Posted Monday, April 15, 2019 9:47 AM | Contributed by BrettV
Even with SeaWorld's finances improving, the company laid off an undisclosed number of employees Friday, said a spokeswoman, who called it a move toward greater efficiency.
Read more from The Orlando Sentinel.
I sure hope they don't make cuts to the rescue team. Believe it or not, they came out to my neighborhood last week after a baby sand crane was hit by a car. It escaped with only a broken leg, but wouldn't have survived if they didn't pick it up. Sad to see the remaining offspring and parents this morning, but it's nice to know it will get a chance wherever they end up releasing it.
I guess the idea is if the company is going well financially, why are they reducing head count (for efficiency purposes or otherwise)? Similar to ideas you hear that companies who can afford to pay higher wages should. Just not how successful companies are run. And there are a lot of companies who were successful but are not longer around who did run that way (at least for a time).
Maybe, but their large RIF last year was pretty weird in terms of some of the choices that they made. It seemed like they were trying to hit a total salary target without being strategic. There were certainly inefficiencies even then, but that's not what they cut. Maybe things are more sensible with the new leadership.
Sometimes cuts are made based on where the company is expected to be in 3-5 years rather than where it is today. Cuts made be made in a group that doesn't have inefficiencies today because its expected to be smaller down the road. Opposite could be true with groups with inefficiencies that are expected to grow. Without knowing the plans going forward, the cuts won't necessarily make sense.
I don't know enough about what Sea World did or is doing to know if it makes sense in terms of a strategic plan. But I don't see anything in the article to indicate the author has a clue. Seems to believe that if a company is doing well it should never be reducing staff (and presumably should be hiring). Like the people who say companies with high profits should be paying employees more.
And all things being equal (and not knowing a lot of details about their financial position), I would look at cutting recue teams. Returns are likely low and costs likely high to get those returns. Wouldn't stop them entirely though.
While local animal rescue may not have a high ROI, it goes a long way towards public image. Unfortunately, I think SW will be living with the effects of Blackfish for decades to come, because groups like PETA, etc, will continue to make noise. It's just what they do.
A bright Sea World van cruising through a neighborhood and picking up injured birds will go a long way towards building positive image and word of mouth.
The more local the parks are, the more that would be true. The less local (more regional/national) they are, the less its true. And I wouldn't cut back to zero. Question is whatever number of SW trucks you see in your neighborhood picking up injured birds, what would happen if that were to be reduced by say 20-25%? Would you notice? How many people would notice and/or truly care enough for the for the cost savings to be outweighed? Don't have the info to make those determinations.
Who knows, I'm just thinking about publicity for doing good deeds. My wife rescues birds as a volunteer with the Cleveland Metroparks and other organizations and their work is getting a bit of notice. They've been on the news, etc. (Just wish it would lead to paid employment.)
Perhaps SeaWorld should do something on a bigger scale with lots of spectacle. Set up perimeter around the Sea Turtle hatches that are always in the news for getting ruined by mankind and do whatever needs to be done to make them go 100% right. If they can pull that off, that would be amazing both as an act of goodwill and PR! Oh, and for nature.Last edited by Tommytheduck, Tuesday, April 16, 2019 4:27 PM
After all these cuts they must be the most efficient place on earth.
it’s no joke to the folks that work there, but this shouldn’t be a surprise to any of them. They all should have been looking or at least prepared for this
Meh, they have a lot of B-players at best. A lot of middle managers at the corporate level came from Disney, which is to say they already weren't that great at what they did.
That was implied. After multiple rounds of crisis layoffs (with no apparent rhyme or reason), usually the only ones left are the ones not smart enough to go elsewhere.
Again this is no laughing matter to those impacted, but again, writing, wall, etcLast edited by CreditWh0re, Wednesday, April 17, 2019 5:46 AM
You must be logged in to post