Navigating JET AIRWAYS Layoff: HRM Strategies & Challenges

Dear All,

The news about the retrenchment of 800 staff in Jet Airways came as a shock. More depressing is the way the whole issue was handled - no notice, no reason. Just separation. What kind of management is this? More specifically, what kind of human resource management is this? Please comment.

Regards,
ash.pgdm

I guess it's better to investigate the issue first and then make comments on the same. We know what the media has reported. Nothing more... If they say no notice was given, we believe it. Notice during probation may be as short as 24 hours. So, how can one say that no notice was given? The reason is pretty clear. The recruitment was done with the view of a possible expansion. Now that it is delayed, the company doesn't really have to carry the excess staff, which would, in turn, be a problem for the management and HR later, and above all, it would be doing harm to the employees who would not have any career gains. The act is justified. It's just that the news is blown out of proportion, and the media has played a catalyst in the whole issue. Mass exodus happens in every industry; the phenomenon is not new. So why raise fingers now?

This is my view. No offense to anyone.

Regards,

Arun

I agree with Arun to some extent, but HRM is not supposed to be blamed for that. The HR department is seriously a quality dustbin, I must say. For everything, the HR department is accountable. Why was the HR department of the company the sole decision-maker for the layoff?

The twist in the tale is that JET has taken them back!!! How could a company like JET make such a huge decision of retrenchment without the consent of the company's owner?

Well, since I am an ex-Jet employee, I feel that this entire issue was blown out of proportion. I am aware of the contents of the joining and appointment letter of the organization. The organization had recruited people on a large scale for its expansion in international sectors. However, due to the turbulent economic scenario worldwide, the expansion plan was shelved or postponed. So obviously, the excess manpower was draining the limited cash inflow. Most of the employees who were given the pink slip were on probation, which means that they could be shown the door at any time. The methodology may not have been appropriate or apt, but the media termed it as unethical. The political parties also used the entire fiasco to their advantage and created a media frenzy. We generally do not bother to set our own house in order and prefer to poke at our neighbor's affairs. We all become moral judges without probing the real issues at stake. The people who suddenly decided to hold the baton of the retrenched staff were the same people who had earlier criticized the airline staff's behavior and decreasing moral standards. So why did they decide on a volte-face now? This is seriously a case of delusionary double standards. Should we actually believe these human chameleons? Are they really bothered about the masses or their political agendas?

With my past working experience in the organization, I can just say that I was looked after well, kept in the best of the hotels during the training period, given training at par with international standards, given ample exposure to corporate culture and cross-cultural diversities, and my parting was also amicable. I have grown with that brand and am marching ahead in my professional life due to my learnings and experiences acquired at Jet Airways.

Despite the current issues, I still believe it was, it is, and will always be the best employer in the aviation industry. I enjoyed my "JOY OF FLYING" immensely.

Cheers!

I agree with what has been mentioned by ex-jetties. It's just another opportunity for political parties to encash, and people who have been sacked (all sympathy with them) have to be mature. Look at the other organizations in other countries where huge numbers of employees have been let go, and the situation has worsened more than it has here. But we didn't see any strike. The first thing we do is just trouble other people, sit on the road, and strike. This is purely nonsense. Ask any of these 1900 people if they can work for a month or two without getting paid and helping their company; no one will. So, why should the business/company bear the cost? Businesses have full rights, in conjunction with employees, to decide on giving the pink slips. Everyone will understand if you look at it from a business standpoint.

Cheers,
Sid

Of course, the politicians keep looking out for these kinds of issues. The media has, as always, blown the matter out of proportion.

But kudos to Naresh Goyal. By rolling back the action, he has actually improved the dedication level of the staff.

I feel that there should be an effective regulatory body that actually evaluates the feasibility of expansion plans based on various factors. The economic crisis did not develop in a single day. Why is the ministry not being proactive in handling these kinds of critical sudden situations?

Hi All,

I am very much agreed with Siddarthtyagi. No employer will give anything to any employee without gaining anything. I know that this is very panic for the person who is out from the job after this type of situation. But, we are not suppose to think only about one side of the coin. Think about the employer’s side also, now market is totally crushed and it is very hard to maintain the company then how the company will bear that much loss. Ask to 1900 people, will they stand with the company and work without salary till then company will not stand back.

