Downsizing

never2late

Well it was bound to happen. In the last 12 months our CEO has laid off about half our workforce, most of them in IT. Our company is very small, less than 20 employees, (it was 45 when I was hired). Reasons given were the economy and a shrinking business objective. We supply small financial institutions with IT and software support. The problems is that they are being gobbled up by the larger banks. The regulations and compliance laws are proving too much for these small banks and they can't keep up.

I am now the sole person in IT. I'm thankful that I kept my job, and my CEO gave me a raise because of the added responsibilities, but its still less than I should be making. I feel a sense of responsibility and loyalty to the company but it seems the ship is sinking and it may be time for this rat to jump. It would take more than the standard two weeks to train someone to replace me. How do I convince my CEO to hire someone now without him knowing that the new hire is actually a replacement ?

nhpr

Maybe you could offer a pay cut to create some funds to add another person? That would make him know you're very serious about it, but it would make matters worse for you in the meantime. The only alternative I could see would be to lie about having a terminal disease that's going to take you out in X amount of time... which really isn't much of an alternative. It doesn't seem like you have any great options here.

Turgon

never2late wrote: »

Well it was bound to happen. In the last 12 months our CEO has laid off about half our workforce, most of them in IT. Our company is very small, less than 20 employees, (it was 45 when I was hired). Reasons given were the economy and a shrinking business objective. We supply small financial institutions with IT and software support. The problems is that they are being gobbled up by the larger banks. The regulations and compliance laws are proving too much for these small banks and they can't keep up.

I am now the sole person in IT. I'm thankful that I kept my job, and my CEO gave me a raise because of the added responsibilities, but its still less than I should be making. I feel a sense of responsibility and loyalty to the company but it seems the ship is sinking and it may be time for this rat to jump. It would take more than the standard two weeks to train someone to replace me. How do I convince my CEO to hire someone now without him knowing that the new hire is actually a replacement ?

You dont take a paycut. Your company will either tank or possibly get bought out by a larger player, or muddle along looking for better times. I think your CEO needs to give you reasons to stick around quite frankly. I imagine everyone is concerned about their job security. If the ship is still going to sail you want to be one of the few senior types navigating things as opposed to the one holding things together operationally. Sell your ambition to the CEO. He will need an architect. Meanwhile..look for another job right now, cut back on all your spending and save some money up. You may need it.

What you are experiencing will happen to thousands of TE members over the next 18 months.

never2late

nhpr wrote: »

Maybe you could offer a pay cut to create some funds to add another person? That would make him know you're very serious about it, but it would make matters worse for you in the meantime. The only alternative I could see would be to lie about having a terminal disease that's going to take you out in X amount of time... which really isn't much of an alternative. It doesn't seem like you have any great options here.

I do have a terminal disease, its called **** glaucoma. Can't see my butt being here much longer.

never2late

Turgon wrote: »

You dont take a paycut. Your company will either tank or possibly get bought out by a larger player, or muddle along looking for better times. I think your CEO needs to give you reasons to stick around quite frankly. I imagine everyone is concerned about their job security. If the ship is still going to sail you want to be one of the few senior types navigating things as opposed to the one holding things together operationally. Sell your ambition to the CEO. He will need an architect. Meanwhile..look for another job right now, cut back on all your spending and save some money up. You may need it.

What you are experiencing will happen to thousands of TE members over the next 18 months.

Whether we sail or sink is the main issue. If we do sail I would be the part of the senior staff and have a major role in steering the company in the right direction. But sinking means I may be without a job and that's not a good position giving the current economic outlook. If I decide to leave I want to do it on my terms, not forced out by company failure.

Thankfully money is not a major concern. My wife's job pays well and we do have a good buffer in case one of us is unemployed. But the statement that this is but the beginning of the end for many IT people is ominous to say the least. I've read some of your other posts and you believe that the traditional role of IT is changing and many are not prepared to accept that change.

Turgon

never2late wrote: »

I've read some of your other posts and you believe that the traditional role of IT is changing and many are not prepared to accept that change.

It is and they are not. Frank discussion with the boss about the future I think, but in a positive way. Difficult times ahead for this company so show that you want to commit but need some reassurance. Meantime look elsewhere.

Zartanasaurus

never2late wrote: »

Well it was bound to happen. In the last 12 months our CEO has laid off about half our workforce, most of them in IT. Our company is very small, less than 20 employees, (it was 45 when I was hired). Reasons given were the economy and a shrinking business objective. We supply small financial institutions with IT and software support. The problems is that they are being gobbled up by the larger banks. The regulations and compliance laws are proving too much for these small banks and they can't keep up.

