A0153 CSR Laurea Leppävaara

Founded: 03 Oct, 2011

This is a web-based course where we learn to discuss environmental, social and economic responsibility issues. We will develop a wider approach to ethical questions.

Administrators:

Members

One of the goals is to develop skills on different practical tools to help organisations in combining CSR with their actions and strategy.

Campaigns

Group's call of contents

Log in or Sign up to join this group.

Only by joining you can add contents to campaigns

Would you like to comment?

Log in or Sign up

Comments

(28 Nov 2011)
Team 1:
Companies today seek to produce efficiently and with maximum profitability, regardless of the big problem we have with pollution and the environment. We need to sensitize the society to take care of our planet, and this requires that companies take measures to reduce emissions and reduce pollution. Some solutions may be:
-energy efficiency:to reduce energy consumption by businesses
-Water-saving: To reduce costs and conserve the environment
-Renewable energy: Encourage the use of this type of energy helps to reduce pollution.
(28 Oct 2012)
I agree with you on this. It is of course important for the company to succeed but not with total disregard to everything else. Same rules and morals should apply companies as well and acting responsibly torwards nature and people also is very important.
(28 Oct 2012)
Team 9
(28 Nov 2011)
Regarding the reduction of greenhouse effect, the implementation of international treaties was performed. However, it is easy to realize today that these treaties are sadly inadequate. I thinking about the Kyoto Protocol. Some countries have not ratified it. On this aspect, we can not do anything. But countries that have already signed their treaties, all do not respect it. The value of the protocol and its authoritative decrease. Should create an independent international comission with the power to punish those "black ducks". This would encourage the leaders to take proper account of the ecology of the planet.


(1002989)
I am totally agree with your comment. The presidents of the big countries in the world have to collaborate together to help the planet. The G20 meetings has to be an opportunity to discuss and found solution about the environmental problems. I think that all the countries are concern with the environmental issues. The failure of the Copenhagen conference in 2009 mustn't be an excuse. The different actors have to found a solution.
(28 Nov 2011)
Team 9

Moreover companies have to manage their human resources well. In fact, in time on crisis like nowadays many companies want to reduce their costs.

A good way to do that is to reduce working time of their employees and keep their jobs instead of fire them. With this way, employees keep their job and they can survive during the crisis time; and the company can reduce its costs.

In that case if there is a recovery in the company´s economic activity, all jobs are saved and they just have to increase working time and it avoids costs of firing in the first place and re-hired in a second.
(28 Nov 2011)
Team 9

Nowadays many company are more socially responsible. A good way for them to do it it is to recycle their rubbish and adopte renewable energy for their needs. In fact recycle rubbish is easy to do and that simple thing can have a real impact on the evironment if all companies do it.
(28 Nov 2011)
I totally agree with you: that every business should have a reasonable consumption of raw materials, recycles the most waste. The most polluting companies pay a fee consistent. If they can destroy the planet, they also have the means to compensate it. Taxes could be used for ecological research, for example.
Team 5
Nowadays Many business are turning in recent years to reduce costs by outsourcing its structure. It is shown that the savings, depending on the project and the type of company concerned, ranges between 10 and 20% of the monthly item devoted to the technology department.
But the outsourcing includes a number of risks. The risks involved in the process of outsourcing go from being operational risks strategic risks. Operational risks affect more the effectiveness of the company. Strategic risks affect the direction of the firm, its culture, information sharing, among others. The main risks of outsourcing are:
 Not to negotiate the adequate contract.
 Not suitable selection of the contractor. You can be the company
 It does not exit control over contractor`s personnel.
 Increased cost of the contract negotiation and monitoring.
 Refusal of the concept of Outsourcing
(26 Nov 2011)
Team 4:
There should me more flexibility in work tasks. Always is the situation that parts of the workers are overloaded and there are others who are not so taken. Learning knowledge outside your own works helps to move workforce when needed and the amount of work.
(26 Nov 2011)
Team 5
Yes, I agree completely. The problem at least in bog companies is, that the wall between departments is hard to break. Even there might be competent persons in the other department who could help to reduce the3 workload in the other one as well, the possibilities are not seen, nor utilized.
(25 Nov 2011)
TEAM 9:

How to make it more ethical in companys to reduce in costs and at the same lay off people just to save money.
Companys want to reduce static costs by reducing internal stuff and replace it with oursourced work.
We have seen in real life that oursourcing "in one night" hardly ever results in positive solutions.
Replacing internal stuff with oursourced personal usually causes decrease in quality and people that remain
need to use their efforts in fighting with this oursourcing company and agreements.
When laying out staff they should be given a real opportunity to participate in reducing costs in internal functions
and in this way motivate them to think what is best to company. When the lay off staff, we have seen that usually this
work has to be replaced by an outsourced resource, sooner or later.
(26 Nov 2011)
Team 5
Outsourcing is often chosen because companies want to cut costs, but after a while they might notice that it really isn't that cheaper than having the employees themselves and the service might not function as well. For example in our company the IT servicedesk was outsourced a few years ago. The service provider was changed twice, and last year they rebuilt the service back to our company.
(25 Nov 2011)
TEAM 8 comment

We totally agree with your idea: "When laying out staff they should be given a real opportunity to participate in reducing costs in internal functions and in this way motivate them to think what is best to company". This would bring the humanity for the company management.

Even the company decides to reduce the amount of the employees radically, usually the concrete work which still needs to be done,stays, and the same amount of work has to be done by reduced work resources. And this causes stress and empolyees are overloaded with the huge amount of work.

Unfortunately the employees cannot basically do nothing during the consultation negotiations in Finland - the negotiations are going according to the 'employers will state" and the employees are just 'faceless' numbers in their lists.
(25 Nov 2011)
TEAM 8 idea
Many big companies are trying to resolve their economical crisis by making their employees redundant. Eg. Nokia, they made a wrong decision about 10 years ago. They could be the leading company of smartphones, but they theb decided to concentrate on symbian-60, which didn't quite work in touchscreen phones.
Now Nokia-Siemens network are making 17000 people redundant and they are explaininig it to be an outline to a new strategy, not because of economical crisis.
ICT-work is always teamwork, so why couldn't they suggest eg. one payless day per emloyee in a month instead of sacking 17000 people?
(27 Nov 2011)
Team 4
Compnanies do what they like. Why should they think more than their wellfare? It is so optimistic thought that companys "economic cris" go away with that succestion of one payless day. Who employee would buy that? The economic crisis is more than that. It is crisis in a branch of business. If product doesn't sell and customers dont't buy it, it should be cut out from product lines. It is not employees foult, but companies should have a last word who they hire and who they fire. It's a part of capitalism and clobal market economy, where we live.
(25 Nov 2011)
TEAM 8 comment
The globalization and outsourcing seems to be
the trend nowadays in many business areas.

If the management would do more long sight decisions including the humanity, one payless day per employee in a month would save the company for massive lay-offs.

Unfortunately keeping stockholders satisfied is more important for the big companies than the welfare of the employees of the company. Also the 'quarter-economy' is bringing challenges to the company management.
(06 Nov 2011)
Large companies choosing to laid off workers in economic crisis. Big companies prefer to laid off workers to overcome the economic crisis.
For example 2008 economıc crısıs. After thıs crısıs most of people lost theır job and thıs crısıs effects ıs stıll goıng on and some company goıng on to laıd off workers. It does not matter where is the economıc crısıs. Because thanks to globalızatıon whole world effect each other easly. Like a mortage crısıs ıt occured ın Unıted State but ıt effected all world and all companıes lıved crısıs and they have to laıd off workers.İn Turkey As a result of the crisis unemployment rate of 8.9% from 16.9% a rose, with total exports and exports of the manufacturing industry capacity utilization rate was also reduced.
(06 Nov 2011)
Technological changes in the workplace, some workers do not need to operate in the workplace. This situation is called technological unemployment.
Unemployment is formed together with the developing technology to increase efficiency. Bands of manufacturing robots, testing systems, which simulate processes such as.
For example,
• Logitech has announced that they laid off 600 employees.
• Intel announced that close its manufacturing facility in the Philippines which its provide 1800 employees income.
• Sony explained their “restructuring “ plan. As a result of thıs plan they announced the dismissal of many people.
• Sega announced the dismissal of the 30 people.
As can be seen all of these examples, the development of technology is caused increasing unemployment. They claım that the technology works more effectively and efficiently. Additionally technology reduced the product costs.
(06 Nov 2011)
TEAM 2 IDEA
An idea for a interssante make businesses more responsible is to connect businesses with the local community in a relationship of interdependence in fact if one hand,companies provide jobs, wages, benefits high quality and tax revenues, on the other hand depend on the health, stability and prosperity of the communities in which they operate.
In this regard it is interesting to introduce the concept of corporate citizenship, understood as a field of reports and initiatives promoted by the voluntary to the local community and the territory in which it operates and interacts. This practice is spreading in Europe through sponsorship nitiatives
sporting and cultural events and partnerships with local institutions,including universities, schools, and NGOs.
(06 Nov 2011)
The responsibility of a company is take care about its stakeholders. During this process the company doesn’t have to forget that it has to follow strictly a code of conduct and has to act ethically. when a company assumes employees becomes responsible towards them and the managers must act with the knowledge that all their decision and actions will also fall on them changing and influencing their lives. In this case, I believe strongly that a company has a social responsibility towards the Community-
(06 Nov 2011)
I think the same with you, organization are inside the society and so they have to care for all people, because in good economic situation the companies hire personel,who hard work to achive goals of company but when the situation gets worse, the company don´t remember all people who helps company to growing up...
when the company makes decisions have to think globally not only in their own welfare.
(06 Nov 2011)
Team 7
Dismiss in the European banking is accumulate: Nordea will dismiss to 2000 employees.
Nordea isn´t passing a good time and being forced to cut costs. The latest bank to announce it will cut its workforce has been Nordea largest bank in the Nordic countries, which plans to eliminate 2,000 jobs, between this year and next, to prevent their results being affected by the fall of the business. The fall of the benefits of European banks has resulted in more than 40,000 layoffs in one month.
Improving efficiency is never easy, right?
(26 Nov 2011)
Team 4: The saddest thing it that Nordea's result has not been so bad on the first half of year 2011 and still there is need to cut the personell.
(06 Nov 2011)
Team 1
Pakistan is now the 86th country in the world to start of with this recycling program. Nokia Started off by stating “Small thoughts can bring a big impact’ It’s a whole chain process that’s link together. For e.g. You don’t plug out your charger after charging, you end up spending 3-5 PKR per day, and eventually in an year you end up spending useless money over something which you could have been avoided in the first place. Nokia is creating awareness about saving electricity by showing small messages while your phone is charging up or when its been charged, “To plug off the charger” and etc. Further explained that a minor decrease in the size of packaging of Nokia devices saves the environment significantly due to the scope of Nokia’s operations. He elaborated by reducing the packaging we are saving trees, fuel and other resources which adds in towards an eco-friendly environment. Recycling your phone is another initiative they are taking which has a very fruitful long term imp
(06 Nov 2011)
Team 7
Also at Nokia, they believe it’s them responsibility to make it as easy as possible to recycle mobile devices that are no longer in use. To recycle the phone, battery or charger all you have to do is drop it off at any Nokia recycling point and we’ll take care of the rest. It´s very easy. owing to this Nokia in Spain has been prize-winning with ASIMELEC Environment Prize. Nokia in Spain for example, they got involved in campaigns as Nokia we:recycle and swallowsmobile (tragamovil). In one year they pick up more that 700 kg of material to recycling.
(06 Nov 2011)
Team 7
Social Responsibility projects in the areas of education and employment.

Nokia is a world leader in the mobile market and technology and aims to collaborate and positively impact our community. Social responsibility is based on three pillars: youth development, application of mobile technology and support to communities following natural disasters held responsible projects whose main objective is to develop the potential and capabilities of young people, and look forward and improvement of society through mobile technology.
They carry out a plan for youth development initiatives that focus on young people to develop skills in job performance and helps to encourage creative thinking and responsibility of the person.
(06 Nov 2011)
The volunteer program is to provide a social benefit in the communities. In this program, many employees are involved and help carry out projects with their time and effort that are approved locally. His program is based on: Rebuilding homes for children, literacy programs, cleaning of rivers and forests, collecting food and clothing for children and adults at risk
(06 Nov 2011)
Team 7
Social Responsibility Projects in the areas of education and employment.

