Profitable multinational fires team to cut costs

Profitable multinational dismisses entire department

The numbers add up, yet the dismissal still happens. An employee with years of seniority, unpaid overtime, and exemplary dedication was let go along with all colleagues because management approved a cost reduction plan, despite the company having no financial problems: the firm, a well-known and profitable multinational, makes money. What is striking is not the case itself, but how normal it seems in parts of the labor market, where commitment is demanded from workers but never reciprocated.

The adjustment is made on profits, not losses, and those who sign off know that an experienced workforce weighs heavily on the income statement. The uncomfortable question is not whether the company can do this, but why it pays off for them.

The case: profits, unpaid overtime, and mass exit

The starting story is about a relative fired after years of dedication, accompanied by the usual corporate rhetoric: effort was demanded because "the company will do well, and therefore you too." In parallel, overtime was not paid under an explicit and undisguised policy: we don't pay overtime here; if you like it, fine, otherwise leave.

A pattern that, according to several participants, repeats in other companies: demand for emotional commitment, flat compensation, and replacement by workers with lower salary expectations when the position can be rewritten. The company did not hide any dramatic reasons. There was no drop in sales or losses. There was a management decision and an exit date.

Why does a profitable company fire if things are going well?

Because profit is not the only indicator management looks at. Lowering the cost per hour worked improves margins even if revenue grows, and these margins are what are rewarded at the top. In the described case, and according to the account, the departing staff is replaced by workers willing to accept more austere conditions, a move some participants also locate in administrative and accounting departments relocated to Poland, the Philippines, or Slovakia.

The paradox has a stinging detail: in many of these processes, employees who leave dedicate their last days to training those who take their place. Knowledge transfer included. Some argue that rotation is part of the model and that most of the workforce accepts it from day one.

Seniority as a burden: the cost of firing a veteran

Each year of service accumulates rights that the company sees as a growing weight. Severance pay, with references in the thread of up to 80 days per year worked, functions both as a brake for the employee, who loses accumulated benefits if they leave, and as a cost for the employer, who prefers rotation over a consolidated workforce.

The most repeated proposal is to convert that severance into a personal fund filled year by year, which the worker takes with them, without receiving payment if they leave but without losing it. The argument is that current regulations tie both parties: the company is forced to keep those who do not perform, and the worker loses mobility. With short-term contracts, the problem disappears quickly.

"Paid month, forgotten month": work is no longer for life

This maxim has become common sense. The employment bond lasts only as long as the current paid month, and the next one must be earned again. From this logic, those who believe in stable employment end up deceived, and the sensible strategy is to work by objectives, not by hours: some report four-hour days occasionally and six or seven hours mostly.

Another trend adds selfishness as a method: training, applying to other companies during office hours, and changing jobs as soon as a better offer appears. If the company optimizes, the employee should too.

The other argument: "if you provide value, you won't be replaced"

The harshest counterargument comes from the business side. If the work of an entire department can be done by cheaper staff, it is argued, then that work had no complexity and provided no differential value. The implicit conclusion is that the blame for replacement lies with those who allowed themselves to be replaced.

The reverse is less epic. Those who support the latter describe the real position of the employee as that of the weaker party: tasks are removed, everything is reviewed, punitive assignments are given, and colleagues look away. Enduring with minimal effort until the letter arrives is a strategy, but also a drain.

From doing the minimum to reported internal damages

In the most extreme testimonies, episodes of sabotage narrated by a participant appear: a machine valued at €100,000 broken without notice and three wheels of a company vehicle damaged. These are anonymous accounts that resolve nothing and expose individuals to liability, while leaving the worker without the reference needed for the next job.

What almost all voices share is a practical conclusion: those who stay when the company has already decided to get rid of them end up worse off. Negotiated exits or active job searches work better than attrition warfare.

With labor cost as the dominant variable and rotation accepted as a management norm, it is likely that these cases will repeat in increasingly qualified departments. No one signs off, however, on the bill for training, errors, and lost knowledge that the company pays when the veteran is gone.

---