Big bruise

 

First off, let us be very clear about one thing: there”™s nothing wrong with layoffs when it comes to a company”™s survival.

 

But when a company ”“ a very large one ”“ that receives taxpayer funding is not forthcoming or transparent about the number of layoffs it is imposing, then it is troublesome.

 

A large company such as IBM that has a very large presence in the communities of the Hudson Valley did more harm than good ”“ public relations-wise ”“ when it decided to be evasive as to when layoffs were occurring and the total number of layoffs, er rather, “resource action” being implemented in the Hudson Valley region.

 

Just prior to the layoffs it had announced profits of $12 billion-plus and last week was trading at $95 a share. That was perceived as meaning the company was doing well and any sort of talk about a job action would be rumor mongering.

 

When a company such the computer giant is the number one recipient in the state of funds from the Empire Zone, somewhere around $31 million, it needs to be more transparent about what it is doing. When news organizations rely on a Web site run by a former IBM employee for substance, albeit biased as evidenced in most worker blogs, then there”™s something wrong with this picture. Rumors become truth in this dangerous scenario. And yes, sometimes rumors are true, but getting official word on any business action is the most judicious route.

 

So why the stonewalling IBM?

Analysts were left scratching their collective heads by the lack of company-approved statements issued concerning the layoffs, er, “resource action.” IBM does get some points for calling it a resource action since it is probably the more correct phrase, for layoffs are technically not firings; they afford workers a chance to be called back.

 

---

The 8,000 layoffs/firings/force reductions ”“ the number gathered via blogs ”“ is small in the IBM labor pool, which has a population of about 400,000 worldwide. Big Blue had to do what it felt it had to do. But the next time it does so, perhaps it should follow the example of say Microsoft, which was forthcoming when it said it laid off (probably fired) 5,000.

 

When it comes to cutting a work force, it”™s best to do it forthrightly and with transparency.

 

Perception is a fragile, ephemeral quality subject to the whims of a public battered by the pros and cons of tax-dollar-based bailouts.

 

Keeping business actions honest and transparent will help with the public”™s perception of one”™s actions.