Employees are too selfish, when they get good / other opportunity then they resigned from the organization and rush to other one then they don’t bother about the current organization because they don’t want to bear any kind of loss in earnings. Then why employers bear loss and give them salaries without earning anything.

Think about this also and give comments

Regards

Pankaj Chandan

Following the news that Jet has now decided to take back 800 of its employees who were terminated 2 days ago, and also calling it an act on grounds of morality not buckling under pressure, it certainly makes one think how strong the management is.

How will a company listed on the stock exchange survive when there is no business? When the expansion plans are shelved, what is the company going to do with the excess staff? The money that the company uses is the money of its investors, since it's a listed company. How will the investor get a return on his investment when the management refuses to make a sensible decision (due to political and media pressure) of reducing staff that is a burden to the company?

The reduction of employee strength was carried out in a legitimate way and is a matter strictly within the scope of management decision-making. Why should the company then buckle under pressure and make a decision like this? Doesn't this make the HR a puppet? Terminate employees when management says so, just to take them back when political parties put pressure?

Though all 800 employees of the company have been taken back, the loser is not the management but the common man, be it by political interference or by investment in the company that buckles under pressure. The political party has only ensured a vote bank by putting pressure and getting the decision in their favor.

Your views will help in getting a better picture of this issue.

Regards,

Arun

Hi,

I agree with what was earlier mentioned. However, in this forum, we are primarily discussing HR-related topics. In the industrial sector, hiring and firing are routine occurrences. Industries often aim to manipulate their ideas and perspectives, which may be an internal matter. The key question is, did HR play a positive role in this scenario? Companies tend to focus on profits and overlook other aspects. When they anticipate a crisis, they promptly opt for workforce reduction. Is this the right management approach?

Regards

Dear All,

There is not a wrong decision by Jet Airways because without proper work, how can any company bear these expenses in the current economic situation? For example, if we have a servant in our house and our financial condition is not as good as it was in the past, and we cannot bear the salary of the servant, then we can also do the same as what Jet Airways did. So, I think Jet Airways is not acting unethically because all these employees are not confirmed employees, and Jet Airways has the right to dismiss their jobs at any time.

In the end, we all thank Mr. Naresh Goyal for taking back his decision. He made a brave decision.

Thanks,
Rakesh Johri
H.R. Professional

Times are hard. Innovativeness needs to come as a measure of rescue. Retrenchment perhaps is a need of the hour to effectively combat the economic turbulence worldwide.

Jet is an employee-friendly boss. The whole episode could have been a little more innovative - the HR way, the friendly way.

Hey all,

Now, the matter of fact is that whatever is happening with the economy is the first of its kind, and so the upcoming events are also for the first time to be experienced on a large scale. The only solution to avoid such things is that a better economic policy should be formulated so that whenever our markets are struck with such worst scenarios, there is the least negative effect on the employees and common people.

As far as I think, this is the only way. Now, the giants and all those who by now have great experience in HR, they should coordinate and decide how to manage such scenarios in the upcoming futures.

Hi,

I know we, as employees, do not like this kind of layoff by any company, be it Jet or other IT companies. We all are aware of the global meltdown, which is impacting almost all companies and consequently affecting employees. This situation is providing organizations with the advantage of cutting extra costs and implementing cost-saving measures under the pretext of the global meltdown.

I perceive this layoff as being a result of the merger with Kingfisher. If it truly was due to a global phenomenon, the company could have saved costs by reducing salaries slightly across all levels instead of resorting to laying off employees.

Hi folks,

As HR is empowered with hiring policies, it is also empowered to make termination decisions. In my opinion, the directives of HR have been overlooked and rescinded. Ultimately, it is management's decision to terminate and potentially reverse it, but it is the HR department that will bear the consequences.

Before making a decision, it is crucial to carefully consider the implications; if a decision has been made, it should be adhered to.

Regards, Srinivasan

Arre yaar... you people are still fighting out whether HR is to be blamed or not. Come on friends, this issue as a whole needs concern. Stop blaming each other, and if you can, then give valuable suggestions which would help us further to face such situations. Down the line, its cure is only helpful, not finding out reasons.

