70 replies to this topic

[J13]

MtlJeff, on 10 November 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

there's a lot of reasons to fire someone....looking at me cockeyed, general insolence, not responding to my advances, responding to my advances and then mocking my multiple inadequacies, responding to my advances and then getting "clingy",  not taking the empty coffee thing out of the keurig machine....the list goes on...

You are management material all day sir

[philsRHman]

I don't think I made the point I was trying to make. I completely understand the pressures of business and have been in the seat where I'm told cut three people, we had a terrible quarter. Those are the worst cuts. I've had to let go of people who weren't in the right job and were a detriment to those around them.

My objection was the response to the folks commenting. "Whew! Thank God! Imagine Callaway without Niclas Fasth swinging a Razr Fit!" In reality, the fact Callaway is struggling and having to cut staff at the lower levels is a problem if you're worried about the health of the company.

When a company says  "We did have a streamlining of some of our operations about 10 days ago that touched a few different areas. Departments in Carlsbad and Canada were impacted" that means they did lay offs, and that's different than performance based staffing moves, which is where this conversation has turned. If a rep isn't pulling his weight, you make a chance, you don't eliminate the position. Two completely different HR situations.

Bottom line point I was trying to make is, a number of people just lost their jobs. They're people like you and me. Rejoicing that Callaway's Tour staff is unfazed in that situation, seems to be in poor taste, particularly from the Callaway Sr. VP of Marketing, who should know better.

All that said, I love Callaway equipment, play their driver, wish I could hit my X-Protos well enough to bag them, and Phil is my favorite player. In this case though, I think it comes across as insensitive to those who lose their jobs. And Harry, if I'm misreading your statement and there weren't job cuts, then set me straight and I'll eat crow and apologize.

[MadGolfer76]

philsRHman, on 10 November 2012 - 08:44 PM, said:

I don't think I made the point I was trying to make. I completely understand the pressures of business and have been in the seat where I'm told cut three people, we had a terrible quarter. Those are the worst cuts. I've had to let go of people who weren't in the right job and were a detriment to those around them.

My objection was the response to the folks commenting. "Whew! Thank God! Imagine Callaway without Niclas Fasth swinging a Razr Fit!" In reality, the fact Callaway is struggling and having to cut staff at the lower levels is a problem if you're worried about the health of the company.

When a company says  "We did have a streamlining of some of our operations about 10 days ago that touched a few different areas. Departments in Carlsbad and Canada were impacted" that means they did lay offs, and that's different than performance based staffing moves, which is where this conversation has turned. If a rep isn't pulling his weight, you make a chance, you don't eliminate the position. Two completely different HR situations.

Bottom line point I was trying to make is, a number of people just lost their jobs. They're people like you and me. Rejoicing that Callaway's Tour staff is unfazed in that situation, seems to be in poor taste, particularly from the Callaway Sr. VP of Marketing, who should know better.

All that said, I love Callaway equipment, play their driver, wish I could hit my X-Protos well enough to bag them, and Phil is my favorite player. In this case though, I think it comes across as insensitive to those who lose their jobs. And Harry, if I'm misreading your statement and there weren't job cuts, then set me straight and I'll eat crow and apologize.

Well said. No one in these forums will get what you are saying, unfortunately. Hence my earlier tongue-in-cheek posts. Lots of "we have a responsibility to our stakeholders types" across the board.

Edited by MadGolfer76, 10 November 2012 - 09:00 PM.

[bscinstnct]

philsRHman, on 10 November 2012 - 08:44 PM, said:

I don't think I made the point I was trying to make. I completely understand the pressures of business and have been in the seat where I'm told cut three people, we had a terrible quarter. Those are the worst cuts. I've had to let go of people who weren't in the right job and were a detriment to those around them.

My objection was the response to the folks commenting. "Whew! Thank God! Imagine Callaway without Niclas Fasth swinging a Razr Fit!" In reality, the fact Callaway is struggling and having to cut staff at the lower levels is a problem if you're worried about the health of the company.

When a company says  "We did have a streamlining of some of our operations about 10 days ago that touched a few different areas. Departments in Carlsbad and Canada were impacted" that means they did lay offs, and that's different than performance based staffing moves, which is where this conversation has turned. If a rep isn't pulling his weight, you make a chance, you don't eliminate the position. Two completely different HR situations.

Bottom line point I was trying to make is, a number of people just lost their jobs. They're people like you and me. Rejoicing that Callaway's Tour staff is unfazed in that situation, seems to be in poor taste, particularly from the Callaway Sr. VP of Marketing, who should know better.

All that said, I love Callaway equipment, play their driver, wish I could hit my X-Protos well enough to bag them, and Phil is my favorite player. In this case though, I think it comes across as insensitive to those who lose their jobs. And Harry, if I'm misreading your statement and there weren't job cuts, then set me straight and I'll eat crow and apologize.