I am now the sole person in IT. I'm thankful that I kept my job, and my CEO gave me a raise because of the added responsibilities, but its still less than I should be making. I feel a sense of responsibility and loyalty to the company but it seems the ship is sinking and it may be time for this rat to jump. It would take more than the standard two weeks to train someone to replace me. How do I convince my CEO to hire someone now without him knowing that the new hire is actually a replacement ?

Why ?

WillTech105

Zartanasaurus wrote: »

Why ?

YES! haha I wish you could see me now as I clap my hands and smile.

I believe the age of employer loyality is over. Everyone looks for themselves as much as companies like to create a good company culture, at the end of the day (unfortuantly) its all about the dollar bill and if company is tight and you can replaceable or outsourceable you are out -- despite how "rah rah" meetings HR might put out.

I think this is especially relevant in the IT field. IT is easily outsourceable so why pay an American $80k when you can get hired guns for cheaper? Only downfall is that they are hired guns and aren't tailored to your business needs but nowadays a company doesnt need an army of IT guys. Maybe 5 or 10 guys for a worldwide company.

Just like every other field out there, it takes less bodies to keep a business going.

Bl8ckr0uter

Zartanasaurus wrote: »

Why ?

^ This. Be loyal to the highest bidder lol.

WillTech105

Bl8ckr0uter wrote: »

^ This. Be loyal to the highest bidder lol.

or that works too, haha.

Devilry

If you don't have it already, why not ask the CEO for a new title distinction to some type of management? At least you can benefit from it on your resume.

MrRyte

I commend you for your loyalty; but that's the company's responsibility to find someone to fill your position when you vacate it. When you find something else just put in your two weeks then leave. If the CEO wants to talk to you about why you're leaving, just be upfront with him about your lack of faith in the company's future. The company can easily find a temp/contractor to fill in.

Turgon

MrRyte wrote: »

I commend you for your loyalty; but that's the company's responsibility to find someone to fill your position when you vacate it. When you find something else just put in your two weeks then leave. If the CEO wants to talk to you about why you're leaving, just be upfront with him about your lack of faith in the company's future. The company can easily find a temp/contractor to fill in.

That would be correct.

tpatt100

If your wife is working and you have enough savings I say look but be choosy, don't just take anything. Your company might be around for another year or two and you jump ship into something that you end up hating. Since you are working now look for something equal or better don't downgrade our of fear.

never2late

tpatt100 wrote: »

If your wife is working and you have enough savings I say look but be choosy, don't just take anything. Your company might be around for another year or two and you jump ship into something that you end up hating. Since you are working now look for something equal or better don't downgrade our of fear.

Good advice from everyone. I don't want fear being the motivator. I like my job, my coworkers, and especially my clients. Money has never been my primary motivator. But I want a future as well. Never expected to be here this long. Time to update the resume, finish college, and look forward.

TLeTourneau

WillTech105 wrote: »

YES! haha I wish you could see me now as I clap my hands and smile.

I believe the age of employer loyality is over. Everyone looks for themselves as much as companies like to create a good company culture, at the end of the day (unfortuantly) its all about the dollar bill and if company is tight and you can replaceable or outsourceable you are out -- despite how "rah rah" meetings HR might put out.

I think this is especially relevant in the IT field. IT is easily outsourceable so why pay an American $80k when you can get hired guns for cheaper? Only downfall is that they are hired guns and aren't tailored to your business needs but nowadays a company doesnt need an army of IT guys. Maybe 5 or 10 guys for a worldwide company.

Just like every other field out there, it takes less bodies to keep a business going.

Not to hijack the thread but I'm curious as to what size worldwide company you are referencing? I believe the company I work for has about 1600 people in the IT department and we're not an international.

Turgon

TLeTourneau wrote: »

Not to hijack the thread but I'm curious as to what size worldwide company you are referencing? I believe the company I work for has about 1600 people in the IT department and we're not an international.

Its not uncommon. Many outsourcing companies share both infrastructure (logically separated per customer) and operations people to serve thousands of customers. They may have few staff. This is where the IT provision is heading as it makes a great piechart. Many outsourcing companies are US or UK based and leverage offshore cheaper labour for certain aspects of the operation. We will see more companies take an axe to their IT headcount in favour of outsourcing. The public sector is being squeezed in the UK. Expect the same in the US.