Media sensationalism aside, what was astounding to watch on TV was Naresh Goyal's claim that he wasn't even aware that the management had taken the decision to lay off its employees. Therefore, once he got to know about it, he was unable to control his emotions and hence reversed the decision. That's acceptable, though.

However, if Naresh Goyal claims that he was not informed by his management of the decision to lay off employees, I can imagine how the company must run, especially the HR department's plight of having to deal with such critical inconsistencies.

I wonder if there will ever be a thorough investigation into why the decision to lay off was made in the first place, along with all this media speculation. My guess is, all this will simmer down, and the age-old story of "All's well that ends well" will prevail.

Secondly, what worries me now is how companies are going to react to similar situations where a company may genuinely not be in a position to reverse its decision. With employees protesting and the media playing a secondary role, could genuinely financially troubled large and/or small companies be held at ransom to such pressure by employees, media, and politicians, considering that in this scenario, some of the aspects that went awry were:

1. Ineffective and immature communication by the Jet management to its employees
2. No proper business justifications being made aware to both sides (media, people, and employees)
3. The basic decorum and inability to handle separations of this kind

Hello friends,

The point that needs to be taken into consideration is that expansion and other business strategies are not made in one day. Furthermore, you need to consider both sides (success and failure) related to it and formulate a backup plan. The Jet chairman seems to be working under pressure from the environment. Whether the company is earning a profit or incurring a loss can be discerned through keen observation of the environment and the balance sheet.

The business strategy should be linked with the HR strategy. This is where the role of HR as a strategic planner comes into play.

Regards,
Enigma

Hi,

I agree with Arun and Paromita; we need to deal with the situation very carefully and strategically. When we look at our political scenario - terrorism, caste-based riots, vote-based politics, and criminal, less-educated, or illiterate politicians - it is very important to handle the HR Department when dealing with bulk issues like retrenchment.

For the HR department, there must be strategic retrenchment planning for such a large-scale employee termination.

The HR Department may retrench employees in the following ways:
1. Gradually in parts from the base location
2. Shifting staff to other business locations where the cultural and political scenario is calm; as we see in Maharashtra (Lesson from Jet) and Bengal (Lesson from Tata), which are currently stable.
3. Offer substantial reductions in salary compensation.
4. Add a special clause in the letter of appointment regarding substantial salary reduction or termination during business slowdown by the employer.
5. If recruitments are for a special project or company requirement, make them conditional on the project's success.
6. While this is a suggestion only, it is desired to be included in the relevant act to protect employees. In the event an employee seeks shelter from a trade union or a political party and exerts pressure on the organization, the government should make an effort to provide concessions, rebates, and subsidies to protect the business and employees.
7. The government should not interfere but classify its interference in the industry. Industries should be categorized from a job perspective into Premium and Standard categories, with only the standard category subject to government interference.
8. The above points may have merit, and I would like to offer this opportunity to all members to lead the technical discussion and introduce new ideas.

Anurag

Hi,

I agree this is a wrong management approach. But as per the scenario, the situation is worsening as management makes decisions not for the employees' benefit but solely for the company's interest. The company can make these decisions only because of fear (legal repercussions, media scrutiny, and public opinion siding with the employees). Therefore, for the sake of the company, management can change this stance. Employees are the real sufferers in this situation because they are aware that the company can terminate them at any time (with great caution) if the situation is mishandled. Imagine if an employee were to commit suicide due to this, what would the repercussions be? This is not a political or media issue; it is a critical management problem. It is the wrong management approach. I appeal to all HR personnel: recruitment should be based on the company's actual needs. Avoid hiring excessive employees as it only serves to reduce costs, which is a misguided approach.

Regards,

Bharti
HR

I have read a lot of points, and I strongly agree that no business is done for charity. It's business. When we, or for that matter any layman, starts a business, every step is taken to maximize profits.

So, what's the point of blaming Jet for downsizing to prevent entering a loss cycle and maintaining profitability? Why did the media and politicians suddenly criticize a business decision made in the interest of the business itself?

Perhaps the sudden action may be hard to accept, but businesses are not operated for the people; it's the business that employs the people.

Moreover, now that it has been announced that 1900 employees will be reinstated, politicians have quieted down, but the media now questions how the decision to lay off a large number of employees was made without the consent of the CM.