Nokia is a world leader in the mobile market and technology and aims to collaborate and positively impact our community. Its Social Responsibility is based on three pillars: youth development, application of mobile technology and support to communities following natural disasters held responsible projects whose main objective is to develop the potential and capabilities of young people, and look forward and improvement of society through mobile technology.
They carry out a plan for youth development and initiatives that focus on young people to develop skills in job performance and helps to encourage creative thinking and responsibility of the person.
Also the volunteer program is to provide a social benefit in the communities. In this program, many employees are involved and help carry out projects with their time and effort that are approved locally. His program is based on: Reconstruction homes for chil
(05 Nov 2011)
TEAM 5: Guscina Olga, Molnar Ella,Rashidy Abdulkarim Bakari,Shrestha Sangam.

As well as part of the outplacement program must conduct both individual consultations and have the ability to organize group training on the job search technology. Such big companies must provide motivational training that will make their employees believe in them and see and layoff as a challenge, obstacle and a short period in their life, and after getting through it they will definitely succeed. Lay off employees must be the last option of employer but also for employees it’s not the end of their story, they must remember that the biggest successes in life are saved for those who are not running away from the problems, but who are fixing them.
(05 Nov 2011)
TEAM 5: Guscina Olga, Molnar Ella,Rashidy Abdulkarim Bakari,Shrestha Sangam.

Outplacement let employer demonstrate corporate social responsibility for the affected employees. Outplacement programs play an important role in maintaining a positive company image, promote a healthy atmosphere in the team and the total loyalty of employees, to minimize legal risks in firing, and prevent a sharp drop in productivity - the inevitable consequence of reductions in staff. We think that it is very important to have professionals who help laid-off employees of a company in finding a worthy replacement of the former place of work. Experienced recruiters during and upon completion must provide psychological support for dismissal of the fired employees, orient them to the labour market and help in resume writing, discuss with them opportunities to further develop their careers, and give recommendations for an interview and also talk about some legal nuances of future employment.
(06 Nov 2011)
In USA the productivity is very important, and dismissal is very normal. In fact, there are companies which work is about dismiss employees of companies that contract their services. During this process they dismiss them and give them brochures and guidance on how to face this new stage of life and finding a new job. But we have the same problem, what happens with the people over 40 years? They provide a recycling program to be elected in other companies.

We recommend that you watch the next film: The Company Men.
It´s about the mass dismissal and how a man has to face a his new life and accept it.
(05 Nov 2011)
Team 1
For Nordea, corporate social responsibility is an important part because they believe it results into sustainable result. Nordea values their employees through opportunities for their performance development, career growth, opportunity to work abroad, gender equality, safety at work and employee satisfaction survey.
Nordea care environment by reducing many business trip with the help of virtual meetings and video conference system. In 2009, it has received Leed Green Building Certificate for its 14 office building which are located in Copenhagan,Helsinki, Oslo and Stockholm for maintaining energy efficient and eco-friendly. Besides this,it has target to reduce CO2 emissions, more energy consumption and customer and internal paper consumption. It has 8 eco teams working on these aspects.
In Sweden, Nordea is a member of Financial coalition to prevent the sexual exploitation of children. Also it focus on sponsorships in sports and musics to encourage teenagers and children.
(05 Nov 2011)
TEAM 1
I think it’s important for companies to educate their workers concerning the Climate change, energy, pollution, in other to help save the biggest challenges facing the world today. For me the world is a classroom so companies should take up their responsibilities by encouraging their workers also educates them. Nokia is committed to the principles of th United Nation Global compact, which provides a framework of responsible business practices relating to labour human rights, anti-corruption and environmental issues. Nokia also use their considerable resources to help organizations such as WWF. Yes Nokia is trying but is not enough
(28 Nov 2011)
Some companies employ substantial resources to achieve these goals. It is generally the largest organizations. She set up seminars and conferences for their employees (and sometimes also for their partners). These ecological findings over several days and help raise much each of the different topics. The results are generated great and immediate.
(05 Nov 2011)
TEAM 6 (Islam Md. Rakibul, Mäkelä Taija, Wangmo Nawang, Blanco Fernández Marta)

Unemployment caused by the crisis is a problem but unemployment can also be caused by technological progress. The progress is good and it makes life easier, but if every year we produce the same amount of goods with fewer people in a few years, the working hours that it be used, will be reduced.
An oversupply of working hours means that wages and salaries will be reduced and also many people are out of work because their working hours aren't longer needed. If the people are out of work,they haven't income and demand for goods goes down. With fewer sales, the production is reduced and more people won't have work. This is a circle that accelerates unemployment.
Unemployment caused by technological progress wouldn't be more serious than that caused by the crisis? because when this is exceeded, slowly everything returns to normality situation, but the technology advance every days.
(06 Nov 2011)
I think that as a decision of this problem could be development of social sector, because this sector is very important, because it's can't be changed to any technology. And I think thanks for it this sector will increase and improve and so the salary in this sector will be more higher and as a result it will be more attractive for the potential employees. So, anyway robots never could substitute a real people factor and behavior.
(06 Nov 2011)
In my opinion this problem is really difficult for solutions finding nowadays, because in some branches of production "people's factor" could play negative role in production. Because it's normal for people making mistakes, and of course it's not good for quality of products. Therefore usually it's more effective, cheaper and reliable for producer to use robots and machine technology. So, it plays a big role for the level of unemployment.
(06 Nov 2011)
TEAM 2

In our opinion this argument is difficult to interpret because it can take other determinants of the level and trend in employment. First, the balance between companies that open and close can be positive: in this case could be positive (though not necessarily) the balance of employment also induced by this phenomenon, this balance has proved to be positive, especially in conjunction with the birth of new products or even whole new industries. Moreover, even within companies that introduce labor-saving technology, could create new professionals who contribute to the creation of jobs.
(05 Nov 2011)
Technological progress in the world is really fast and its an advanced. For a simple and easy work, people depends on machine. If we see from other side, its the result of unemployment. I agree what Femandez Marta Blanco has commented. When I read your comment, I remember the video of assignment 1, our Earth called "Home". There it is said that "In field, machine replaced men". I hope now everyone can make guess what is it meant and its result.
(04 Nov 2011)
Team 9
Nowadays,many business organizations has been well-aware of how important social responsibility not only to organization itself but also to the society. As Nordea Bank, the biggest bank in Nordic countries, they believe that responsible business leads to sustainable results as a slogan. In particularly to environment, Nordea has been planning to reduce:
- 18,000 tons of CO2 emission in 2016
- Energy consumption by 15 % (kWh/FTE)
- Internal travelling by 30 % (trips/FTE)
- Customer paper consumption by 50 % (grams/customer
- Internal paper consumption by 50 % (kg/FTE)
(05 Nov 2011)
Team 9.Paul Noamesi, Dung bui cat, I think i do agree with you for technological breakthrough has equally accounted for massive unemployment.In modern times,companies especially factories that used to depend heavily on manual labour has now been replaced by robotic machines that do everything from the start to the end.The need for companies to hire human labour therefore is not needed as few hands are now require to assist the so-called machines to produce and meet their set targets.The recent crisis alone is not to be blamed for the massive unemployment the world over is experiencing.I think the young generation should be encouraged to adopt entrepreneurial skills so most of us can create jobs other than relying on traditional firms for jobs.
I hope they can realize this but I think that some things are impossible. Like reduce 50% paper/customer. The energy consumption could be easy if they turn off (put it lower) the heaters.

They need a very good plan in order to make sure that all this things will be reduced
(05 Nov 2011)
But don't you think that employees/workforce is part of the environment when we think of it from the society point of view?
Team 3: Idea

In our opinion companies should work on the reduce of pollution. It could be a win win situation for everyone, if companies starts to give their staff instead of a companycar a trainabonnement or something like that. Only to motivate their staff to take public transport. Maybe homeworking could be also positive. Employee can choose when they want to work and they don't have to take a car.

It reduce the pollution and as a staffmember you avoid big traffics.

Another idea could be: the goverment should motivate companies (by giving them grants) to use only recycle materials and green energy.

By researching we found that Nokia, Finnair and Nordea are doing their best to have a good social responsibility.
(06 Nov 2011)
Team 7
It is clear that the citizen must become aware on how to choose their means of daily transportation. But travelers also can choose the right companies.
The latest report from the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP an independent and non-profit organization) located at Finnair as one of the most eco-efficient companies and assessed their leadership in biofuels flight initiative. In its report of 2011, the Carbon Disclosure Project has awarded a score of 76 Finnair over 100 thanks to substantial progress in reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.
In addition, Finnair has a simple online tool (http://feel.finnair.com/#/full/why/emissions/) for all passengers to compare the emissions from a flight via Helsinki on Finnair flights compared to other airports in transit. So each passenger may also carry out an eco-efficient decision when choosing between flying with an airline or another.
(06 Nov 2011)
I think, that it's actual theme nowadays. Of course we have just suggest to air companies care about nature. And in my opinion, what we can do to prefer air companies which provide some campaings for protect environment. And I think that it has to be one of competitive advantages of air company, for what they can attract customers.
(06 Nov 2011)
Of course, this program of Finnair is a good example of environment caring. I think, that all air companies should follow of their example, because during last years there was a lot of air polution, thanks for it now we have a lot of problems with climate disorientation.
(06 Nov 2011)
TEAM 2

We fully agree with you. We believe it is very necessary and critical that all companies should adopt standards of environmental safety and energy savings to direct all efforts towards a single common goal. But these goals should be pursued meticulously, with important and specific penalties for those not within the parameters set. The Kyoto Protocol has the great demerit of not being able to raise awareness of all the states and was little more than an incomplete project on a piece of paper. all the world must change and should not be a decision made by individual states but by the entire community.
(05 Nov 2011)
team 8:

hey guys
i think to reduce the pollution is a very important point and companies should think about it and also do it.
to give a train and busabonnement to their staff will work in cities but not in the country side because their is not a good public transport system.
but when all the companies around the cities will do that a lot of pollution would be not produced.
and the companies in the country side can organice a "company bus" which collects the employees from different points and than all together can drive to the work. this cind of service is very commen in liechtenstein and the west part of austria.
(06 Nov 2011)
Team 6

In our opinion Carpooling is one good option. Not sure if that would work in practice in all companies but at least worth trying. When a company called Neste Oil relocated their main office to Porvoo (used to be located in Espoo), they organized a bus connection from Espoo to Porvoo so that all employees would have chance to go to work. However, the bus only picked up people from big main roads such as Kehä 3.
I totally agree with you all and Manuel it's a very good idea about the company bus. I don'tknow if we have it in Belgium but a lot ofpeople take the train to the city or their bikes.
(05 Nov 2011)
Team 4 (Kristine, Cindy)

Pollution reducing is very good point especially in countries with high industrial development. And since Scandinavian countries doesnt face pollution that much its even more important to keep it up. One very good example is Denmark country where around 80% of people use bikes same as Netherlands and thats way quicker, easier and cleaner way of going from point A to point B. If companies themselves would invest and support also government to built the bike traffic system it would work out very well.
As far as we kno Nokia in Finland are supporting their employees using bikes and helping them to be green. Which actually is very big step in being socially responsible.
A very big dismiss is knowledge. Companies even dont know how to green at many points and this should be discussed between government and all business society!
(05 Nov 2011)
Team 9,Paul Noamesi.I do agree with team 4 for the need for governments and companies to agreed on a common ground to help reduce their environmental impacts and as such, sanctions should be put in place in case of violation.I commend most of the Scandinavian countries for their effort in maintaining low pollution and as such, most their firms are environmentally conscious which serves a good purpose
(03 Nov 2011)

Nokia in education sector. 2
First 280 students in six schools participated in October 2008 to June 2009, then it grew to 4000 students and 72 teachers in 30 schools in the second phase after a year. There were more than 180,000 visits to the service in the first four months with half of all students and two thirds of teachers participating, and those who used the service were very frequent visitors. Learners whose teachers did not take part in the programme still used the service independently. Remarkably, over 80% of all usage took place outside of school hours. The outcomes gives a clear picture that the mobile learning service increases retention amongst students whilst also boosting motivation for both learners and teachers.
(03 Nov 2011)
Nokia in education sector.
Nokia says that mobile technology can help achieve education for all and its approach is aligned to UNESCO's Education for All goals. Nokia aims to use its products, services and technology to support those objectives and the program me’s 2015 timeframe. For instance, Nokia has been running a Mobile Learning for Mathematics project in South Africa since 2008 in the collaboration with the South African government, Nokia Siemens Networks, as well as operators and content providers. The service focuses on active learning by delivering interactive study packages to students' mobile phones and taking advantage of social networking. This service is free for the students through the country's two main operators, MTN and CellC, also it is available on all the phones, not only in Nokia. The results from the project are highly encouraging. First 280 students in six schools participated in October 2008 to June 2009, then it grew to 4000 students and 72 teachers in 30 sc
(03 Nov 2011)
Team 1
Corporate responsibility is one of the most integral part of Finnair. With the help of different companies and groups, it has maintained corporate responsibility through following activities:
- To avail clean drinking water to Indian children, Finnair has worked with UNICEF and succeed to raised over € 50,000.
- Finnair has used biofuel in its flight which is known as world's largest commercial biofuel flight from Amsterdam to Helsinki to make its flight environmentally friendly.
- Finnair has helped the Burmese refugees by donating 2000 blankets in Thailand.
- Finnair is the Finland's first company to sign the UN's women's Empowerment Principles which provide guidance regarding implementing equality policies and providing power to women in the workplace.
- About 46 percent waste generated on its board from flight has been recycled.
(06 Nov 2011)
It`s good to know that there are some airlines that are interested in saveing the planet, because they are using the most fuel and only few of them realize that they schould also give back something for the society. I think that Finnair is a very good example and all the other airlines should learn from them. Nowadays using the airplanes as public transportation is very common and many people have no ideea how much this affects our environment.
(03 Nov 2011)
There are several alternatives for dismissal don't appear within the company and help at the same time improving the situation in which it is.

