You're viewing a single thread.
Previous company decided that not only would they make people redundant but they'd also gut the benefits of those who stayed and worsen working conditions all whilst trying to transition their entire manufacturing process to entirely different equipment.
Unsurprisingly all the experienced and skilled workers took their generous payouts or bailed as soon as the new process and working conditions went to shit.
Literally 10s of millions invested in machinery and a few million in redundancy all to end up making less and worse product at a higher cost than before. Combined with the few that stayed having zero morale and it was cluster fuck that's irreparably damaged a 140 year old company.
I bounced once I'd got enough experience to be of value elsewhere.
I just can’t understand the rationale for all that. Was it all for cost cutting? You would think after 140 years they would be relatively stable.
My guess is that they made two contradictory policies and didn't realize the combined effect.
Ah my mistake to omit that bit.
It was new ownership combined with an actual need for new machinery. The old lines were multiple decades old and being held together by creative engineering.
Now new more efficient machinery and some redundancies would be normal and kind of expected. But the manner in which it was done was the issue. Immediately alienated the entire workforce and lost the most skilled workers to boot. All tied together with a nice little bow of utterly incompetent planning regarding the implementation and procurement process. The final cherry on top was the complete inability to market the new product.
It was sad seeing a company that was profitable with good brand recognition and actual competitive advantages literally piss it all away inside 12 months of a 140 year history.