Oh, the Indian media! - Antima

Dear All,

The management should have made thorough groundwork before venturing into the process of retrenching 1900 employees. The issue came to notice as the number of employees retrenched was very high. It should have been done over a period of six months rather than reacting to a day's news and shock.

They could have conducted a half-yearly performance evaluation (as this is mid-FY 0809). The low performers could have been given the pink slip. They could have abstained from recruiting new employees and avoided replacing resigned employees. The percentage of salary hike could have been lowered.

Cost-cutting could have been achieved through the withdrawal of certain avoidable allowances and perks. There were many ways to handle this situation rather than resorting to massive retrenchment.

Thanks

Hello everyone,

As a former Airline industry professional, currently associated actively with trainings related to aviation, I have been following the developments in the airline industry very keenly. The very day that Jet & Kingfisher announced their strategic alliance, it should have set alarm bells ringing for employees in both the airlines.

The very purpose of having an alliance of this nature is to cut down on overheads wherever possible. These are troubled times for aviation, and the annual salary bill has become a huge burden for most airlines. More so in the case of full service carriers like Jet and Kingfisher, since their business model requires them to have a significantly larger number of cabin crew on board their flights as compared to the Low Cost carriers. And the way things had been moving in aviation till last year, they were obviously in the expansion mode, recruiting staff and gearing up for it.

The slowdown has hit everyone – each airline is struggling hard to keep flying. Jet & KF are no different. Forming the alliance was a brilliant move – it created grounds for pooling of resources. However, this also posed a problem – the combined resources created a huge surplus ! So obviously, it made sense for them to get rid of all excess staff, and naturally, the first to be hit were the probationers and contractual staff. Whilst it is a good humanitarian gesture on part of Jet to take them all back, it still doesn’t make economic sense for them.

Also, this is only the tip of the iceberg. A strategic alliance would also require them to pool resources on the ground. Which obviously means that they now have a huge surplus in terms of ground staff as well. I have the feeling that we have not heard the last of these retrenchments. I could be wrong – and I hope I am, but it would be safe to presume that many ground personnel would also be affected. We will have to wait for the dust to settle down somewhat before the actual picture becomes clearer. But one thing is for sure – the HR departments of these airlines have their work cut out for them. One can’t blame the HR people for implementing the organisational plan, even if that means sacking employees by the hundreds.

Regards,

Rajiv Bajaj
New Delhi

Hi All
That summary of the current scenario from Rajiv was pretty good. I am reminded of Lee Iacocca, who had to shut down many plants and lay off thousands and thousands of employees to save the Chrysler Corporation from bankruptcy. However, Lee Iacocca in his biography mentions the pains he took to lay off these employees in a systematic method and that too with enough notice. Taking back all the employees due to pressure may mean serious financial implications for the company in the near future and could even bring it down to its knees. Of course, we would know about that only after the dust settles down, as Rajiv put it across.
Regards
Mahesh

Hi,

In the present topic, I want to ask the question not only to the HRs but also to the Business Analysts because they need to understand the needs and the current situation in the market. Everyone is aware of the market, so at least after estimating the market, they should have informed the employees beforehand so that they could have searched for alternatives.

This episode has taught us what can be expected in case of mass termination of employees (though they are just probationers).
May be Vijaya Mallya might have been a factor for this change of decision as well.,
The gratitude expressed by an 'Ex-Jet' employee was worthy reading.
Now Raj Thakery might have got 2 more horns :)

Dear All,

The CEO of Jet is a foreigner who was not aware of Indian values and culture when choosing Diwali for the retrenchment. The timing of retrenchment is a thumb rule; you don't do it during festive times. Human relations are more than just the law.

The retrenchment is illegal as Jet Airways is an industry under the ID Act:

"Industry" means any systematic activity carried out by cooperation between an employer and their workmen for the production, supply, or distribution of goods or services with the view to satisfy human wants or wishes. This definition does not include activities such as agricultural operations, hospitals, educational institutions, or government-related activities.

Further, permission from the government is required under the provisions of the ID Act:

Conditions Precedent to Retrenchment of Workmen: No workman employed in an industrial establishment to which this chapter applies, who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer, shall be retrenched until certain conditions are met, including giving notice to the workman and obtaining prior permission from the appropriate authority.