A suspension of employment contracts can be a good option because workers receive payment of unemployment and companies haven't to pay the salary or compensation. On the other hand, it also can promote early retirement, reductions in labor costs through payment in kind that allows tax savings, and a reduction in wages ... those are alternatives to dismissal and that wouldn´t affect of serious way the company as the dismissal.
(03 Nov 2011)
Dismissal of staff of a company simply to maintain profitability or position in the market is the easiest solution in times of crisis, but it isn't correct, because in the long term can have negative consequences for the company.

A dismissal carries several negative effects such as pay indemnity, conflicts in the work, damages the image of the company and often leads to loss of access to credits and / or public funds.

The crisis don't last all life, and in future, when the situation improves, the company has to hire new workers. After seeing all the negative consequences, is necessary massive dismissal?
(06 Nov 2011)
Obviously we can not accept a mass dismissal as it currently exists. But always know that companies always look for your interest and to save the backs of senior managers to follow in the same seat. Employees are a mere pawns in a game dominated by banks and big companies. We can not do anything, for that exist organizations in defense of the interests of employees but due to corruption in many cases do not do anything. This world is absolute chaos.
(03 Nov 2011)
Team 8: (Ndungi Nancy Wangechi, Jokiperä Anneli Marttilita, Brunner Manuel)

In our oppinion the worst thing is that a lot of companies fire their old staff to save money. This is very common in a lot of big companies.
To fight against this method we think that it would be a good idea if the companies have to pay a compensation to the employee and a fine to the country which have to pay the unemployment befefit for this employee for a long time, because most of the over 45 years old people wouldn`t find a job.
On the other side the country can also pay a benefit to a company which appoint over 45 years old employees.
(03 Nov 2011)
I am not so surprised with the lay-off which is currently happening in some business organizations in Finland. Due to the unstable political situation in Libya,one of the top oil production countries,it has led to the rise of fuel cost meanwhile the ticket price is low.That is one of the reasons why now Finnair has made decision to lay off their employees temporarily to reduce the cost. And in my opinion,that is quite best solution for now.
(02 Nov 2011)
I vote for the top executives reduce their salaries and we all settings, but that very little done. Anquan many layoffs that I can not explain how the government can foster.

Although a global evil we should not be pessimistic. We young people have it easier than others, employees over 40 years that companies do not want to work. This affects the employee fatally especially psychologically. But we have to be productive and think we can change this.
(05 Nov 2011)
Paul Noamesi.Yes i think top executives should rethink about their salaries because, most employees earn less in a month while top executives take home mouth-watering salaries which is wrong.Times are hard so they need to lead by example to show the way.
(02 Nov 2011)
We all know the difficulties to be overcome to fill a job applicants who are women, single women with children, disabled, chronically ill, homosexuals, etc.. But not only these social groups are particularly disadvantaged in labor demand, so are people over 35 who do not have accredited training or who come from disadvantaged geographical regions in some way.
Ideally, this is not so, would be wonderful if people were recognized for their knowledge and expertise, as guaranteed by international declarations of rights of Man. But the reality is other.
(06 Nov 2011)
TEAM 6

I am agree with cristina, in own society each time, is more difficult find job if you are single women with children, disabled,homosexuals and why?i don't know but i think that the companys don't worry if the people have more capacities or no to work , or if they hard work or no. The companys look for a prototype of person that benefits image of company and at the same time, improve the company's situation but they don’t worry about helping the people, they only worried about themselves.
(06 Nov 2011)
(Team 8)

We do not support discrimination in any kind.Unfortunately it is true what you wrote,it is harder for some "social group" to land a job. Companies and organizations should be aware of this problem and should be active in minimizing this kind of situations where a certain social group are underestimated.
(06 Nov 2011)
Team 1
We are absolutely agree with this staitment. For example, in Russia we have a lot of same problems. People, who arrive to Russia for work, probably haven't got same advantages as russian people. Usually they have lower salaries, and less opportunities.
Another problem is about young women, because for example organizations prefer to take men as employees than young women, because they understand that women could take maternity leave for child care as soon after starting work. And the organization must pay for this, but it's not really profitable for organization, but it's totally women discrimination. Of course, it's not transparent rule, but this problem is in reality.
(03 Nov 2011)
Team 3 :

Maire Guillaume
Appendino Lodovica
Debecker Julie
Rantanen Hanna

You are right, it is more difficult to get a job for certain social groups. This situation is quite simply called discrimination that is punishable by the law in France. For example people who has a name which sounds arabian are often discriminated when they apply for a job. Some people proposed to make the application anonymous to avoid the discrimination but i think that it's not the solution. People should be abble to apply whatever their name is. The recruiters have to change their way of thinking.
(02 Nov 2011)
team 9
Or reducing hours so that as many employees as possible will be able to keep their jobs. There is obviously numerous other solutions then just mass lay offs. Companies should be able to predict and be ready for situations like this. Lay offs could be avoided if companies would take an effort in trying to find a way to save beforehand for cases like this.
(06 Nov 2011)
TEAM 6

We agree with you, we think that there are other options before dismissing people, the company can try reduce cost in their production or reduce the salaries during a period of time until the company is not in good situation but never massive dismissal. The company is a part of society and it have to think in the people. Organizations have to help people when we are in bad economic situation, not do more difficult this situation.
All companies have a social responsability but major part of them only worries about your profits, for this reason we think that the thought of companies should change and think more in your environment.
(02 Nov 2011)
Team 9

The obvious easy choice for corporate companies is to grasp at large layoffs. That should not be the solution. How about pay reduction for the big bosses and higher paid employees?
(05 Nov 2011)
This can be easily said than done. It reminds me of Kenyan ministers refusing to pay taxes on their salaries and yet they want the other local employees to pay taxes.....its a cruel world. Jjuden i do not think this is a good idea because one aspect of social Responsibility when it comes to matters related to people and humanity is fairness and this woildnt be fair to the top management at all. They also work for these companies remember?
(03 Nov 2011)
mbrunner Team 8:

jjuden i think this is a good idea. they should do that more often because when a company gets troubles the management didn`t worked well!!! When a normal worker fail his job they would also reduce his sallery.
yes and if you think about a management payment around 3millon euro a year it dosen`t matter if he just earn one million this year. he will have still a good life and a lot of other jobs will be saved.
(03 Nov 2011)
Team 3:

This questions might be easy to ask, but the answer to this is quite hard.

If you think about that you would be a big boss of some company and you would be paid really well and then just like that your pay would be reduced and you would continue doing the same work? Would you like this? I believe that people are that selfish that even though they would now say that they wouldn't mind but when it comes to that you wouldn't like that.
(03 Nov 2011)
At least I wouldn't. Imagine being a succesful manager for example in Finnair. You do your work properly, work hard and make demanding decisions, you're good at your work and you know it. And then suddenly someone tells you the company is going to reduce your salary because they have to rearrange their business and make some savings. After that I'm quite sure the manager wouldn't have motivation to work as hard as usually and stay in the company. Sooner or later the manager would be looking for new opportunities maybe in some other company. And why not he/she wouldn't do so, somewhere out there is definitely a company which respects his/her work experience and input for work and also a company which is willing and able to pay reasonable salary. After all it is better to get sacked if possible and then enjoy the severance pay.

But I also reckon there is a law in Finland that limits how many percents one's salary can actually be reduced, isn't there?
(05 Nov 2011)
Is money/salary really the motivation to do work? ofourse it is in some level it would be so hyprocrite to denie.Everyone has bills to pay and to be able to manage living cost etc..
Also nowadays good salary is also a status symbol..how much you make in a year and so on...as in example a succesful Finnair manager could agree on reduced salary for "the greater good" but it is a demanding job with responsibilities and it is fair to be paid in what you do..
I personally think that this is only a temporary sulotion....
(31 Oct 2011)
Team 5: sangam, olga, ella, karim
Today i visited Nordea bank in kamppi to deposit some money and i came to know that from the mid of november 2011(around), the cash deposit and withdraw service can only be done at the bank's branches in Rautatieasemalla and Mannerheimintie 7.
It seems that the services is being limited and it means the deduction in the employees as well.
(05 Nov 2011)
This is a sad fact that they reduce so much service in the bank and usually replace human work with machines...I wonder what is the service like in this sectors within for example 5 years??
(30 Oct 2011)
I think that it is alarming how different the picture of company's social responsibility is from the point of view of the company than the point of view of the media. For example, from Finnair webpage you got the picture that people really like working there, as the average number of years in service was 17. Also, they told a lot about their benefits to the employees and how they care about their employees' health. But when you remember for example the flight attendants' strike last year, the picture is not as rosy as the company itself tries to show. It is obvius that the company wants to show only the best side, but I think that it would be responsible to show also the "darker" side of the company. If all the companies did that, you would not have to spend lots of time on thinking whether the picture that company gives is realistic or not.
(30 Oct 2011)
Team 5: Nguyen Thi Khanh, Nguyen Tuan Anh, Nyberg Iiro-Matias, Ropponen Satu

Our team idea is to have the "temporary lay-off" clause discussed in the employment contract. Employees will sometimes be asked to temporarily stay at home with reduced pay. During recession period, employees will be asked to take turn. The point is to make it clear with the employees at the beginning and ensure that they will be "re-employ" after a fixed time period. With this system, the company can cut some costs at difficult time without making redundancy. Besides, its employees will feel more secured and ,therefore, be devoted to the work.
(06 Nov 2011)
Again as an idea..it is almost a perfect solution but honestly it is not that good in the perspective of an employee.. Employees would feel like it is almost like lay off except the part that they can go back to work but how can the employer really ensure that they will have jobs to come back to?
(30 Oct 2011)
Team 2 - Dohmen, Heikura, Helenius, Hofmann, Mozadihul
As an idea it sounds great, but the problem is that it would probably be quite hard to get employees to be okay with reduced salary. Reduced salary would mean tough times for the people and that would maybe increase depression rates etc. And it would probably also cause strikes and those would be harmful for the company.
(30 Oct 2011)
Team 2 - Dohmen, Heikura, Helenius, Hofmann, Mozahidul

We think also that it is very inconsiderably to fire so many, but it is also "business as usual" and unfortunately not really connected to any emotions, when the management decides to lay off people. They do not do it "just for fun". Of course, this creates negative emotions and reactions, but the unstable world economy at the moment is not really promising to anyone!

We think that companies such as Nokia or Finnair needed to have a better risk management-planning for the future opportunities of their employees in order to catch up with their corporate social responsibilities!
A solution for that could be an internal specialized human resource department (in-house) offering individual career plans and psychological support for those who are affected by unemployment and help tailoring a new career for everyone! It is obviously hard to realize individually, but it might be a very smart investment to the future.
(29 Oct 2011)
Team 7: Tu Ngoc Pha Le, Tungstedt Emil, Turkka Iita, Veersalu Siim

Different employees within an organization get different levels of support during the outplacement process. And the three most common levels of support of outplacement process are group workshops, one-to-one and executive, through which employees get prepared for the task of finding a new job. Employees may get counselling from their consultants individually or in groups. Executive is designed for senior management, which offer much more one-on-one counselling together with other research and support services.

