Layoffs in the Oil Patch 3

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Whynotnow

Why are you shilling for them? Just management happening somewhere else, shrug, it’s fine. Keep sending jobs and profits elsewhere, to a country largely hostile to our interests. How are you even remotely ok with this?

Who said I'm okay with it? It's a lot of high paying jobs poofing away.

[Whynotnow]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Who said I'm okay with it? It's a lot of high paying jobs poofing away.

Sorry, your post seems to just imply that there’s still lots of jobs here, just some management ones are moving away. Sorry if I misunderstood.

[Shazam]

Operations these days don't require a huge number of people.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Yes, nobody offshored work before the pandemic and WFH. Companies valued their loyal employees and would never lay them off to save money. Big America is the problem, and no Canadian companies ever outsource anything.

WTF kind of fantasy kaleidoscope are you inhabiting?


I'm sorry for your job loss.

Do you know how many companies had to scramble in 2020 to get things like chat tools, laptops, video calls and VPNs up?

An utter crap ton. For everyone that did so, they just removed an IT barrier to outsourcing that they'd been uninterested investing in for the previous decade, because expense. Many of these companies also believed you needed to be in the office to do work, and now saw evidence that wasn't true.

Yes there was outsourcing before, amount of companies willing to take that path and the roles they considered for it opened up significantly post pandemic.

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Operations these days don't require a huge number of people.

Definitely less but not zero at all. Can’t AI a service rig to fix all the casing failures in Cold Lake.

But ya this is not good. If it’s anti consolation they are definitely known as being better to staff that a CNRL and they have a world class pension. My buddy has been there 25 years, and is definitely disappointed but he probably never has to work again. A little sooner than would have liked. The WFH he enjoyed filled me with envy.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Do you know how many companies had to scramble in 2020 to get things like chat tools, laptops, video calls and VPNs up?

An utter crap ton. For everyone that did so, they just removed an IT barrier to outsourcing that they'd been uninterested investing in for the previous decade, because expense. Many of these companies also believed you needed to be in the office to do work, and now saw evidence that wasn't true.

Yes there was outsourcing before, amount of companies willing to take that path and the roles they considered for it opened up significantly post pandemic.

Yes, I had to do the same(though I had most of it working before). My point is, blaming workers for favouring WFH, as if corporations won't do whatever is possible to save money, is silly. The entire goal of a corporation is to maximize profits. Bringing a WFH employee back to the office actually costs money once you get past the psychological pretzling management does trying to force it because they think people need babysitting. It seems they've acknowledged that's always been nonsense, and are continuing to do what corporations do, outsource to save money. None of this has anything to do with employees wanting some of their own time back from commuting and all the time wasting that goes on in offices and money spent on food and coffee and clothes, and to use that time and resources to do other life things. Again, blaming workers for this is just folding to corporate motivations. We should stop doing that.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

My point is, blaming workers for favouring WFH, as if corporations won't do whatever is possible to save money, is silly.

Agreed, I just didn't pick up on that being the message. More like a "crap, this WFH thing bit us in the ass because the penny pinchers found new angles".

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Bringing a WFH employee back to the office actually costs money once you get past the psychological pretzling management does trying to force it because they think people need babysitting.

I'm more skeptical. All of the billionaires have massive commercial real estate portfolios. They saw them on the brink of collapse and all did their part to prop things back up.

[Shazam]

So WFH is in your best interest because corporations will do anything to save money because you'll be losing your job anyhow?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Do you know how many companies had to scramble in 2020 to get things like chat tools, laptops, video calls and VPNs up?

An utter crap ton. For everyone that did so, they just removed an IT barrier to outsourcing that they'd been uninterested investing in for the previous decade, because expense. Many of these companies also believed you needed to be in the office to do work, and now saw evidence that wasn't true.

Yes there was outsourcing before, amount of companies willing to take that path and the roles they considered for it opened up significantly post pandemic.

The other primary consideration is acceptance. If I had suggested a Skype meeting in, say, 2019, I'd have had one or two people interested in it, but most would have seen it as an enormous irritant and been uninterested. Obviously, 2020 changed that entirely.

So, you have these industries now that see this kind of thing as commonplace, people clamouring for not working in an office, and a talent pool around the world who are willing to work for far less than people in North America. How would you anticipate that a corporation would act?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Shazam

So WFH is in your best interest because corporations will do anything to save money because you'll be losing your job anyhow?

I'm saying if you aren't a totally useless employee, it doesn't really matter what you choose to do. Forces far greater than ourselves are running the show. Scapegoating workers is silly.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

No. I have heard the inside scoop and knew this was coming. It’s not the bolded, and the hit is primarily going to be Calgary while they keep Edmonton / Fort McMurray as primary field offices.

But I don’t think all the above means rebranding to Exxon-Mobil as that’d be expensive and no real good reason. Imperial still has a good brand and they make a ton of dough off the oilsands so it’s not like they’re leaving, just the jobs. A normal government, like the international ones, force US companies to hire XX number of people though…………

I don't necessarily mean Imperial actually becoming Exxon Mobil brand wise (Esso as a brand is likely to stay), I mean more of how Shell controls Shell Canada, which is not a separate entity and entirely controlled by its parent company since 2006.

Still even though a brand is strong and has value, Couche-Tard turned all their Macs stores to Circle K, despite Macs being a strong brand locally with Circle K having no presence in Canada, in order to strengthen the global brand. It being expensive really is not a precursor to a move happening. All it takes is a CEO and board of directors wanting this change.

Considering Mobil is already used as a brand in Canada with Superstore to separate it from Esso stations, I wouldn't be surprised to see Exxon (or Mobil) replace Esso in the future as a globalized brand should the parent company eventually decide so.