It is necessary for the Jet Management to make transparent on whose considered legal advice this ill-advised move was made. The Chairman's statement that he was unaware of the decision indicates a lack of understanding of Indian values and the fundamentals of Indian management-labor relations in the context of the ID Act.

There is an Indianness in globalization, as highlighted by our former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, emphasizing "Globalization with a Human Face." Jet Airways seems to have overlooked this doctrine momentarily.

With Regards,
V. Sounder Rajan
Email: rajanassociates@eth.net

Dear Friends,

Jet is a company that wants to do some downsizing because of some business issues. As an HR professional, I will blame the way the issue was handled by the Jet Management and their HR team, and not the downsizing move. Downsizing is part of HR strategy and is allowed in business ethics. Rules are rules, and acts are acts. However, when a company is facing losses, it has to make decisions on its own. People question all the acts and emotions, "what if Jet gives IP in days to come because of over manpower and loss due to this."

Let us see this as a crisis in the company that has to be handled by HR in a professional way. There are many strategies to downsize without immediately affecting the employees or attracting media coverage, etc. There are ways to address all the above acts quoted by advocates in a professional manner.

Regards,
strategichr

No business is run for charity. Jet Airways would have decided on the retrenchment based on their convictions that continuing those employees on their rolls would serve no purpose and it would be a drain on the company. The management would have given thought at many levels and forums before arriving at such a decision.

Now, succumbing to pressures from all corners, they have taken back all the retrenched employees. It will be a drain on the company. Now it is for the company to find ways and means to sustain. The company is answerable to its stakeholders!

In such cases, HR need not feel depressed or guilty, as much as the decisions are conveyed by the Top Management and HR is only a Wing implementing the decisions.

Dear All,

One should not forget the courage and conviction of Jet youngsters who brought out Mr. Goyal to make the announcement.

With Regards,

V. Sounder Rajan

E-mail: rajanassociates@eth.net

Dear All,

The moral of the story: In India, all MNCs and corporates should think well before hiring as firing is not that easy. As an employer in India, you owe a social responsibility and not just as a profit-generating entity alone. The Indian model of security of employment is the best solution for which trade unions are fighting. "Hire and Fire" policy will lead to social unrest. Socialism will lead to capitalism and back to socialism, and it goes on like that. Let us not forget India is a welfare state.

With Regards,
V. Sounder Rajan

E-mail: rajanassociates@eth.net

Hi,

I think Paromita Mukherjee Ojha is right in certain ways. Of course, the whole issue was not handled in an appropriate manner, but the employee on probation can be terminated without any notice. Just think the other way - what if an employee on probation leaves? He or she certainly does not have to furnish any notice; they can drop all the important assignments and leave on the same day. So, why if the organization does the same, it is not looked at in a professional manner.

I think this is more of media hype worsened by political interests.

I think we are all underestimating the potential of a "thinking" HR/Management by simply taking a two-dimensional view of the issue - wrong decisions and political pressure. I believe it is much beyond that. I'm sure no HR head or CEO can make a decision to retrench 1800 people without actually anticipating reactions. The management is capable enough to anticipate reactions and then plan their moves.

Imagine the ease of tough HR decisions on all these people who are taken back NOW!

Hi folks,

The Indian government needs to enforce strict labor laws. The government is like a seesaw with money and votes on different ends.

Hi guys,

Mini, I totally agree with you. But I don't understand one thing - how can Naresh Goyal take back his own decision? Is this due to political pressure?

Hi,

Business Analysts have to keep track of the needs and the current market. Without estimating the needs, simply recruiting employees is not a good practice. Approximately for the past one and a half months, the market has been in a decreasing trend. Therefore, at least the HR department or Business Analysts could have provided information beforehand to employees, allowing them to resign their services and potentially avoid such issues.

Regards,
Deepika G.

No business is run for charity. Jet Airways would have decided on the retrenchment based on their convictions that continuing those employees on their rolls would serve no purpose and would be a drain on the company. The management would have given thought at many levels and forums before arriving at such a decision. Now, succumbing to pressures from all corners, they have taken back all the retrenched employees, which will be a drain on the company. It is now up to the company to find ways and means to sustain. The company is answerable to its stakeholders.