These free models have long been applied by outplacement firms. However, our team suggests that companies should consider offering tailored options which involve a mixture of the above. For example, one company might choose to support employees via a group workshop, followed up by individual surgery sessions with an outplacement consultant or on-site job shops. Group workshop programmes should offer individual
(29 Oct 2011)
Sorry I forgot to write down my team's member name for below comment
Team 8(Vo Thi Thuy Hong, Yue Liang, Zhai Zhe, Zhang Chenchen)
(29 Oct 2011)
In our team's opinion, those methods mentioned above can be potential ways of helping employees look for new jobs. A more important thing is it doesn't require much fund to make it real. Instead of conducting employees laid-off directly, companies would possibly apply one of these models in order to decrease strong reaction from employees.
(28 Oct 2011)
Team 4(Laura Lintunen, Yu Liu)

Our idea is companies should work with goverment, which companies should give laid off employees compensation, after that companies can work with government provide training progamme that can improve employees's working ability and also help them to find a new job. Companies could also join with government to help employees to find a new job when they decide to fire an employee. Employees could get more benefits when they are fired only if companies are under the certain laws.
(05 Nov 2011)
This is a smart idea. Companies should indeed join forces with governments and labour unions to at leats try reduce the sudden layoffs of workers by companies in the the name of financial and economic hardships. The government should come up with policies and to protect the employees and act as a form of job security. Your idea is similar to ours. and yes it indeed should cost them almost twice as much as keeping them.

Team 8 (Brunner, Anneli, Nancy)
(31 Oct 2011)
Team 2 - Dohmen, Heikura, Helenius, Hofmann, Mozahidul

We also agree, that additionally on future plans for the employees, companys need be observed by governments in order to provide a plan B for those that are affected by unemployment and to avoid a weak countrys economy in general. The more people are unemployed, the weaker the economy will be.
(30 Oct 2011)
The idea of collaborating with the government is great. With this system, employees will learn to improve their competency for future job. Besides, the company may find suitable employees during the process of training.
(28 Oct 2011)
It is a very good idea that companies should work with government. While in my point of view, it is a challenge for the government. And it is a difficult measure for the government to carry out. Actually, there is no much time for government to handle this problem. There are many employees facing the problems about out of job. And the level of laid off employees is different. So, training is a hard way for them. I think what can government do is to publish policy to the companies about this issue and companies deal with this problem according to their local situation and ensure the basic compensation for these people.

Team 8(Vo Thi Thuy, Yue Liang, Zhai Zhe, Zhang Chenchen
)
(28 Oct 2011)
I do not know where this article got their numbers from (and obviously not your fault) but 2009 SAS reduced with 8600 employees, selling some of their daughter companies, and decreasing their fleet in order to save 4 billion Swedish crowns. This information is in Swedish but if somebody is interested;

http://di.se/Templates/Public/Pages/ArticlePrint.aspx?pl=7244__ArticlePageProvider
http://www.va.se/artiklar/2009/02/03/sas-minskar-med-8-600-anstallda/

And about Mercedes:
http://www.emercedesbenz.com/Jan06/05MercedesJobCutsMovingQuick.html
(28 Oct 2011)
UPS! Should have been a reply to the previous comment of Eketurakyte!!! Sorry
(27 Oct 2011)
Fortune magazine featured six companies that, as for mid-January 2010, have never had a layoff. These companies are SAS, Wegmans Food Markets, Mercedes-Benz USA, S.C. Johnson & Son, EOG Resources and Baptist Health South Florida.
They all had to face difficult choices during tough economic times but still they share the belief that employees are their most valuable asset. They have proved that by putting people first, companies can be innovative, creative, ahead of the competition and survive a recession.
If interested, you can read the whole article here: http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/fortune/1001/gallery.bestcompanies_layoffs.fortune/index.html
(05 Nov 2011)
Well said. These three comapnies (Nordea, Finnair and Nokia)have based their arguements of laying their employees on stiff competition and cuting down costs. There are indeed several ways to out perform competitors and gain market leadership like for example product development. The main thing that these humongouse companies need is startegic planning because competitors will always be a challenge. Employees are indeed the best investment any company could ever have.
(30 Oct 2011)
It is great reading that some companies still understand the need and importance of its employees. Beside laying-off, there are still ways to cut costs, but most companies just consider laying-off is the easiest and fastest way after all.
(27 Oct 2011)
Difficult economic times call for tough decisions. However, cutting back on workforce is not the only option for struggling businesses. Instead of that, they might ask their employees to take pay cuts with the promise that once the crisis has passed their salaries will be raised back to pre-recession levels. Pay cuts to avoid layoffs preserve employee morale and keep companies poised to quickly scale operations back to full force when the economy rebounds. When faced with the choice between the two (a pay cut or layoff), most employees probably would be willing to accept a voluntary pay reduction to save their jobs. Also, I don’t think it’s just pay that keeps people connected to a company.
(30 Oct 2011)
Agree. Especially when the montly pay for the unempoloyed (paid by an union or the government/työttömyyskassa) is less than what you would get compared to agreeing for the pay cut.
(30 Oct 2011)
Team 5: Nguyen Thi Khanh, Nguyen Tuan Anh, Nyberg Iiro-Matias, Ropponen Satu

Your idea is really good. Companies should use more
imagination when the difficult economic time comes. Not always be content with the old solutions, which are often
bad. All employees understand that the bad times will come and when it comes companies have to react. Many will lover their wages rather than for example kicked out.

(31 Oct 2011)
I totally agree on that one.
(29 Oct 2011)
I like your idea. I think this method also can keep the loyalty of employees, especially for companies which has value of belonging.
(28 Oct 2011)
I completely agree. The best example is probably Hong Kong, which has shown to be the best, the most flexible and efficient market in capitalism. This is due to the salaries flexibility and compatibility with conjuncture changes.
(27 Oct 2011)
Many companies in the past years have hired many people to get better results and profits when the ecomony was going well. But now, they have to cut down in the costs and unfortunately it is in their staff.
(29 Oct 2011)
Team 7: Tu Ngoc Pha Le, Tungstedt Emil, Turkka Iita, Veersalu Siim

Companies have already studied the possibilities. They would not layoff if it wouldn’t be necessary. The primary reason for a company is to survive. If you don’t cut costs by layoffs the results would be even worse. The company would decrease profitability and result in more layoffs and cuts in other vital activities. We don’t think is a matter of whether a company must lay off employees or not, but more a question about how to reallocate this employees and which way governments’ actions can improve this flexibility of reallocation. It is a very serious and difficult matter, but companies can’t put in jeopardy its sustainability!!!

(28 Oct 2011)
Instead of cutting cost by decreasing excess capability or lessening the capex, most corporations choose the better way of making their employees laid-off because as the matter of fact, that is "the effective calculation" which will be able to cut off the cost fastest.
(30 Oct 2011)
It is true that some companies do apply this "method" to cut costs. By making the employees resign themselves, the companies will not need to compensate much for those employees. However, this method is unethical and unfair for the employees in general.
(28 Oct 2011)
That's true. Companies have to cut costs in order to stay alive and staff is one of the easiest places to start. Maybe the consumers should take a stronger stand and not make it an option. Or at least not the best or easiest one. If people weren't willing to support companies that have massive layoffs, it wouldn't be the first place to go for a struggling company to stay competitive.
(29 Oct 2011)
I agree with you, I think masses of consumers have huge impacts and boycotts do have an influence. If customers demanded more social responsibility from companies during tougher economic times, the companies would be obliged to look for other options. I recently learned that Laurea UAS has their own domain and supports its IT system entirely. It's not neccessarily related to how to act in a downturn but it definitely is an innovative way to save money, and it didn't take them longer that 6 months or so. There are ways, you just have to take the time and effort to think about them a little more...
(30 Oct 2011)
Team 1 - Victoria Berci, Raquel Miranda, Aleksander Cardwell, Muhammad Butt, Innocent Dike

Exactly. Laying off people is a kind of lazy way to save money. There are so many better ways to save. Studies show that out of most corporations, 80% of their budget consists of small items that kind of get overlooked in the budgeting process.
For example, a certain telecommunications company buried their cables at a depth of two meters. When asked why they dug them so deep, they said that anything above two meters wouldn't last in a nuclear explosion. After the company realized that in the case of a nuclear explosion, telecommunication cables would be the least of their problems, they lifted their cables to a depth of one meter. Doing so saved the company $80 million a year.
(27 Oct 2011)
In Finland it's very easy to cut off employees, especially in the time of recession. Highly educated managers and executives usually get an envied severance pay. Sure it sounds good to get extra 100k€ but there's also risks in it.

Accepted severance pay will affect to the unemployment security and taxation, and unemployment compensation payments may be completely lost. Also re-employment to former company will be more difficult.

Severance pay removes all legal responsibility from the company, it should be concidered as a good thing only when re-hired immediately and the pay will be "extra money"
The idea of severance pay seem to stem from the companies' good attention. But I have also heard some cases about some incompetent managers, executives who were fired due to the fact that they did nothing good for their companies. But in the end, they received some hefty pay called severance pay and happily left the companies. I'm not sure how and in which ways the companies decide how much of the severance pay they should give to those in senior positions that are laid off.
(29 Oct 2011)
Team 1 Idea (Victoria Berci, Raquel Miranda, Aleksander Cardwell, Muhammad Butt, Innocent Dike)

Maybe because of the fact that there are so many private companies that shape the employment process the way they want is when the lay off option is more often taken into consideration. Governments are always a safer choice but even in that case people get loose their jobs
(29 Oct 2011)
I usually first think positively about severance pay, thinking "Oh great! You can relax for a while" but naturally, that money disappears quickly and the employee might not have been so actively job searching, relying on the huge amount of money. There are stories of managers and executives who got huge severance pays in 2009 US and Finlanad and today, they have dissapeared...I only wonder where they work now. Hopefully not at McDonald's..
(26 Oct 2011)
If companies can’t avoid cutting off employees, they could at least market the skills and talents of employees being laid off. They could organize and host job fairs for terminated workers to attend. Job fairs could help them return into the job market as such events would give them a chance to meet up with multiple employers, firsthand, all in a single day, and in one convenient location. In jobs fairs terminated workers could easily find out the types of jobs employers are seeking to fill and could tell about their talents, job skills and interest.
(02 Nov 2011)
I compleatly agree. That is why constant training of employees is key. Training and fairs will provide some kind of security for employees by giving them more confidence and lifting their self esteem.
I agree with your idea. That would be a wise move from the companies. Such actions show the laid-off workers that the companies do care about their wellbeing and therefore, they can leave the organization without holding a grudge against their former employers. And by doing so, the companies will be able to ask those laid-off workers to come back when the organizations need them. So i think it would be a win-win situation for both if the companies are willing to do so for those they let go.
(29 Oct 2011)
This method can be used as one way of carrying out the outplacement process. Some say that companies are not willing to pay for their laid-off employees. However, once a company has considered conducting outplacement, it must have expected to pay a certain amount of money. Most outplacement providers will offer different levels of support to fit one company's budget. This method may sound impossible to some companies with small budget, not to all organizations.
(28 Oct 2011)
There are already job fairs. I think it is more a question of how much the overall companies in the society can absorb the layoffs of other organizations in times of downturn.
(05 Nov 2011)
Exactly. I do not think laying off employees just to market their skills ia such a good idea because then many companies would result to that and after all where would all these hundreds of lay offs go to considerin there are already a many people who are unemployed.
(28 Oct 2011)
The idea is good but as said, I don't think the companies would be willing to pay for job fairs for the employees it has just laid off. But the fairs could be organized by some organization or union or even the city or county.
(27 Oct 2011)
Unfortunately this sounds like a fairy tale. Companies are not willing to pay for the laid off workers. But they might be interested to replace these people in a close future with more skilled and motivated people and the idea of the job fair is interesting.
(26 Oct 2011)
The article about Nokia is just unbelievable. First the company expands its business in Romania and now four years later, it has to shut down. I do not understand why companies think that the best way to profitability is outsourcing! And even the plants in Mexico, Hungary and Finland might not have better expectancy. In my opinion, the company should not have outsourced to other countries, but develop their market in Finland, their home country. The labor force might be less expensive abroad, but still it costs a lot of money to ship all the necessary items and then back to Finland.
(30 Oct 2011)
Unfortunately, some companies thinks only of themselves and do not understand their impact on the surrounding world.
Cases like this many of the cities wilt away because lack of jobs. Sometimes, everyone should go to himself and to think of others too.
(30 Oct 2011)
Yeah, I agree Nokia should have developed their market in Finland, especially their innovation department! But unfortunately Nokias decision making was not the best within the last five years. As already mentioned, outsourcing clearly hast its advantages, like cost savings, job creations, global competiveness and so on. Another big advantage is unfortunately also, that it is quite cheap to close certain production plants, because they are subventioned by the EU or the country itself. Therefore and in Nokias case it was somewhat their cheapest option and it did not really surprise me to be honest. The cruel it sounds.
(29 Oct 2011)
I think outsourcing is a good way to expand market. It brings the company nearer to its consumers in a certain country if they actually have a factory, office etc in the country as well. In India, Nokia has a huge market and its definitely among the most popular cell phone companies...and suprise suprise, they also have numerous offices and even factories in there, with many thousands of Indians working for Nokia. Nokia is not only Finnish anymore, its also global and in every operation country, part of the country's economy. I definitely recognize the dangers of outsourcing and how it takes away from some, but it also gives to others. It wouldn't be much of a global business if every company would stick with their own country.
(30 Oct 2011)
I agree with your comment. Nokia has most of it's markets abroad and I think that it is important for the company to be near its users. Even if Nokia did keep its production in Finland it would need to ship all the recourses for the components from other countries here. Nokia was a Finnish company before but has become a multinational organization and unfortunately these are the repercussions.
(27 Oct 2011)
Unfortunately, aside from being affordable, outsourcing also saves companies a lot of time and the quality of work is usually very good. But I agree with you that instead of creating new jobs for rival nations, companies should try to create more job openings in their own country. Outsourcing is a double edged sword, and companies need to be wary of shipping all their dirty work abroad.
(26 Oct 2011)
Then they should provide interview skills training, effective job search strategies and techniques including networking and responding to advertisements, and assist in developing written job search materials.
(26 Oct 2011)
Team 3: Kautianinen Niklas, Keturakyte Ernesta, Koskela Toni, Kuisma Gabriella, Larinkoski Essi