Your comment suggests that Harry "rejoiced" in people losing their jobs.

Is that what you are saying?

Because I don't see that he said that at all.

He seemed to confirm staff reduction, but you seem to attache the word "rejoice" to his comments on the reduction.

Maybe you should clarify what you are saying?

[MadGolfer76]

bscinstnct, on 10 November 2012 - 09:17 PM, said:

philsRHman, on 10 November 2012 - 08:44 PM, said:

I don't think I made the point I was trying to make. I completely understand the pressures of business and have been in the seat where I'm told cut three people, we had a terrible quarter. Those are the worst cuts. I've had to let go of people who weren't in the right job and were a detriment to those around them.

My objection was the response to the folks commenting. "Whew! Thank God! Imagine Callaway without Niclas Fasth swinging a Razr Fit!" In reality, the fact Callaway is struggling and having to cut staff at the lower levels is a problem if you're worried about the health of the company.

When a company says  "We did have a streamlining of some of our operations about 10 days ago that touched a few different areas. Departments in Carlsbad and Canada were impacted" that means they did lay offs, and that's different than performance based staffing moves, which is where this conversation has turned. If a rep isn't pulling his weight, you make a chance, you don't eliminate the position. Two completely different HR situations.

Bottom line point I was trying to make is, a number of people just lost their jobs. They're people like you and me. Rejoicing that Callaway's Tour staff is unfazed in that situation, seems to be in poor taste, particularly from the Callaway Sr. VP of Marketing, who should know better.

All that said, I love Callaway equipment, play their driver, wish I could hit my X-Protos well enough to bag them, and Phil is my favorite player. In this case though, I think it comes across as insensitive to those who lose their jobs. And Harry, if I'm misreading your statement and there weren't job cuts, then set me straight and I'll eat crow and apologize.

Your comment suggests that Harry "rejoiced" in people losing their jobs.

Is that what you are saying?

Because I don't see that he said that at all.

He seemed to confirm staff reduction, but you seem to attache the word "rejoice" to his comments on the reduction.

Maybe you should clarify what you are saying?

No, he didn't say that. If you read for context, you will recognize that he phrased the "rejoicing" part from the perspective of others responding to Harry's clarification. Not Harry's statement itself.

[bscinstnct]

MadGolfer76, on 10 November 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

bscinstnct, on 10 November 2012 - 09:17 PM, said:

philsRHman, on 10 November 2012 - 08:44 PM, said:

I don't think I made the point I was trying to make. I completely understand the pressures of business and have been in the seat where I'm told cut three people, we had a terrible quarter. Those are the worst cuts. I've had to let go of people who weren't in the right job and were a detriment to those around them.

My objection was the response to the folks commenting. "Whew! Thank God! Imagine Callaway without Niclas Fasth swinging a Razr Fit!" In reality, the fact Callaway is struggling and having to cut staff at the lower levels is a problem if you're worried about the health of the company.

When a company says  "We did have a streamlining of some of our operations about 10 days ago that touched a few different areas. Departments in Carlsbad and Canada were impacted" that means they did lay offs, and that's different than performance based staffing moves, which is where this conversation has turned. If a rep isn't pulling his weight, you make a chance, you don't eliminate the position. Two completely different HR situations.

Bottom line point I was trying to make is, a number of people just lost their jobs. They're people like you and me. Rejoicing that Callaway's Tour staff is unfazed in that situation, seems to be in poor taste, particularly from the Callaway Sr. VP of Marketing, who should know better.

All that said, I love Callaway equipment, play their driver, wish I could hit my X-Protos well enough to bag them, and Phil is my favorite player. In this case though, I think it comes across as insensitive to those who lose their jobs. And Harry, if I'm misreading your statement and there weren't job cuts, then set me straight and I'll eat crow and apologize.

Your comment suggests that Harry "rejoiced" in people losing their jobs.

Is that what you are saying?

Because I don't see that he said that at all.

He seemed to confirm staff reduction, but you seem to attache the word "rejoice" to his comments on the reduction.

Maybe you should clarify what you are saying?

No, he didn't say that. If you read for context, you will recognize that he phrased the "rejoicing" part from the perspective of others responding to Harry's clarification. Not Harry's statement itself.

But he put Harrys title in the middle of the statement.

Poorly done, no context to do so and the statement should be explained, retracted or clarified.

On top of that, NOBODY is "rejoicing" in people losing jobs.

Who said they were?

Edited by bscinstnct, 10 November 2012 - 09:28 PM.

[philsRHman]

I felt like the people commenting in the thread "rejoiced."

Harry didn't, but he did gloss over the job cuts while adamantly bending over backwards to deny the reports about Tour staff being cut. I think he could have shown more sensitivity as well, but he didn't rejoice and I don't think I said he did.