In such cases, HR need not feel depressed or guilty, as the decisions are conveyed by the Top Management, and HR is only a wing implementing the decisions.

I understand the HR role during this crisis and the impetus does not depend only on HR but on the Board of Directors for approving this unanimous decision. They must have anticipated the repercussions. I would add here that if this retrenchment was decided then, it should have been followed case-by-case rather than lump sum, and now this is the result. Always break into units before trying to break the bundle. I am sure

No business is run for charity. Jet Airways would have decided on the retrenchment based on their convictions that continuing those employees on their rolls will serve no purpose and it would be a drain on the company. The management would have given thought at many levels and forums before arriving at such a decision. Now, succumbing to pressures from all corners, they have taken back all the retrenched employees. It will be a drain on the company. Now it is for the company to find ways and means to sustain. The company is answerable to its stakeholders!

In such cases, HR need not feel depressed or guilty, as the decisions are conveyed by the Top Management and HR is only a wing implementing the decisions.

I understand the HR role during this crisis and the impetus does not depend only on HR but on the Board of Directors for approving this unanimous decision. They must have anticipated the repercussions. I would add here that if this retrenchment was decided then, it should have been followed case-by-case rather than lump sum, and now this is the result. Always break into units before trying to break the bundle. I am sure they will be retrenched sooner or later to meet the fiscal gap. What is your prediction?

Hi,

I would like to share a real story of a radio company. The firm actually overproduced radios and didn't know how to sell the surplus. It had to stop production and lay off some workers. The owner pondered this issue for the whole night and got a creative idea. He asked the production workers to produce radios for half a day and sell them before the end of the day. The workers found it more enjoyable to work as salesmen since they knew more about components, quality aspects, and features. Within a few days, the firm regained stability.

In situations like this, try to utilize the workforce differently and cope with the situation. Make the employees participate in open discussions and find creative solutions before making critical decisions.

Thank you for all your contributions to gaining a big picture of this retrenchment issue.

Regards,
Priya

I understand the HR role during this crisis and the impetus does not depend only on HR but on the Board of Directors for approving this unanimous decision. They must have anticipated the repercussions.

I would add here that if this retrenchment was decided then, it should have been followed case-by-case rather than lump sum and now this is the result. Always break into units before trying to break the bundle.

I am sure they will be retrenched sooner or later to meet the fiscal gap.... What is your prediction?

I agree. Either they will be retrenched, or they will be given choices which will lead to natural attrition. For example, huge pay cuts, or no increments for two years / no bonuses.. people will be forced to accept. That's how the job of HR has become easier here.... and now they will accept things happily.. when the house is on fire.. whatever little you are able to procure.. you are happy! I've been wondering .. was THIS the plan.. retrench... let hue and cry happen... then become soft... maintain your image as a good employer..... and then do what it takes to reduce costs.. What say?

Dear All,

Looking at the current economic scenario, it's evident that all organizations are looking to cut costs and right-size their organization, and Jet Airways is no different. In fact, Jet Airways should have downsized their staff in phases rather than downsizing them overnight. At least that should have saved Jet from not getting into controversy and diluting its brand name.

It is as if, you want to reduce flab, you can't go and reduce 100 kg in days; it takes time. Maybe you lose 10 kg every month and so on. That's the approach that they should have approached. Also, the HR department must have acted on the decision of the top management as HR would not like to downsize the organization's strength by this huge number in a short span of time. The HR department knows what it takes and the cost to hire a new employee on board.

Thanks and regards,
Mitesh Shah.

In my opinion, these are the issues related to the organization's strategy. No strategy is made to ensure failure. There are various micro and macro environmental factors that lead to failure or necessitate amendments in the strategy being followed. From here, it's not only the HR professional's failure to manage the show, but all who were involved in the formulation and implementation of the strategy are equally responsible for this fiasco.

Nevertheless, the future is still uncertain.

