JVA Corporation: Human Resource Management

According to our point of view, this decision will harm to the lowest paid workers and profitable for big businesses. From economic point of view, if there is a cut in employee’s wages then their income will fall and they will spend less, moreover, there is a positive correlation

The thought with this is some of the middle 60% will rise up wanting to belong to the top and the others will fall to the bottom. I see this practice as “trimming the fat” of the organization by terminating the ones who are only there to take up space and collect a paycheck. For this strategy to work in today’s sue happy world you will have to maintain extensive records of your employees. You will have to sit down with each and every one of them and ensure they know what is expected of them within the organization or the team.

Since businesses would have to pay more in salaries, they would hire less, or not hire at all.

Companies can just settle for fewer profits by absorbing the increase cost of their current labor supply instead of dismissing workers. This is one method might be the least popular method and the least used by firms. Using this approach decreases the company’s net profit. This method should only be used by firms in a strong financial position and there is no other approach that can be used.

Organisational needs and skills requirements: organisational needs are constantly changing that is why Morrisons’s HR has to training the employees as far as they can keep their position. The organisation must watch the marketing in order to open new stores in other countries or in

Else could have reduced the salary for all the employees for few months and this could have motivated the employees to work more to increase productivity and to save their jobs. So proper procedures to downsize with fairness all around or other plans could have been ideal instead of discriminating and ending up in a legal suit spending more money than saving any.

Increasing the wage for all employees will cost a lot of money for employers. Business will be faced with two decisions, either “raise their prices”, or “simply cut employees or reduce benefits” (Williams). If they choose to raise up prices, then there will be no benefit for the increase of wage. Employees will get an increase in wage, but so is prices of almost everything. And if businesses choose to cut employees and benefits, then the number of unemployment could possibly arise, and the benefits such as paid vacations and PTO, can be easily get demolished.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who would benefit tremendously from this idea. However, this idea could very well cause more stress and an unhealthy workplace for others. There are plenty of reasons why this could be horrible for some people and amazing for others. Unfortunately, if you want to keep all of your employees, following through with this idea could make some people not want to work for your company anymore. They are more than likely to relocate their

* It is risky to rely on a potential pool of “easily trained applicants” to draw on as orders increase because those applicants might not be readily available

This results in some workers losing their jobs. The majority of these workers will be those who are the least productive.

Because of the hasty decision to implement the change there is a very high risk of employee resistance to change. The upper management had no investment in the decision and will feel a resentment and lack of control that could trickle down through the organization. The dangers her are that original companies will become infected with a negative attitude toward the new parent company causing

Opposition from Unions in different subsidiaries against the layoff could cause serious problems like high severance package and possible strikes

The first collective employee reaction management will see, whether the entire reduction in force plan is revealed, would be that of the union(s) being up in arms that there will be any employees getting the pink slip. The on the job efficiencies and reduction in productiveness could occur if employees become disenfranchised and are left wondering on whether they have a job tomorrow. Managers and employees who generally have a minor trust issue normally will withdraw from each other, which will result in work team dysfunctional behaviors and creativity will stalemate. If left to its own devices, strikes, walkouts, or employee sabotage could become the extreme results of poorly constructed philosophy, policies, and management approaches.

The employee’s morale is low, they feel undervalued and unappreciated. With inflation rates and lack of raises their take home pay is less than before and the employee’s perception is that the company is doing well. During some tough years before, the employees that remained had pulled together and working harder to help keep the company open, they now feel that since business is good, they have not been appreciated or recognized for their commitment. They are concerned about their benefits plan and pension changes that may be happening.

It is important for HR Management to transform from being primarily administrative and operational to becoming more strategic contributor because of the involvement of competitive advantages through a company s’ employees. Strategic HR managers need proceed with the professional growth by hiring employees with high potential and giving them opportunity to learn and make lot of experience from their job roles where can access to brightest future in the industry. Secondly, the executive succession where the strategic HR managers will hiring the potential successors and grooming them with experience and advancement to be ready for replacement of the owner of company. A company can be in right direction if proceed with the strategic succession planning. Third is the labor cost efficiency. Strategic HR department mainly focus on their top performers who effort the most to organizational goals and long-term company success. A strategic HR philosophy ensures the employees satisfied perfect where by paid to