In our opinion, outplacement should be provided by employers as part of a severance agreement. The process of a company assisting recently terminated employees with searching for other employment opportunities is a responsible action that accords with best practice in terms of corporate social responsibility.
Our team believes that it means a lot for terminated employees to see and feel that a company is here to help them beyond the decision to let them go and through the entire process. Moreover, companies can also benefit from outplacement services as they can help maintain or create a favorable public image for a company.
Outplacement can be done by bringing these services in-house or by getting these outsourced. Outplacement counselors should first assist terminated employees in dealing with the emotional issues related to termination and renewing their self-confidence. Then they shou
(29 Oct 2011)
Team 4 (Laura Lintunen, Yu Liu)

Sounds good for the employees, no doubt. But it requires a big company with a lot of money in their use. And in a bad economic situation a very few companies have that kind of money, especially if layoffs are needed. But for bigger companies that aren't struggling that much it is definitely a good and responsible idea.
(26 Oct 2011)
Team 1 Idea (Victoria Berci, Raquel Miranda, Aleksander Cardwell, Muhammad Butt, Innocent Dike)

We have all witnessed the economic growth the world faced till 2008-2010 for some countries. During this period productivity went up as never before and lots of companies expanded and created jobs. Now, when the economy struggles, the opposite of the same process happens: they lay off people, close factories and so on. To solve these problems is more a matter of legislation which maybe in the future will be implemented. Just as insurance companies have a bigger company or organization to back up and be responsible for the insurance company`s employees or products in case of a bed economic time, all companies should legally have back up company who will take over in case something happens. Either is dept, lay off employees etc.
(30 Oct 2011)
Team 3 comment: Kautiainen Niklas, Keturakyte Ernesta, Koskela Toni, Kuisma Gabriella, Larinkoski Essi

Backing up govermental issues and decisions is a great idea. Just as EU is considering currently different kind of ways to support its members and their financial struggles without their decisions affecting the other member countries in a negative way. We are all aiming to the same goal, so there should be a back door for each situation, especially if it seems that the outcome will affect half of the world. Greater good should be kept in mind.
(29 Oct 2011)
I like this idea. Larger back-up company can solve many issues and also receive punches better than the smaller ones. But of course, cooperation with big companies can sometimes be disadvantageous to small companies. Smaller companies might have values and attributes they are more fierce to stick by, and cooperation with a bigger company might require letting go some of those ideals etc. I guess that also distincts some of the big companies from smaller ones. In many cases, to make big bucks, you kind of have to lie, steal and cheat sometimes...not always but I am finding it really hard to find one huge corporation or company that would have completely clean record in all areas of moral, social responsibility and honesty..
(26 Oct 2011)
Big companies usually have many departments, agencies, even abroad subsidiaries. Whenever rearranging their business, they should recommend new working positions to the employees who are planned to be fired. In that way, not too many people are laid off. And the companies also get benefits, because it is easy to operate business with familiar employees who understood companies’ working process and organizations’ values, instead of recruiting new ones.

The newest example is Nokia Company which firstly informs to dismiss a lot of employees in this year. Actually, in the end, they arranged many of them into new working places so that the rate of fired employees was at least.

Team 6 (Rousku Antti-Ville, Salzano Sabrina, Shapkota Pashupati, Särkijärvi Jaakko, Thieu Nguyen Mai Ngan)
(29 Oct 2011)
Team 4 (Laura Lintunen, Yu Liu)

Sounds like exactly the kind of responsible rearranging that is needed for a company to stay competitive while trying to be good to it's employees. In some cases it might be a little useless since it sounds like a lot of expensive work and in the best case scenario, at least, not that many layoffs. But the example of Nokia proves that done right, it is effective.
(29 Oct 2011)
This is a good method. However, in my opinion, it cannot be applied in every situations. Different departments require different types of skills and specialities. A company can only reallocate their employees between departments if those employees are flexible and skilled in many areas that they can adapt and work effectively in their new positions.
(29 Oct 2011)
I agree with you, nothing is perfect. It must be depended on the specific situation of each company. Anyway, the success of Nokia's case is an good reference for others.
(25 Oct 2011)
Our idea is to cooperate with other companies which work in the same field or not.And then they can share the workers with different companies.That means they could decrease the numeber of lay offs.At the same time,this way can help to release the burden of the company.
Team 8(Vo Thi Thuy, Yue Liang, Zhai Zhe, Zhang Chenchen
)
It sounds like a good idea but I think it may be impossible to apply in into practical organizational operations. All companies want their staff to be loyal to them and know how to keep the companies' secrets of trade. But if they start to share their employees with other firms. They will face great risk of losing their competitive advantage. So I think it can only be carried out among the subsidies or branches of an organization, not among different organizations.
(29 Oct 2011)
Team 7: Tu Ngoc Pha Le, Tungstedt Emil, Turkka Iita, Veersalu Siim

You cannot reallocate a company’s employees to another company that works within the same field. What about competitiveness, corporate secretes, etc.? You would release the burden of the company in question, while increasing the troubles by losing competitiveness against competitors, which would result on lower revenue which would result on more layoffs!!!

(28 Oct 2011)
This could work well but sometimes companies don't want to share information or take employees that are laid off by competitors, only by force them or they really need these employees otherwise it's difficult to lauch.

Team 4
(26 Oct 2011)
This would work as a support connection between companies that will be willing to take over the employees one one company that is in the situation of laying off.

Team 1
(26 Oct 2011)
What do you mean by sharing employees?? Wouldn't they face a schedule problem or ethical problems?
Because if 2 companies in the same field share employees they may be rivals, how would that work?
(26 Oct 2011)
Only the lay off employees will be sharing, so there will be no schedule problems. You are right about the companies rivals problem, so I guess this plan is only work for cooperative enterprises.
(24 Oct 2011)
Our idea is to create programmes that encourage laid off employees to start businesses of their own.
Financing could be partially provided by the company responsible for the lay offs.
Team 3 (Veli-Matti Kivinen, Johan Korpi, Joni Kiukas)
(23 Nov 2011)
Team 5 (Majuri, Metsalu, Lusenius, Lindholm) does not approve this idea. It's financially impossible and can not be implemented in reality. There are government programs that already help entrepreneurs. Of course, if the company is not completely broke, then the case is different. UPM Kymmene for example had a program like suggested when they shut down factories in Varkaus.
(30 Oct 2011)
Team 5: Nguyen Thi Khanh, Nguyen Tuan Anh, Nyberg Iiro-Matias, Ropponen Satu
It may sound as a good idea. However, it is quite impractical. Companies which wants to cut its costs by laying-off will not be willing to finance employees' business, not to mention if that potential business will bring competition for the company.
(28 Oct 2011)
It is ok for companies to provide financing help to the lay offs as responsibility. While creat program and start business are not that easy things. We have to consider what kind of program should be created and who will creat it and the process of it. And start new business is not easy. It requires capital at least. Do they have enough capital?And how to start it ?Whether it will be sucessful? That is the problem which should be considered.
Team 8(Vo Thi Thuy, Yue Liang, Zhai Zhe, Zhang Chenchen
)
(26 Oct 2011)
And how exactly can a company that has not enough cash and not enough customers ( so they cant afford the employees) can finance start up businesses?
(27 Oct 2011)
I agree. How can a company finance new businesses when it just has laid off employees in order to cut costs, it doesn't make any sense. Also, setting up new businesses doesn't come cheap and if the company has just laid off thousands of employees how can it really afford to finance or partially finance thousands or even just a couple of new businesses.
(24 Oct 2011)
A very good idea indeed.
(24 Oct 2011)
Our idea is to create programmes that encourage laid off employees to start businesses of their own.
Financing could be partially provided by the company responsible for the lay offs.
(30 Oct 2011)
Team 5:Nguyen Thi Khanh, Nguyen Tuan Anh, Nyberg Iiro-Matias, Ropponen Satu

This idea is certainly interesting and difficult to implement. If the economy is downturn is not profitable to set up new businesses. Still, it is good to encourage people to entrepreneurship, although it is not at the best time for that.
(28 Oct 2011)
It is a good way to slove this problem but not only the companies, the local goverments will also face more financial and social problems.

Team 4
(26 Oct 2011)
I dont think everybody want to start their owm business, and that will be a financial problem for the company. Team 8(Vo Thi Thuy, Yue Liang, Zhai Zhe, Zhang Chenchen
)
(30 Oct 2011)
I agree. Some people decide to go to work since they do not want to manage, or have the managerial skills to work as their own boss. This idea may work for some employees but it cannot be applied to everyone!
(25 Oct 2011)
It is a good idea.But it will make the company under financial burden.
(29 Oct 2011)
Simply impossible!!! If a multinational company lays-off 3000 employees and have to pay for the starting of a new business for each of the individuals, companies would have created entire civilizations together under the last crisis!!!
(26 Oct 2011)
I agree with you, and believe that not all employees would get the benefit. Let's say that 400 employees are fired, the company would have to partially finance 400 "new business" and of course that not everyone has the skills or are entrepreneurs. Could be a parcial solution.
(21 Oct 2011)
Our idea is force companies provide new job from different field for employees who had fired because of financial issues.

TeamX: Petri Jurvanen, Niko Iskanius, Helmer Aasumets and Patrik Grönroos
(29 Oct 2011)
Employers offer outplacement to protect their reputations, forestall lawsuits and minimize unemployment-insurance payments. But outplacement is not and should not be mandatory as not all companies can afford or have enough budget for the outplacement process.
(24 Oct 2011)
This a terrible idea. If it was made difficult for companies to lay off employees in a certain country, no one would want to start or do business in that country. That would be very bad for the economy of the country.
(24 Oct 2011)
I agree vKivinen. It wouldn´t be good for anybody if everybody had a job if there really weren´t jobs to do.
(21 Oct 2011)
Our idea is that companies could create a system where all the laid off / fired employees could register for waiting new spots to be open. That is because we think that it's unfare to fire old employees and after that (when company does better) hire new ones instead of asking the old staff if they are still available to the position.

TeamX: Jannika Järvi, Inka Kataja, Mikko Järvinen and Janimatti Karhu
(03 Nov 2011)
That would be a nice idea and it would help the old employees. But i think the biggest problem is that most of the companys need just a reason to kick out their old employees because they are to expensive for them.
But they don`t think about that they will loose a lot of knowledge when they fire all the old people.
(30 Oct 2011)
I also like your idea. However, it is still up to the company whether they will re-employ them or not. The point is that the company has fired the employees once with some reasons beside downsizing, they can do it again after re-employing.
(26 Oct 2011)
I dont think everybody want to start their owm business, and that will be a financial problem for the company. Team 8(Vo Thi Thuy, Yue Liang, Zhai Zhe, Zhang Chenchen
)
(26 Oct 2011)
Sorry I commented on the wrong position..I like your idea, it's good you consider about the old employees
(24 Oct 2011)
A company should have the power to decide whether or not to hire a person. It is in no way financially profitable to hire people based on their position in this type of queue, whereas the company should hire the most qualified person. This idea is rather naive and would never work.