I think this whole issue is raised because Jet Airways is not having sufficient profit, so they have taken that kind of harsh decision which is not acceptable in a country like India. Because we are quite amateur about these things, we have unions in every sector and cannot accept that they fired 800 employees. They should give intentions to the employees. It's true, but what can they do if they are not making that much profit. But because of political pressure and realization of their attachment towards the job, employees' family responsibilities, they took them back. It's a positive approach shown by Jet Airways. Employees should give their 100% to make Jet as number one.

The reputation of Jet Airways and their staff has always been excellent, but the retrenched staff approaching MNS for 'solving' their problem brings up major questions about their judgment.

Anyway, these are tough times so let's ask ourselves some tough questions.

How many of us actually join a company based on its strengths and the work involved?

Is it not the case that most of our decisions are based on the salary?

As a part of the HR fraternity, haven't we seen that in many cases people leave despite getting many perks and amenities?

Why is it that a company should pay us increasingly higher salaries mostly based on our perceived knowledge (perceived because of attributing knowledge and capability simply to years of experience)?

How many of us rush to join an "MNC" because of all the benefits? Well, (twisting the proverb a little), if we want the cake we have to eat it too. If we show no loyalty to companies, why should they show loyalty to us? If we want to imitate the West and be like them, then we should be prepared for what they are already experiencing - layoffs.

This is NOT to support layoffs as a necessity. It is only to make us think a little about our own actions and desires and their consequences.

I agree with all of you... But sometimes it does happen that top management pushes HR and does not let them make their decisions.

As an HR professional, I think JET’s HR must have presented options to the management, but the management may have chosen the "immediate fire" option. I don't know the full story.

I will not solely blame HR; there must be some politics involved.

Regards, Rajashree

Jet Airways - It is not HR alone who took the decisions for the retrenchment of 800 employees. The entire management is responsible for these decisions. It is evident that the primary responsibility regarding these matters lies with HR. You can't expect to believe that Mr. Naresh Goyal (Chairman) was unaware of the decision. Surprisingly, the decision, perhaps on the recommendation of management, could not hold for two days. This raises questions about the existence of HRM.

It is understood that political involvement may have pressured the rehiring of the employees. Did the government assure some subsidy to Jet Airways? Who knows? But you can't deny that possibility.

Nevertheless, as HR professionals, we should analyze the matters comprehensively. My sincere gratitude to the employees who returned, to the management, and also to the HR personnel who will be handling the personnel in the future.

With Regards,

J K Ghosh Manager (Personnel)

As HR why r we differentiating the employees from the organization, in a family if the income drops are we gona send out the dependent.
No, we try to find some other alternative to increase the credibility to sustain. What ever the situation is as a parent we don’t send our children Out.
Irrespective of whether our children is gona take care of us in future or not.

One thing which I find not so professional is Goyal stating, "I swear on my dead mother" that I have not contacted any political party. This could have been avoided by openly stating that he is not a party to the decision, which seems incredible.

Ram :confused:

If my prediction is correct, all the above sacked and reinstated employees will be out within the next 6 months due to various reasons but created purposefully. Already, hikes and allowance cuts have been announced.

Regards

In the software industry, the big five companies individually retrenched more employees than were retrenched by Jet. But why is there a huge outcry only for Jet? Is it because some political party wanted a union under their command? We are pawns in the game of politics. I say "we" because the average citizen is made to believe in this drama and votes for a political party in the long run.

Let us uncover the real truth.

Regards,
Sekar

Dear All,

I have read all the comments before me. Many of them are saying that "the employees are selfish" for being asked to work 2 months without pay, citing the crushed market and many factors in favor of the employer. But has anyone considered the impact on the families of these employees? What about the loans they have taken to build their homes, their families, and their careers? Will these employees be able to find a job from tomorrow onwards? It is a tough time for both employees and employers. From an HRM point of view, we have to strive for a balance between them.

Regards,
Abhijit Chaudhari

Dear All,

Had this issue been handled by Jet Airways with a little PR exercise, it would not have backfired so badly. Jet Airways should have simultaneously given a press advertisement explaining its action of retrenchment and also the fact that in the future the same employees would be taken back in employment on a seniority basis, which would have stopped people from making guesses. It would have stopped all the wild allegations and political interference. What is beyond one's comprehension is the manner in which the employees returned to the company. One cannot accept that such a mass retrenchment was done by the management without the knowledge of the Chairman. And even if it was so, they should have taken the retrenched employees back after the "Management's" announcement in the press. What has happened now is that Mr. Naresh Goyal's action has clearly spelled out that the ownership is different from the management and that he is "Above All." This has created a bad precedent, and in the future, the employees of Jet are bound to misuse/exploit it for their grievances and make the "Management" vulnerable by going to Mr. Naresh Goyal. He being a Patriarch of the Jet Family cannot forget the simple home rule that when the mother is scolding a child, the father cannot be by the child's side and display it in action and words.

