BMS has many subsidiaries across the face of the world that keeps this "Titanic" company afloat. My husband was one of the sailors aboard this "ship" for 20 years. He was downsized while having only 16 months until retirement. That is how BMS is doing so well. For the past three years they have put many a good employee out the door for the profit margin. anybody seen my Excedrin?
Since the company just hired 500 new sales representatives, it is hard to believe that downsizing was the motive behind profit. Also, I don't know if your husband was in sales or not so I can't speak to whether performance was a possible issue. By the way, what kind of package did he get? BMS usually treats "downsized" employees fairly well.
to cut costs, increase profits. Most cost cutting was immediately rewarded by the market, stock prices of companies that announce job cuts nearly always jump. To some extent its justified and some of the downsizing was justified. Companies got more work out of few people, hence higher profits.
ON the other hand companies lost a lot of good people. In many cases it destroyed morale, and traumatized the white collar workforce for a decade. (Blue collar was cut the 1-2 decades before continuing into the 1990s-remember the rust belt. But the white collar angst was more verbal)
Companies have recently found that they cut not just fat but bone and that to grow they need to add new people, which is one of the reasons we now have such low unemployment.
So there is no contradiction between cuts then and new hires now. I would also add that cutting someone that close to retirement is a partice, especially if the individual's loses his or her pension rights (longlegs said downsized--or was he forced to take early retirement)
We know from recent experiences, just before the downsizing took place, that it wasn't him. Experiences that can't be mention in this forum. However, his package was o.k., and might I add that he earned it after 20 years of comitted and loyal service with the company. He was not forced to take an early retirement, he was simply asked to leave. We did have the EEOC on our side as we were informed that a younger person was put in his place at probably 1/4 the salary. We could not entertain a class action or suit due to the extremely large barrel that the company puts the employee over, contracts must be signed, promises made. It is a sad situation, but unfortunately, that's business these days. I must also add, that even though the persons communicating facts and figures on this message board may not be interested in the more personal side of this large company, we are happy to be out. There tends to be a great deal of mistrust and unhappiness amongst staff members when no one knows "who's next". But, we are keeping our stock! We may as well benefit from our part played in the downsizing results!