Team 3 (Kiukas, Kivinen, Korpi)
(21 Oct 2011)
Team 4

Our suggestion is that instead of laying off employees, they should outsource the employees to their partners or other companies e.g. Nokia outsourcing employees to accenture.

Companies should offer other possibilities than laying off employees such as re-education - get a study place in a university etc, create a program which encourages the employees to start an entepreuner career in their own field of expertise and also offer their existing deals that could help new companies to get started e.g. Nokia's symbian developers who could use their skills to develope the symbian to companies that still use it.

Team 4 (Antti Kuulas, Markus Laine, Unto Kotilainen, Tuomas Laakkonen).
(23 Nov 2011)
We like your idea and after thinking about it further, we thought that you could make it even more cost-efficient. There are companies abroad which could re-educate your laid-off workers with minor costs. For example you can get a Dr degree by surfing in Bali.
(23 Nov 2011)
Above comment was from Team 5 (Lauri Majuri, Keijo Metsalu, Roni Lusenius, Jesse Lindholm)
(26 Oct 2011)
Once companies like Nokia and Finnair decide to lay off people this is a drastic measure in order to cut off cost FAST. All the measures mentioned can be implemented but that takes time and discipline..which they can not afford. To lay off people means lack of liquid assets (cash) and not enough marketing (customers ).

Team 1
(26 Oct 2011)
We believe that especially re-educating the laid-off employees is a good idea. It’s a win – win situation for both the employee and employer, since the employee is getting “an upgrade” to his or hers education, and the employer can perhaps re-hire that person with the increased knowledge, after the financial situation gets better within the company. This also provides a higher competitive advantage to the country’s workforce compared with other countries, since people are constantly getting re-educated and achieving a higher level of knowledge in their own field.

Team 3: Kautiainen Niklas, Keturakyte Ernesta, Koskela Toni, Kuisma Gabriella, Larinkoski Essi
(24 Oct 2011)
Outsourcing the sacked employees is sometimes possible but usually this is not the case. This is a nice idea, but would not work in practice.

Team 3: Kiukas, Kivinen, Korpi
(21 Oct 2011)
We liked your idea, i think our teams are thinking same ;)

TeamX: Niko Iskanius, Helmer Aasumets, Patrik Grönroos and Petri Jurvanen
(19 Oct 2011)
Team 6

We suggest that companies should try to replace the employees (under the risk of laying off) into their business partners' companies. If this wasn't possible, there should be another company hiring all these highly educated employees. Hereby people wouldn't get unemployed. They would have a place where to work temporarily while they are looking for another job. This would prevent the people from going into unemployment spiral.

(Heljä Nokso-Koivisto, Anna Mäkinen, Mika Mustakari, Kai ?)
(21 Oct 2011)
We like this idea, but we are little bit afraid how the idea would actually work out because it's easyer said than done... We believe that finding the suitable partner company, who would be interested to hire so many people at the same time, would be kind of difficult. The employees might not either enjoy the fact that they are moved to different company and propably to different department too.

Team X : Jannika Järvi, Inka Kataja, Mikko Järvinen and Janimatti Karhu
(21 Oct 2011)
Team 4

We like the idea that instead of employees searching for new jobs, the companies would step up and try to offer an deal to the employees being laid off.

Team 4 (Antti Kuulas, Markus Laine, Unto Kotilainen, Tuomas Laakkonen).
(18 Oct 2011)
Team 5


We propose a system that is meant for the people who have been already laid off. There must be millions and millions of them all over the world, each one of them has their set of skills and knowledge which is just rotting away when they are unemployed.

Companies could start programs which could help these people by providing them some sort of activity. That way the companies would be acting in a socially responsible manner by giving something back to the people they’ve laid off.

Unemployed should use recruiting companies to get their jobs back. Usually it can be the fastest and the most reliable way to get a job back.

European Union European Globalisation Adjustment Fund should be developed into a better and faster process. This would provide quick aid to redundants. These days, processing the fund into target destination, can take over six months.

(Keijo Metsalu, Lauri Majuri, Jesse Lindholm, Roni Lusenius)
(21 Oct 2011)
We totally agree that the companies should recruit the laid off people back when it's possible! Too many companies fire old employees and hire new ones without thinking that they could offer some activity for the old employees and after that recruit them back.

TeamX: Jannika Järvi, Inka Kataja, Mikko Järvinen and Janimatti Karhu
(21 Oct 2011)
Team 4

We agree that companies should be acting in a socially responsible manner. After all the employees being laid off have done something for the company, so the company should give them something back. We assume that Jesse is the mastermind behind of this great idea!

Team 4 (Antti Kuulas, Markus Laine, Unto Kotilainen, Tuomas Laakkonen).
(24 Oct 2011)
That's true, im mastermind :)
(16 Oct 2011)
Team 8 idea:

For us to face the redundancy problem and act in a responsible way, we rejoin the team 1 idea. To be more socially responsible, the company should be as close as possible of employees informing them about all kind of problems the company is facing (productivity, sales...). So we would like to ad that it will be better to inform people from their future layoff in order to help them to be more organised and less lost. Then we also agree with the idea of "social security". Companies could for example provide some kind of internships or training.

(Team 8: Stenberg Juha Pekka, Wang Anqi, Vétillart Guillaume, Wosti Dagendra, Zhang Ji)
(16 Oct 2011)
Team 1 idea:

We believe that it is necessary for an organization to handle responsible when it comes to mass lay off. Thats why our idea for this issue is as following:

Organizations should put a lot of effort in outsourcing/outplacement to help their former employees to get a new job as soon as possible. Perhaps it would be a interesting idea if government and organizations share those costs and make it become like a "social security" system.

We also think it is very important that organizations should not fire employees based on age. They should, in case of mass lay off, fire certain percentages in different age groups. That way the lay off would be as fair and responsible as it could be. At least, that's our opinion.


Team 1: Aalto Ann-Marie Teresia, Ali Kashif, Breunissen Dirk Wessel, Bruggeman Luc
(24 Oct 2011)
It is a good idea and organizations and governments should put an effort in this. It may have little costs but the costs should try to keep in minimum
JONI KIUKAS
Well i totally agree with that, i think it make sense.
Laying off of workers base on the age factors is illogical.

Team1 Dike Innocent
(21 Oct 2011)
It is also important to take care about "system" hopefully there are no persons who use it for wrong purposes.

TeamX: Helmer Aasumets, Patrik Grönroos, Niko Iskanius and Petri Jurvanen
(19 Oct 2011)
We like this idea. It is important that they noted that people can't be fired based on age, that people should be laid off (if necessary) from all age groups, not just the older ones. We also keep important the idea of replacing people, not just giving money for them.

Team 6 (Heljä, Anna, Mika, Kai)
(16 Oct 2011)
First of all, companies cant fire people based on age. That is called age racism and it brings quite a lot bad publicity to a company.

Nokia has been in the news now for a while concerning their massive lay offs. I think that there is no "media-friendly" way to do these kind of things. A company just needs to give reasons for the lay offs.If they dont do this, they seem like an EVIL CORPORATION!
(16 Oct 2011)
But if the government were to pay, who do you think they would get their money from? I think you know the answer. Also firing people should be based on how much effort they have put in their jobs. Not just coin tossing, kicking out the best and leaving the worst.
(16 Oct 2011)
Jhieta, we don't think we mentioned coin tossing so we don't know where you got that idea from actually. We are only stating that, in order to pay attention to responsibility, it is important not just to fire all the old employees (they can be considered more expensive)but have a healthy cut in the whole process
(16 Oct 2011)
Got it from real life experience. Not referring to your age group. Usually it "should" be easier for younger people to find work than the elder who might not get anything anymore after kicked out.
(16 Oct 2011)
and that's exactly why we pointed to non age-discrimination part in our idea. Have had some experiences with it as well and I know how easy it is for organizations just to lay off older employees as much as they can
(16 Oct 2011)
We agree with team 1. to fire someone based on age is so unfair. the organizations have a responsibility their employee, so they have to carry out cuttin off in objectivity ways. If not, the organization lose their trust from community. thesedays, the age is problem to emplyee. they have rich experience than new recruit. So, utilizing this points to good ways is more efficient than just cut off the employees cause of situation.
(16 Oct 2011)
team 4 : Hämäläinen Tiia Helena, Jung Pureum, Karalar Onur, Koski Jori Eero Johannes

(16 Oct 2011)
We agree with these points, but we have to consider the fact that it is not always possible for an organisation to offer another Job at a different company.

Also informing the employees a few months in advance might cause your entire workforce to panic.

We think that in order for a good employee "transition" there should be a combination of the points you made. For example: Inform your workforce of the problems with the economy and specifically your organisation.

When the employees understand the problems they might be more understanding for the fact that their hours will be reduced.

Team 1: Aalto Ann-Marie Teresia, Ali Kashif, Breunissen Dirk Wessel, Bruggeman Luc
(16 Oct 2011)
Above was a reply to team 3
(16 Oct 2011)
Team 4 have an idea. If the company can't avoid cutting off employees, they can evaulate employee in more fair ways. before the cutting off, the company have to carry out 'Multisource assessment' for long time. through this way, the company can secure a objectivity and fainess. As reducing the conflict between company and employee, this resources can be utilize to education and advice program for unemployees. If the companies support to find anew job, unemployeement people can get a motivation and hope for finding a new job. In conclusion, the companies are not supposed to ignore umemployment people that is fired their company. they have a responsibility for their employee.

team 4 : Hämäläinen Tiia Helena, Jung Pureum, Karalar Onur, Koski Jori Eero Johannes
(16 Oct 2011)
Another options for companies can be that the employees working less. In stand of 40 hours maybe 2 days now, they earn less than usual but it is better than to be fired. The last option I thought is that companies can be more friendlier if there are compulsory redundancies. They can inform the employee a few months before they will be fired and they can offer a new job in another company. The company can create a online network with unemployed workers and companies who are looking for employees. The fired employee and new company can make contact.

Team 3: George Hulsboch, Lari Hellman, Aleksi Hirvonen, Jouni Hietanen, Valentine Furet
(16 Oct 2011)
The idea of creating an online network is quite interesting, however it will cost money for the company which wants to save money... Informing employees from a future redundancy allows people to anticipate their fired. However it should be not so easy for a company to offer a new job at the competitor.
(16 Oct 2011)
(Team 8: Stenberg Juha Pekka, Wang Anqi, Vétillart Guillaume, Wosti Dagendra, Zhang Ji)
(16 Oct 2011)
Let more employees working from home. So the company save space in the building, what they can rented to other companies or sell. The employees can organize their own working times. They can working by day, night or weekend when they have the time. But they have to work for example 40 hours. (It depends on the employment). The employees have contact with each other by phone, email, social media and videoconferences. This is a good idea for employees who has a busy social life. If they are busy with children, hobbies or friends than they can work in the nights, weekends or when they have time. On this way employees can stay at the company and do not get fired. But I can understand that it is not always that kind of easy for organizations. Because they also have to invest in working at home.

Team 3: George Hulsboch, Lari Hellman, Aleksi Hirvonen, Jouni Hietanen, Valentine Furet
(20 Oct 2011)
Team 4

That's good idea, but they need also have meetings with customers and others. But it able that they can maybe work with people in other countries and companies. Or that could be that when employee can't come to work they can replace that by working home. And by working home they don't have to pay from trips or lose time to go to work.

team 4 : Hämäläinen Tiia Helena, Jung Pureum, Karalar Onur, Koski Jori Eero Johannes
(16 Oct 2011)
Telecommuting can be a good idea to save money for a company, but is it as efficient as normal work? The atmosphere of an office and of a home is quite different. I think that companies should first try this solution with several employees and if it is effective, it can be applied to most of its staff.

TEAM 2 : Casota Alexandru Marius, Choi Jinho, Cosquer Camille, Festus Anyanwu Stanley
(16 Oct 2011)
We think that it is a good idea to save money by letting more employees work from home or elsewhere. Square meters are expensive so the less you have the less it will cost you.

We also agree on what you already mentioned yourself, that is is not always so easy to get that fixed on short notice.

Team 1: Aalto Ann-Marie Teresia, Ali Kashif, Breunissen Dirk Wessel, Bruggeman Luc
(16 Oct 2011)
TEAM 2 Idea for economic growth

The crisis is always a moment when we are confronted with a malfunction of the system, and it is precisely the time to put the question beyond its timely repair. If we only fix a logic, we will limit ourselves to fill holes. That is why I say that the crisis can be an opportunity to restrucuture the financial sector ( banks and finacial institutions) to ensure the quality and the transparency of this sector. Additional actions is needed to avoid a continued mismatch between finacial obligations and avaible finacial resources.
Like is happening now, and the population pay for others mistakes.