Praful Joshi

Dear All,

Please send your comments on the following as it's very urgent:

1. During this retrenchment/layoff period in the company, if any employee during the probation period, whose notice period is 01 month, resigns from the post before being terminated, can that employee mention that he will be leaving the company after 15 days? If yes, please provide some legal clause or company policies.

2. What is the maximum period one can give to the company that includes his notice period? What are the policies? For example, if an employee's notice period is 01 week and he resigns on 01 October, stating that he wants to stay in the company until 27 October and his notice period will start from 20 October, is this valid? If yes, please provide the rule.

Thanks & Regards,
VKS11

Dear all,

It is very difficult to recruit an employee for an organization, and the fact that they are removing 1.9k means there should be some strong reason behind it. It might be due to economic downfall, lack of skills among employees, or some other reason.

The HR department acts as the bridge between the company and the workers. Personnel should not carry out retrenchment without a valid cause. The company might be thinking that instead of letting go of everyone, they could select those 1900 individuals.

There is a proverb that says, "For the benefit of a country, we can sacrifice a family." Why can't we think in a similar way? For the benefit of our company, can't we take a break for the time being? If the workers who have been laid off are truly skilled and confident, they can easily find another job better than their previous one.

The company holds all the rights to issue pink slips to employees with a valid reason. Therefore, we need to consider the pros and cons of the issue before discussing whether it is right or wrong.

Regards,

Nelson S.

The new, innovative, and painless ways of downsizing manpower are something that should be on the agenda for HR professionals now. This economic slowdown has once again shown how unprepared we are to handle HR-related issues, especially in manpower planning.

Both understaffing and overstaffing are results of HR and business strategies gone wrong, whether due to future expansion turning into turmoil or economic slowdown. Instead of playing the blame game, it's time to act on the old adage, "Make hay while the sun shines."

When you are in the process of letting go of many employees, it has to be a transitional phase.

The state-owned Air India learned a valuable lesson from the Jet incident. They announced that they would not retrench any workers but could introduce a Voluntary Leave Scheme, allowing employees to take leave without pay for three to five years.

Still, I feel that HR is like the old story of the cobbler's children who don't have shoes. We recruit and develop great people for other functions, but we don't pay much attention to doing it for ourselves.

Faisal Mustafa Khan
HR Observer

Actually, they just don't want any further increment in salaries for the coming year. To justify this and avoid any workers' resistance, they created this drama. If they really want to fire 800-1000 workers to cut down the cost, they can do it in 100 phases over the next 3-6 months, 10-15 each month from different sectors, and nobody would question them for doing this because it would not create any headlines.

Now, they can simply say sorry for the increment, at least for this year. They can cut down the salaries as well as the eligibility entitlements, and all efforts go towards cost-cutting, ultimately leading to a new way to make a profit. The government may also not consider raising taxes for a minimum of two years.

So, we can say this is a very successful drama by Jet HR Team with the association of Mr. Goyal. A great businessman.

Abrar

See what I believe is that there are a few ways for cost-cutting. One is retrenchment. But this is not expected if you expand your business by phase. If you calculate your BEP in the worst-case scenario, you will hardly face such a huge loss that would require us to retrench people. So, HR people have to bear the brunt of it until we can build a good analytical team for expansion and R&D.

Regards,
Abhijit

I don't know if it is right to say that Jet was incorrect in firing 1,900 staff, which of course they reversed later. Employees (ex-Jetites) have different feelings towards what happened. Observing Corporate Gossips, Company Experience, Salary, CTC, Rumors, Experiences, Romances, Pay Hikes, Insults, Scandals, Firing, Hiring on [Workexp.com](http://www.workexp.com), every company's firing elicits different views, so similar events cannot be generalized!