Be careful how you say good-bye

Companies expend a great deal of time and money protecting their brand in the public, but for many companies it is their internal behaviours that are the most dangerous. How new staff are greeted, and existing staff let go, have multitudes of impact on the perception of the brand.

A recent example is, of course, the automotive industry in Ontario. The lay-offs abound and some brand damage has been delivered to General Motors and Ford, among others. The important thing here is these companies put effort into minimizing the public effects of the lay-offs as best they can with great buy-out packages, paid new training for laid-off workers, minimizing impact through attrition and negotiating support with the government.

A disgruntled laid-off or dismissed employee has a huge impact on the brand. They all have families that are part of the experience, feeling the anger, humiliation and fear right along with the worker. And all those family members have extended families and friends that hear about the issues. All told, one worker can impact the brand attitude with over 50 people.

Companies in the financial services industry have varying levels of attention to how they treat workers. Many of these companies in Canada are out-sourcing support departments. (The financial services industry in the U.S. is just another story all together) How these out-sourcings are handled impacts the brand.

A positive example is Sun Life Financial. They undertook to save costs against their budget by outsourcing their cafeteria, fitness staff and print departments. There was fear among the employees as the negotiations took place, but Sun Life Financial minimized the impact with regular communication and assurances of protection for existing employees. When the outsourcing was implemented, the staff in each department were offered the opportunity to stay, have benefits and keep their seniority.

A not so great example is the out-sourcing of the mail room at Aviva Canada. The staff were informed of the negotiations last November and were promised protection. Suddenly just before Labour Day, a meeting of the mail room staff was called and they were all informed the department had been outsourced and their jobs at Aviva Canada would end in four days. So much for even an act of courtesy like two-weeks notice. Sure, they gave them a buy-out package including the two-weeks in lieu of notice (required by law), but these people were suddenly out of work - after understanding they would be protected. The next day, the outsourcing company, Pitney Bowes, arrived and offered the staff their jobs back, but at $10,000 a year less, with no seniority, no accumulated holidays and a three-month probation period. And they had one-day to decide if they would commit to this new job.

Aviva Canada was most pointed in informing the mail room staff that they would now be considered outside employees and would be treated as such if they should apply for a job with Aviva in the future. This after some of the staff had been with the company for nine years.

Now a couple of nasty brand things happened here. Aviva Canada's brand got nailed as being untrustworthy, secretive and uncaring. Pitney Bowes gets nailed as being cheap, uncaring and advantage-takers. It's not about the money and the 30% cut in pay most of the workers experienced, it is about decency and dignity. Giving these people only one day to decide if their future was tied to an advantage-taking company or tied to unemployment in a potential recession, fear would certainly win out. Perhaps this is good business strategy - trained workers at 30% lower cost - but it isn't even close to good brand strategy.

And if these companies think for one moment that the staff of the mail room didn't share their experience with their families, they are not thinking clearly. And what the family members do with the information - well, the company has no control over that.

Next week - be careful how you say hello. Yet another brand damaging experience.