By guarantee the independence of the operational financial sector, is the only solution for the economic crisis and the medium-term economic growth.

TEAM 2 : Casota Alexandru Marius, Choi Jinho, Cosquer Camille, Festus Anyanwu Stanley
(16 Oct 2011)
I think that the biggest problem that companies like Nokia, Finnair and Nordea are facing is the cultural and geographical enviroment in the countries where they operate. When those companies take a decision maybe that decision for Europe is applicable but maybe that decision is not good for Asia. For example in Europe, Nokia is reducing at maximum the work force and in Asia they mantain or increase a little the work force, in Finnair case, they try to reduce at maximum the CO2 by renewing their fleet with the last airplanes. Starting by unify the decisional strucuture and reduce the number of the decisors is a good idea to improve and make easier to think about social responsability. Instead of fire 5 workers, reduce the work schedule in half an hour, or reduce all the others costs like rent, insurance, administrational costs etc. i am sure that costs can be reduced without fireing workers.
(26 Oct 2011)
We agree with you. In Finnair case, other costs could be reduced It is necessary though to analise if these cuts won't influence in the quality of the service provided by the company to the final customers.
An example would be cutting expenses with the services provided in the Frequent Flyer lounges, maybe customers could choose another company.
(26 Oct 2011)
Team 1 - Victoria Berci, Muhammad Butt, Aleksander Cardwell, Raquel Miranda, Innocent Dike
(16 Oct 2011)
i have some information to share about Finnalr. the following comes from

Finnair has taken few steps to keep the responsibility for personnel. 1-management they start to use new systematic development of the whole groups. 2-new framework for internal and external recruitment.3-occupational safety evaluation of all tasks.4-occpational health and wellbeing.5-equality.
all those steps above has that Finnair take the personnel as key point to their business
(16 Oct 2011)
It is quite unfortunate that there is so much going on with layoff. Is it any good? It is worth mentioning here that laying off employees from big companies and awarding contracts to subcontractors still keeps employees on their feet.
From the same Yle page is Digia, a subcontractor to Nokia. Unfortunately digia is also laying off employees i.e. they are affected by Nokia's crisis as well. Yes it is also an opportunity for new companies to spring up but how much good will it do.
Reasons are that I have come to realize that big companies do business with companies.
(16 Oct 2011)
As mentionned on Nordea's website, this Company is trying to reduce CO2 emisions by 16.000 tones in 2016. They want to reduce their energy consumption, their internal travelling and their consumption of paper. We think that is a really good idea to save money for the economical crysis that we have nowadays.

Don't you think that companies are using too much the topic of being eco-friendly in the way to reduce costs?

Team 7: Rajbhandari Santosh, Roquet Carreras David, Savel Corentin, Sohail Aamar

(16 Oct 2011)
Team 6 agrees to team 7.

Nowadays almost all the companies claim to be eco-friendly. This surely helps them to market themselves better and become more popular. Nevertheless, we never get any proof of how much these companies are "really" eco-friendly. Somewhere this strategy is also being mis-used and we are brain washed.

Team 6 : Paraschi Florentina Sabina, Pervaiz Faisal, Pichon Thibault, Pratap Janani

(16 Oct 2011)
Hey guys

Did you read about what the union boss- Mäenpää- said about Nordea job cut? The company cited new regulations that would be put in place. According to Mäenpää, the regulations have been in place and the company can still boost of remarkable profit. Where is the profit going? According to Mäenpää again stakeholders?
(15 Oct 2011)
Since there has been an economic recession, this trend has increased of laying off people. Those who were either not outsourced not were able to get new jobs were put into trouble.
Nokia decided to lay off 3500 from end of this year from different parts, I will say its better to improve quality of products and services other than job cuts, for stabilizing profit ratio.
(15 Oct 2011)
Personally I think the way Nokia outsourced a lot of their employees is a good way to cut back on costs regarding personnel. Also this way your employees are guided into new job possibilities.

Besides this I think it is really important to be clear to your employees about the ongoing problems with a company so they will not worry for no reason and they know what to expect. This way you can prevent your company from having the same problem as Nordea.

In the current state of the economy it is necessary for organisations to make difficult choices in order for the company to stay on top.
(16 Oct 2011)
Yes I agree with you. Nokia started to try to see their employees as an important part in their company; therefore they established local Bridge centers. They try to accompany their employees in the difficult time of dismissal. Nokia tries to find a new job for them within or outside the company. Moreover they offer entrepreneurships for that one starts in a new business and offer career renewal. In my opinion this is a good service for their employees, to give them the feeling that they try to support them even in difficult times. Certainly not every employee will be successfully placed but I think it’s a good way to show their employees that they care about them.
(15 Oct 2011)
Yes outsourcing has been proved as a benefit for both parties, employers and employees
(16 Oct 2011)
But not to them who are getting sacked because of outsourcing.
(15 Oct 2011)
I have an new idea about finnair,
This company try to reduce the reject of CO2 in the atmosphere but we can go even further in the process by encouraging passengers to offset the CO2 rejects. it can be done simply by helping to finance a project that will reduce elsewhere in the world, CO2 emissions of the desired amount.
All this project is launch by the UN thought carbon credit.
So do you thinks it's a good idea to offset the Co2 reject?

team 6 : Paraschi Florentina Sabina, Pervaiz Faisal, Pichon Thibault, Pratap Janani
(15 Oct 2011)
Laying off people should be done in co-operation with the old employer, so that new employers can see that the reason wasn't in the laid off employee. For example if some educational courses could be arranged..
(14 Oct 2011)
According to the topic,I think about the rules of personal department in Chinese company that it is related to laying off people.The most important point is that the employee did not violate company policy and has not been proved incompetent in the case, the company is no reason for laying off employees are required to pay economic compensation. It is a kind of way to protect the rights of employees. Meanwhile the company also undertake the social responsibility in this case.The another rule is that employee who reached certain age(such as 55)will obtain benefits like insurance money every year no matter if he or she has been laid off.

do you know other related rules in your country? how is your opinion?
(15 Oct 2011)
I thinks the law are quite the same in my country. In france it's really hard to fired someone... It include bad points and good points... For the good point it will take the exemple of private company, The company can not fired people like that, it must have a serious reasons (for exemple a miscondut or poor economic performance from the company). If there is not good reasons, the employee may file a complaint in court. It's a special for court for only the entreprise's law.
On the contrary, it's hard in france to fired ineffective people, i will take the exemple of the national company of railway in france. There is a huge percentage of ineffective people inside but nobody can do anything. The law protect them....
(15 Oct 2011)
team 6 : Paraschi Florentina Sabina, Pervaiz Faisal, Pichon Thibault, Pratap Janani
(14 Oct 2011)
PART –TIME SOLUTION
Instead of firing lots of employees has the solution. We think that companies like Nordea, Nokia and Finair should consider the part time solution.
Our idea which is instead of firing we cut hours, so people that should be fire is not fire and started to work less hours and less days in a week. We are aware that salaries also may be cut, but it is better for these people receive some money then being unemployed.
So, big companies will start not firing but cutting hours in labor force.
For example: During the week, a part of employees can work Monday, Wednesday and Friday; and the other ones Tuesday and Thursday. In this way, the company in a half the salaries and expenses with the work force.
What do you think about that?

GOVERNMENT AND BENEFITS
We have thought another idea about the unemployment. The government could do it is give some benefits on taxes if the people that they fired get another job thank to them.

Team 5: Carlos Muñoz, Ricard López, Tiago Alm
(16 Oct 2011)
We don't really agree with your ideea siNce this will infer with continuity and effectiveness of the companies future development and with the economic system of a coUntry. The part-time job affects workers and company in the same way, not giving them the guarantee and the hope of the economic situation in the medium and long term.
Since the company haS always the fixed costs like rent, insurance administrational expenses etc, and the variable costs like salaries, electricity etc.

Maybe the variable costs will reduce but the fixed ones, doesn't matter if you work 10days/month or 22days/month it would be the same, so we don't see the point of the part-time work for all the companies.

TEAM 2 : Casota Alexandru Marius, Choi Jinho, Cosquer Camille, Festus Anyanwu Stanley
(16 Oct 2011)
Team 7

We don't agree with your comment because it's an irrealistic solution for us. You can't split up a company in 2 parts because there is an relathionship between all the departments on the enterprise. Moreover, if I had a Company, I would not damage the best employees saying them they only can work 3 days. The best employees should work as much as they can.

Group 7: Rajbhandari Santosh, Roquet Carreras David, Savel Corentin, Sohail Aamar

(14 Oct 2011)
It is pretty good for reducing time to make employee accept the unemployed situation.It can remind them and give them time to find a new job to maintain their life. In mentally, they have a transition time to accept the reality of unemployment.
(14 Oct 2011)
The team 5 is Carlos Muñoz, Ricard López , Tiago Almeida Lopes and Christina Pache.
(14 Oct 2011)
I was wondering if Finland has a similair unemployment system as the Netherlands. For example; if you work for a compnay for 25 years and get laid off, you can get an average of 70% of your loan for the next 3 years in that case. If you are unable to find work after those 3 years, you will end up in a different system which the government gives you a benefit each month which is low and meant to just help you get your first needs in daily life.

It's especially hard to find a new job for older (50+) people so a lot of them end up in that system. Main reason is obviously the current economy and the offer of less jobs.

Are there more countries that have this social system? If so, what are your thoughts about it?
(15 Oct 2011)
I think a big problem is that in the current state of the economy a lot of organisations are bringing their business into countries where the salaries are lower. This way there will not be new jobs for experienced/older workers.

This is a difficult problem to solve, and it cannot be solved within the EU, because instead of going to a different country within Europe, organisations would go to a country like China where labor is cheaper and the legislation is less important.
(14 Oct 2011)
I think China has the similar unemployment system with Netherlands. Because people who worked in a company for a certain time then be laid off will get benefits like insurance money and pension several years. And for elder people, the company which he employed before should giving allowance in his remaining life.
(12 Oct 2011)
before the company hold the layoff meeting to state that there will be layoff, it would be great if they could offer some criteria for the lay offs. This will help employees to understand the current situation.it would be better if the company has already has a business website and post the layoff criteria, this openness will help prepare your employees for the upcoming layoffs

Try to help the lay offs by preparing a packet that outlines the resources available to them as they go back out into the job market. They will need to know about unemployment benefits, insurance issues, how to obtain letters of recommendation, and possibly counseling services.
(14 Oct 2011)
It's actually pretty hard to have decent layoff criteria in my opinion. In the Netherlands, the law says that a company is allowed to give you a max of 3 contracts that states the ending date. They can fire you without any reason if that contract comes to an end.

And again, if a company really wants to get rid of you, it is very easy to do actually. I think all companies should do something like evaluation sessions with their employees. Together they can set certain goals and if an employee agrees with it, then it can be considered some kind of contract. If the employee fails once (or twice) it is normal for him/her to lose their job.

About the mass layoff; thats actually a very hard thing to judge. I think companies dont have any other choice, if they can't do things like that, it would mean that that particular company most likely will go bankrupt.

I do believe that they have to cut in their personnel in an honest way like;
(14 Oct 2011)
layoff a certain percentage of employees in all age ranges. That way you they won't be able to something like "age discrimination"
(13 Oct 2011)
about layoff criteria. I must say the main reason behind that just to cutoff companies expenses and yes that's the good idea to provide all the information regarding unemployment benefits ,insurance issues, recommendation letter etcetera if provided by companies rather then just to forward to other concern authorities.
(15 Oct 2011)
In my point of view, regarding layoffs, it is easy to say that layoffs are good and necessary. But at the end of the day, only the top-managers and business people benefit with layoffs, and by cutting down salaries and by firing employees. Its always the 'normal-man' who suffers and has to face the negative impacts of such rules. I am in the favor of worker's job security. There should be rules which protect employees from being fired so easily (like its done in America for example. A worker can be fired at any point without being given a proper reason). If a employee has devoted certain amount of years to an organization, then to my mind the organization has some responsibility towards their employee. Some sort of perks, benefits & protection must be provided to the employee who is being laid-off.
Of course I also understand the important why companies lay-off people and its not easy either. But I feel a there has to be a balance, in which both company and employee can benefit.
(15 Oct 2011)
individual comment (from team 6)
(10 Oct 2011)
TEAM 7 IDEA

At it's simplest, companies should take the time and help fired workers find new jobs.

