Many Japanese companies have worked hard over the last several decades to find new positions for people who would have been laid off. The result: they dominate a lot of international industries in manufacturing and certain kinds of high tech
Eg, I'm buying a Japanese car this week because I don't like the reliability of most North American brands
> Toyota continues tradition of a ‘No-Layoff’ policy for its full-time workers
However it's not all a net positive either. One issue that comes from the Japanese style of work culture is that seniority often trumps merit - which, while also common in the US, tends to cause more problems in Japanese companies when someone is shifted to a new department and given more control than they should have over something they have little experience in.
It also leads to it being significantly more difficult to change careers or even employers, as leaving ones job where it's difficult to be let go can much more easily be seen as a red flag.
(As a side note, I am a Toyota buyer for life as well)
> Creating a position for employees that aren't needed is generally not a business priority.
Sure, I guess I was using too much of a shorthand in my comment. What I meant was, I’m surprised a company with such a high talent density didn’t generate enough new business quickly enough to be able to anticipate near future needs for these folks so that it would make sense to keep them.
I would think YC would have a lot of opportunities to deploy capital, and so a lot of opportunities to gain value from a variety of employee types.
If I knew more about the internals of YC I might be able to make more specific suggestions.
By the way, any company out there, I’d be willing to brainstorm (for free) about how you can repurpose and keep your people, or find other creative solutions. I’ll check for replies to this comment later today and tomorrow, and maybe I’ll edit it to add a throwaway or alternate email shortly.
Email: jmorrow977 at gmail. I’ll check tonight and daily for the next couple days or week.
> Creating a position for employees that aren't needed is generally not a business priority.
You are describing the status quo quite correctly.
That is probably consistent with the textbook form of capitalism.
However, it does not HAVE to be this way. If you have smart, well-educated, experienced staff in roles that are no longer needed, how about thinking hard about how you might deploy them in new beneficial ways? The result could be increased loyalty and a new line of business, a social (yet still profitable) venture. Does anyone have examples?
Besides, it's likely that this is primarily a cost-cutting measure given similar industry trends at the moment.