Did they work for IBM?
Did they work for IBM? That's a classic IBM phrase along with "We aren't terminating anyone, we are carrying out a workforce rebalancing."
Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) has published a correction of recent reports about redundancies at the government-funded outfit. Those reports have focussed on planned job losses in the organisation's Oceans and Atmosphere and Land and Water divisions, earning an accusation the …
That's one perspective. The other perspective is that, with the science "obviously" settled, these scientists should have better things to do, i.e. they put themselves out of a job.
If you aren't demonstrating value to your employer, you have no right to be surprised when you get sacked. Value producers don't worry about this, because most labor markets have a shortage of value producers as it is and "good" people don't stay in one job for long. Apparently, this is true for climate scientists as well.
This has been the long slow decline of science in Australia, since Howard and Co took over in the late 90s.
I'm in Electrical Eng training at the moment, and ALL my teachers are point blank telling me to go over seas, because there is zero future for science and Engineering in Australia.
Basically once you graduate, there are no jobs so you take all your skills overseas.
I'll be picking up my coat, and heading straight to Canada as soon as I am done.
Knowing this and similar organisations, this is often the only way to move some staff on. In particular, staff who have been there for 30 years and have not produced anything for the last 29.
I also thought that the reaction of some of the staff (not reported here) was a little OTT and hysterical, they have come to the realisation that they may actually have to work for a living.
If there is a problem with being able to move on a few genuine under-performers (and yes this is a problem in many areas of public service) then the correct thing to do is fix the dumb HR rules, not to announce cuts to numbers (even if an equivalent number are being hired in a different area). The under-performers are always the last to leave, so cuts fix nothing.
Imagining that simply changing a rules in HR will fix an endemic multi-decade problem is naivety at its highest.
CSIRO has been a mess for decades. Something of a sacred cow many governments have resisted the clear need make the needed sweeping changes, and also wipe out the deadwood. Much of the deadwood is at the senior levels anyway. A depressingly large part of CSIRO regard their most important task as ensuring that their department and jobs are not threatened.
The right answer would be to shut the entire thing down and start from scratch. But given that that is impossible, significant structural change is needed.
The insane matrix management capability silo structure inflicted on them in one round of restructuring essentially crippled CSIRO's ability to do anything useful. Whether a new round can do any better is difficult. History says no, but if there is seriously strong leadership and someone who isn't just managing by just parrotiing the latest idiotic fad, there might be some hope.
The entrenched interests at CSIRO will kick up, and you can be sure they will look for as much press as they can, and cast the incumbent government as the villain.