed six months down the road. I can't imagine I as the only one who felt that way, but maybe I was. Despite this, I think I was still motivated to do a good job every day - staying late, taking on extra responsibilities and in general trying to go above and beyond what my job description called for. Maybe this wasn't the case? Who knows - I certainly wasn't told about any areas I was lacking in. Based on my most recent review, I was an 'above average' employee. (I was above average on my previous reviews as well.) Too bad that doesn't equate to job security these days.
As always, feel free to email me or post your comments. I look forward to hearing from you!
As I pointed out in an earlier post, Netshops laid off 60+ employees 2/1/07. This was done because they've "gained some efficiencies" according to Doug Nielsen (per the Omaha World Herald article).
If they've "gained some efficiencies" then why are they hiring more folks?
"Churn" (also known as "attrition") is a term used commonly to mean all kinds of departures from companies, including voluntary resignations and those fired as well as those laid off. Looking at the intentional churn created solely by layoffs gives insight into how much companies are controlling how their workforce changes. - Mercury News 12/21/2006
Was this layoff a tactic to appear more profitable? If so, maybe upper management doesn't fully understand the cost of an employee. Were some of those individuals let go due to be released based on poor performance? Possibly. Were any of them told about their poor performance? Only one that I've heard about - and that was through her comment on this blog. If the employees let go were distracted, unmotivated or just simply in the wrong position, perhaps a solid career path would have helped motivate them. (At least, that's what an article from Inc.com suggests. What would they know? They only put out the annual list of the 500 fastest growing US companies.) With as many reorgs as I was part of in the time I was there, it was tough to figure out what my current responsiblities were, much less where I was headed six months down the road. I can't imagine I as the only one who felt that way, but maybe I was. Despite this, I think I was still motivated to do a good job every day - staying late, taking on extra responsibilities and in general trying to go above and beyond what my job description called for. Maybe this wasn't the case? Who knows - I certainly wasn't told about any areas I was lacking in. Based on my most recent review, I was an 'above average' employee. (I was above average on my previous reviews as well.) Too bad that doesn't equate to job security these days.
As always, feel free to email me or post your comments. I look forward to hearing from you!
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Here it is. My first blog.
Let's see....a nice Netshops green should work well for my blog. Almost makes it look...official.
Now, where to begin?
I guess we'll start at the end. That's probably the best place to start the tale.
Netshops laid off over 60 employees on February 1, 2007.
After a profitable holiday - one where the company was more profitable than ever according to Doug Nielsen (President and CEO) - more than 60 people lost their jobs. The message was clear. "Thanks for your contribution this holiday season. We'll be seeing you." No reason given - just "Here's your compensation package. There's the door."
Kind of takes some of the 'shine' off of that "One of Omaha's Best Places to Work in 2006" award now doesn't it? Tough to be one of the "Fastest Growing Companies" when you lay off almost a third of your work force. I don't think we'll be seeing the Netshops name on those award lists this year.
Oh, by the way, I was one of those let go. This is my story. As I tell the story, hopefully some of the other people let go in this lay off (and previous layoffs) will choos to comment on their experiences. Feel free to email me (laid_off_by_netshops@yahoo.com) as well if you have questions or comments.
Now, where to begin?
I guess we'll start at the end. That's probably the best place to start the tale.
Netshops laid off over 60 employees on February 1, 2007.
After a profitable holiday - one where the company was more profitable than ever according to Doug Nielsen (President and CEO) - more than 60 people lost their jobs. The message was clear. "Thanks for your contribution this holiday season. We'll be seeing you." No reason given - just "Here's your compensation package. There's the door."
Kind of takes some of the 'shine' off of that "One of Omaha's Best Places to Work in 2006" award now doesn't it? Tough to be one of the "Fastest Growing Companies" when you lay off almost a third of your work force. I don't think we'll be seeing the Netshops name on those award lists this year.
Oh, by the way, I was one of those let go. This is my story. As I tell the story, hopefully some of the other people let go in this lay off (and previous layoffs) will choos to comment on their experiences. Feel free to email me (laid_off_by_netshops@yahoo.com) as well if you have questions or comments.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
