Posted by Matt Purdue
At the same time, Pfizer said it plans to trim 8,000 jobs, or about 10 percent of its workforce. As Pfizer takes over, however, 15 percent of the combined companies’ staff is expected to be laid off, totaling some 20,000 jobs.
Surprisingly, there’s been little outrage over the fact that somehow Pzifer was able to come up $22.5 billion in cash as part of this deal, yet continues to slash jobs. One blogger does connect the dots, wondering why banks that received federal bailout money are now financing this deal that will result in thousands of job losses. But other than a few voices in the wilderness, the mainstream press essentially ignores the human cost of consolidation in the pharma sector.
Obviously, no bank is going to give any company financing to give employees raises or bonuses. But, in this case, Pfizer seems to have gotten a free pass from the media to make a deal despite the consequences. AP mentioned the job cuts in the third paragraph, but also called the acquisition a “bold move.” Forbes mentioned layoffs only in passing. The IHT doesn’t mention layoffs anywhere on the first page of its coverage.
Does this mean that the press has become so benumbed over the hundreds of thousands of layoffs that companies can get away with announcing them without worrying about being pilloried on Main Street? Maybe not. On Sunday, 60 Minutes ran a piece slamming DHL for gutting jobs at its U.S. hub in a small Ohio town, essentially paralyzing the community. Have a box of tissues ready when you watch this heart-wrenching piece.
The point for PR professionals is that there doesn’t seem to be a clear formula to predict how media and bloggers will react when companies announce layoffs. But it pays to be ready for any contingency. After all, even though all the news coming out of corporate American seems to be bad, there’s no telling when external stakeholders will decide to make an example out of you and your client.
Comments