[MadGolfer76]

bscinstnct, on 10 November 2012 - 09:25 PM, said:

MadGolfer76, on 10 November 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

bscinstnct, on 10 November 2012 - 09:17 PM, said:

philsRHman, on 10 November 2012 - 08:44 PM, said:

I don't think I made the point I was trying to make. I completely understand the pressures of business and have been in the seat where I'm told cut three people, we had a terrible quarter. Those are the worst cuts. I've had to let go of people who weren't in the right job and were a detriment to those around them.

My objection was the response to the folks commenting. "Whew! Thank God! Imagine Callaway without Niclas Fasth swinging a Razr Fit!" In reality, the fact Callaway is struggling and having to cut staff at the lower levels is a problem if you're worried about the health of the company.

When a company says  "We did have a streamlining of some of our operations about 10 days ago that touched a few different areas. Departments in Carlsbad and Canada were impacted" that means they did lay offs, and that's different than performance based staffing moves, which is where this conversation has turned. If a rep isn't pulling his weight, you make a chance, you don't eliminate the position. Two completely different HR situations.

Bottom line point I was trying to make is, a number of people just lost their jobs. They're people like you and me. Rejoicing that Callaway's Tour staff is unfazed in that situation, seems to be in poor taste, particularly from the Callaway Sr. VP of Marketing, who should know better.

All that said, I love Callaway equipment, play their driver, wish I could hit my X-Protos well enough to bag them, and Phil is my favorite player. In this case though, I think it comes across as insensitive to those who lose their jobs. And Harry, if I'm misreading your statement and there weren't job cuts, then set me straight and I'll eat crow and apologize.

Your comment suggests that Harry "rejoiced" in people losing their jobs.

Is that what you are saying?

Because I don't see that he said that at all.

He seemed to confirm staff reduction, but you seem to attache the word "rejoice" to his comments on the reduction.

Maybe you should clarify what you are saying?

No, he didn't say that. If you read for context, you will recognize that he phrased the "rejoicing" part from the perspective of others responding to Harry's clarification. Not Harry's statement itself.

But he put Harrys title in the middle of the statement.

Poorly done, no context to do so and the statement should be explained, retracted or clarified.

On top of that, NOBODY is "rejoicing" in people losing jobs.

Who said they were?

Okay, I think I see the part you mean (the part he followed it with?).

Eh, Harry is a big boy. If it is true, there is no need to do or say anything.

Edited by MadGolfer76, 10 November 2012 - 09:33 PM.

[philsRHman]

Never said people were rejoicing over job cuts. They were rejoicing over the fact none of the beloved Tour staff were cut.

Let me put this a way you might understand:
1. Your dad works at a factory.
2. Owner announces 20 people in your dad's department of 100 are getting cut.
3. Your dad is one of 80 who keep their jobs.
4. You do a victory dance at the going-away gathering for the 20 who got cut.

BAD TASTE!

That's all I'm saying. I'm sorry I'm so bad at making my point and it's causing so much confusion for some of you guys.

(There's also an argument that 1-2 of those Tour players could have saved X number of real jobs, but I don't believe in that sort of one-for-one business/cost correlation because each serves a different purpose, but now I'm running the risk of entering advanced discourse, which doesn't seem wise given how poorly I've done trying to make my original point).

[bscinstnct]

Phil, I see your points and they make sense on multiple levels. I also appreciate your insight.

Consider that Harry is a Marketing guy. He is not the CFO beancounter.

Having sharp talent to promote the brand would be a primary goal for him and I understand he would be proactive to point out that his companies clubs are effective tools for the best players and that his company places a high value on having great talent using their clubs. Not saying he was being defensive, but I could understand if he was.

These tough times impact us all, they create tension. Its a terrible thing.

Edited by bscinstnct, 10 November 2012 - 10:06 PM.

[Vindog]

philsRHman, on 10 November 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:

Never said people were rejoicing over job cuts. They were rejoicing over the fact none of the beloved Tour staff were cut.

Let me put this a way you might understand:
1. Your dad works at a factory.
2. Owner announces 20 people in your dad's department of 100 are getting cut.
3. Your dad is one of 80 who keep their jobs.
4. You do a victory dance at the going-away gathering for the 20 who got cut.

BAD TASTE!

That's all I'm saying. I'm sorry I'm so bad at making my point and it's causing so much confusion for some of you guys.

(There's also an argument that 1-2 of those Tour players could have saved X number of real jobs, but I don't believe in that sort of one-for-one business/cost correlation because each serves a different purpose, but now I'm running the risk of entering advanced discourse, which doesn't seem wise given how poorly I've done trying to make my original point).

I think your use of hyperbole is throwing people off of your point, to tell you the truth.

Nobody like to be told what they're thinking.  I hardly imagine anyone here doing a victory dance over job loss.  I certainly appreciate the point of view you getting at, just not necessarily the direction.  Personally I see OEM staffers as advertising, more than I see them as employees...if that makes any difference.

Edited by Vindog, 11 November 2012 - 12:13 AM.