Hypntick

Turgon wrote: »

Its not uncommon. Many outsourcing companies share both infrastructure (logically separated per customer) and operations people to serve thousands of customers. They may have few staff. This is where the IT provision is heading as it makes a great piechart. Many outsourcing companies are US or UK based and leverage offshore cheaper labour for certain aspects of the operation. We will see more companies take an axe to their IT headcount in favour of outsourcing. The public sector is being squeezed in the UK. Expect the same in the US.

Not all outsourced IT is done offshore. I work for a MSP, essentially we are an outsourced IT department for 150+ small to medium sized businesses. However I do agree that a lot of places are doing away with the company IT guy, at least in the smb side of things. We end up taking over for the 1-2 guy operations, it's cheaper for them, and yet we're still local enough that if something needs to be done on site, we can roll in and take care of it.

TLeTourneau

Turgon wrote: »

Its not uncommon. Many outsourcing companies share both infrastructure (logically separated per customer) and operations people to serve thousands of customers. They may have few staff. This is where the IT provision is heading as it makes a great piechart. Many outsourcing companies are US or UK based and leverage offshore cheaper labour for certain aspects of the operation. We will see more companies take an axe to their IT headcount in favour of outsourcing. The public sector is being squeezed in the UK. Expect the same in the US.

Perhaps, but I personally do not see all industries going this direction. I'll admit I could be wrong but I work for a mid to large size company (~42K employees, $7.5B USD in revenue last year) and I haven't seen it here.

Turgon

Hypntick wrote: »

Not all outsourced IT is done offshore. I work for a MSP, essentially we are an outsourced IT department for 150+ small to medium sized businesses. However I do agree that a lot of places are doing away with the company IT guy, at least in the smb side of things. We end up taking over for the 1-2 guy operations, it's cheaper for them, and yet we're still local enough that if something needs to be done on site, we can roll in and take care of it.

Exactly. Outsourcing is still largely onshore. But for those not working for an outsourcer watch your radar.

Turgon

TLeTourneau wrote: »

Perhaps, but I personally do not see all industries going this direction. I'll admit I could be wrong but I work for a mid to large size company (~42K employees, $7.5B USD in revenue last year) and I haven't seen it here.

You may well see it when your company gets munched up by a larger one. Corporate policy.

TLeTourneau

Turgon wrote: »

You may well see it when your company gets munched up by a larger one. Corporate policy.

I don't see that happening, it's a well known non-profit healthcare provider. Anything can be bought but it's a strech.

Turgon

TLeTourneau wrote: »

I don't see that happening, it's a well known non-profit healthcare provider. Anything can be bought but it's a strech.

You may well be right. But if I have learned one thing in this industry it is that what you dont see happening often happens. A non profit may still have something useful another company wants to buy. A client base to exploit, or simply to eliminate a service so the way is clear to move in. If you are safe you are safe.

TLeTourneau

Turgon wrote: »

You may well be right. But if I have learned one thing in this industry it is that what you dont see happening often happens. A non profit may still have something useful another company wants to buy. A client base to exploit, or simply to eliminate a service so the way is clear to move in. If you are safe you are safe.

Well anything is possible . I think I'm safe, we're usually the one buying the others and I honestly believe there would be a national (if not international) outcry if someone bought us to eliminate our services.

Again, sorry for the thread hijack. Sometimes I cannot help myself.

WillTech105

TLeTourneau wrote: »

Well anything is possible . I think I'm safe, we're usually the one buying the others and I honestly believe there would be a national (if not international) outcry if someone bought us to eliminate our services.

Again, sorry for the thread hijack. Sometimes I cannot help myself.

They were a client of mine (did contract work for them) -- not to mention their name, but they are US based and have about a dozen or so locations worlwide. And I dont mean small 10 office branch offices, I mean big 1000+ people size offices worldwide. (funny how some companies say worldwide when they mean worldwide branch offices

Looks like everyone got to it before me, but it does happen. I'm sure they outsourced a good portion of their load to consulting firms to lower costs which is why they have such a low head count. Either way, less jobs being offered inhouse and potentially more hired guns jobs.

TLeTourneau

WillTech105 wrote: »

They were a client of mine (did contract work for them) -- not to mention their name, but they are US based and have about a dozen or so locations worlwide. And I dont mean small 10 office branch offices, I mean big 1000+ people size offices worldwide. (funny how some companies say worldwide when they mean worldwide branch offices

Looks like everyone got to it before me, but it does happen. I'm sure they outsourced a good portion of their load to consulting firms to lower costs which is why they have such a low head count. Either way, less jobs being offered inhouse and potentially more hired guns jobs.

Pretty sure I'm at a different company. AFAIK we do not have any locations outside of the US.