When it comes to money, there are already companies that assure safe income after getting fired. One of these companies is called YTK (Yleinen työttömyyskassa). We think that the government should also introduce this way of helping people that get fired from their jobs: the government should pay a certain percentage of the salary that person had when he/she still worked at the company. Of course, there should be some limitations, for example a certain time the person has worked at the company before this money would be given (YTK has this policy).

The money would also, without question, be paid for only a certain amount of time (YTK pays for 180 days after losing the job).
For this to work, there would also need to be a lot of other limitations, so that nobody could misuse the service.

Antti Pohjanen & Ville Salomaa
(16 Oct 2011)
It's a true. Temporarily giving money is not the best way. The most important thing is to get a job again. So, employee make earn money for itself and their family. But I know that its policy is not implement by lots of countries. So, developed countries need to implement this policy as soon as possible.
(15 Oct 2011)
Team 6
Yes it's simple companies should help fired workers to find new jobs. But let's think about companies perspective. they are firing people to cut off their expenses. most probably company financial position is not good. SO, how can they spend their resources to helping fired workers until unless government make it obligatory by law for big companies.

Paraschi Florentina Sabina, Pervaiz Faisal, Pichon Thibault, Pratap Janani
(14 Oct 2011)
Team 5
We totally agree but in our countries, it is usually that the government pays a certain amount of money for a limit period until employee get another job. It's not the best way to think by giving the employee some month money the employee will be happy. they should better think about offering some special work, like parttimework or training opportunities.

Carlos Munoz, Christina Parche, Ricard Lopez and Tiago Almeida Lopes
(16 Oct 2011)
We agree with the comment of the Team 5. We think that a government can't provide the salary of fired out employees after half a year because could not encourage them to get a new job. They are receiving money for doing anything. For example in UK if you are unemployed people and don't want to work for your state you are not allowed to receive any amount of money.

TEAM 7: Rajbhandari Santosh, Roquet Carreras David, Savel Corentin, Sohail Aamar

(16 Oct 2011)
Yes, We also think like that. Some countries give money to unemployement people. But there is some sideeffects. some people who get the money from government don't think they have to effort to find a new job. because they can get a money if they don't work. So, we have to make long-term plan for unemployment people not just give money to them. It can't be a essential solution. to make a education and advice programe more activate is also good plan.

team 4 : Hämäläinen Tiia Helena, Jung Pureum, Karalar Onur, Koski Jori Eero Johannes

(16 Oct 2011)
Sadly, yes, this is true.
Here in Finland, some people don't want to work because of the lousy salary that is offered to them in the job, as they can easily get the same amount - or more - of money from the government.
Alas, there should be better limitations for this.
I liked the idea of having the government helping people with smaller jobs. I think this is somehow already done, but not on a large scale. Maybe doing work for the government (cleaning the streets etc) should be a requirement for the, now pretty much 'free' money..? This idea does have it's flaws, though...
(09 Oct 2011)
We agree as a team 4 that it would be a good idea that the government shoult to take, as a politic number one to help the unemployeed to get a job, as soon as possible, after they get fired. There is no matter, what the reason was,that they get fired, but we must must see how important is, that those people do not get a depression, and feel that they have no more power, to go and try to have some job again. If people are too long time, out of working life, they get to feel it good enough with social money and they don´t waqnt to work anymore that easy.. The government take too little care of them. Let the enemployment office do their decision to give the money to the emploer and tell there is one place just go and start there after one week.They get the same salary all the time. This is much better idea, than let the powerfull good and healthy workers to learn to live with the social help money.
(16 Oct 2011)
Right now, with an economical crisis it's imposible to do this because the cuantity of money necesary for this is huge and the markets will not offer money a reseanoble prices for this purpose. I think that social help money need to disappeare or just dedicated for the most poor people because there are people that work some time and then they want that the state give them some money. So, I think that this social help money needs to be very restrictive...
(09 Oct 2011)
Theam 4 thinks that there sould be a new innovative company who seeks jobs for fired people. That company could find places to people can work and it could have global network and lots of links with other companies. 


There would be a global network for every trade of work where companies actively announce about open jobs they have and what kind of workers they need. If for example a food inductry company has a difficult time financially and they must cut down the personel, the global food industry network helps the employyes get a new job. Firing company must help the employyes get a new posotion from different company which needs the professionals of the same spesific field.


Another company would give a job and employee can decide whether he takes it or not. We think this network would give a chance to do same job as the employee did before or announce himself as a jobseeker. It is clear that some people want to change their job after they get fired and this could be also a soluti
(16 Oct 2011)
I think that those kind of companies already exists and are called : Human Resources companies. Is one of the inovative ideias that in few time ( started like 5-10 years ago) have a lot of supporters because is easier and non burocratic for everyone to find a job and the company is sure that in the shortest time has a workers ready to help to the growth of the company.
Global network as you said is almost impossible to do it, sine we are all different, cultural and religious aspects should not be forgiven when you talk about global network. We doubt that somebody will take a short term job over/out of his country since we are talking about family movement, it can be a dangerous phenomen.

The easiest way to find or creat job is to invest hard (even now in crisis time) in the 4 main column of an economy :
- agriculture
- Industry
- education and
- health.

TEAM 2 - Alexandru Marius Casota, Choi Jinho, Cosquer Camille, Festus Anyanwu Stanley

(09 Oct 2011)
I think your idea is great! It would be easier to people change employers and employees if they would get help from some company which is centered and dedicated to networking jobs. It would also be a nicer way to "get fired" when the old employer offers you a possibility to get a new job in somewhere else.
(09 Oct 2011)

Team 5 IDEA

The Finnish government should encourage people in getting a better education, because the one thing the Finnish government doesn’t need is more useless, uneducated and jobless citizens. Encouraging people in getting a better education and not going work often means helping the people financially and spending the taxpayers’ money, but it should be considered as an investment to the future. A well educated workforce means more efficient and productive laborers which mean more money and economic growth both to the company and to the government.

TEAM 5: Sandström, Rantamäki, Niemiaho ja Paasipuro.
(15 Oct 2011)
But what do you mean by good education? A good knowledge of the certain industry is indeed vital when applying to a job but I don`t think the concept of good education equals to higher education. There`s already way too many of those people with a high education in need of an employment. Our society needs different kind of employees to function and more often available jobs are found from so called lower education areas.
(09 Oct 2011)
Our team (team 5) agree that it is really important to encourage people to get educated. It is unfortunate that here in Finland are some loopholes and the finnish government should get attention to them. For example upper secondary education is not required which gives general education and of course it is a proper base to university studies. But also there is not enough starting palces in high schools/vacational schools which leaves a group of 15 year olds without a place to get education. Which causes only more problems into our society. Education should be everyones right and we need educated people to have well-being society.

TEAM 5: Saarman, Pöllänen, Rantala, Pirhonen
(15 Oct 2011)
I totally agree that a good education make good professionals in the future, but I think that this is not the problem in Finland. In all the education surveys appears that Finnish education is the best one in Europe and one of the best ones in the world, for this reason I think that the education is the strength point of this country.
The big problem, that Finland has and all the countries in Europe, is the recession that all the economics are having. All the companies have great difficulties to increase or maintain their revenues, for this fact a lot of companies are firing their workers. I don t think that people have not work due to they don’t have the enough knowledge to make the work.
(09 Oct 2011)
In Holland you have an unemployment´s law for people who are fired. The first 2 years the government pays a certain amount of their last earned salary. In the financial crisis they made a law for companies. Companies could put some off their employers in this so called ´part-time unemployment’. If the companies did not have enough work at that time, they could just send their employers home and they did not have to pay for them. The government paid for employees who had to stay at home, and when the company had enough work again, they could just call them and the employees could go back to work. This is a really good idea, because the employers still get a salary, and the company’s don’t have to fire their employees.

Team 4
(09 Oct 2011)
Great! But what if in some point government has anymore that much money, like we have seen in Greece. If there is not enough workplaces government can’t have money from taxes to do that.
(16 Oct 2011)
Obviously you can do that, if your impositive system is high and you pay a lot of taxes. In Holland you pay a lot of taxes and for this reason you can do that but, I'm from Spain and we don't pay as much as you pay in Holland or here in Finland. Moreover, I think that some enterpreneurs take advantage of that for having a big Gross Margin and not for not having job for them.
(09 Oct 2011)
Our team`s idea is that especially on tough times like the financial crisis right now, the Finnish government should help the biggest companies like Nokia, Nordea and Finnair for example, to keep their staff. Or have some sort of network to help the unemployed people, because unemployment is disastrous for the economy. The Finnish government should take care of replacement when hundreds or thousands of people are being fired.

Team 8: Iida Vuokkovaara, Joonas Tattari, Davey Veenstra, Tytti Viitanen, Anna Virolainen.
(09 Oct 2011)
Team 4. Nenonen, Levoniemi, Lento & Magnier de Maisonneuve

We thought that this is a real good idea. And also very realistic! Why Finnish government isn't doing it already? The government should take cafe of Finnish employees more and be concerned about what fired people is going to do after they lose their job. We agree also with team 3. The government is using money wrong and that need to be changed! It is easier said than done.
(09 Oct 2011)
Team 3 thinks that you got a good point on your idea! Our goverment really should concentrate on our own country´s problems first and use money on this kind of things not first "save" the world and Greece.
(09 Oct 2011)
Team 7 agrees! When we are living financial hard times it is very important to support our own organizations and people because this is the best way to defy recession. It is quite sad that nowadays everybody are thinking only benefits and bigger profits. It can't work forever and one day this way of thinking will turn against us.

(Team 7: Tiainen, Tiainen, Virtakoski, Thornberg, Tornberg)
(09 Oct 2011)
Team 2 thinks that the only responsible thing to do is to lay off one`s personnel when the situation demands it. The figures we are talking about are massive and therefore to be solved only with radical actions. Company`s main responsibilty is to keep the organization alive and competitive. By focusing on the individual and dismissing the reality and the realistic resources one will drown even deeper in debts and finally go to bust. Who will profit from that?
Companies can`t avoid lay offs but they are able to ease out one`s life after that. Co-operation between employer and employee should ideally continue even after employment. Companies can help to find a new job or encourage people to study or anything which will keep them in the society. Still the responsibilty of surviving lays on the individual. Own motivation, ability to adapt changes and being open and curious for new possibilites are great qualities if one wants to success in the 21st century.Johansson,Kari,Kalaja,Kaartinen
(09 Oct 2011)
TEAM 6: Taru-Ellen Salmi, Paulina Sandberg, Tiia-Mari Savolainen, Terhi Seppänen

Our vision of the future

Nokia’s corporate supports should collect back retroactively in different forms. In that way public sector could get an initial capital for creating and supporting new jobs. The government has an important task to tighten up its action towards big companies and especially towards their wholesale dismissals.
(09 Oct 2011)
I think that people are laid off for example, because the bosses of Finnair, Nokia and Nordea want to get more profits to themselves. But is anything enough for them, when it is about money?

In my opinion everybody who has been fired or will be fired from those companies will not get a new job even though many of them have been told so. In other words more people will be unemployed in the future and due to that different kind of problems increase elsewhere.

What should be done to prevent that kind of development?

One solution is to cut down everyone’s salary of those companies. Then they might be able to keep their present employees and even hire more people.




(15 Oct 2011)
I think it´s a good idea, but can never be a solution definitely keep the employees working at half the salary will not motivate. I consider that this measure is only good in a short time. Because people will understand and make an effort. But the big CEO's of nokia, Finnair or NODEA may see this as a cut form of expenses. So this measure should be applied by governments and not by companies.
Tiago Almeida Lopes
(09 Oct 2011)
Cutting down salaries might not be the way to go. Who wants to work for several years to get demoted? Not really socially responsible approach. Of course many would choose less money than no money at all but reducing salaries would at least affect people's working morale.

Team 2
(09 Oct 2011)
Team 3 also thinks that it's not good for employees, if the employer starts to cut their salaries. That would really restrict the motivation of employees and that way also companys image and profitability. There should be some other way, for example cutting working hours.

In companies employers and employees should also talk about the situation together before decision-making. That way employees could now the reasons better, give their own ideas and understand results a little bit better.
(09 Oct 2011)
I do not think cutting down salaries is not the solution to the problem. Salaries cuts to reduce employees' motivations, and it's not good for the company.
(09 Oct 2011)
I agree with TKorhonen. Cutting down existing salarys will demolish morale.
(09 Oct 2011)
Team 1 thinks:

It is true that cutting of jobs and transfers some operations to different countries are made because of the staff costs, in Finland 40% of companies. Sadly those decisions are made centrally by parent companies, not the bosses in companies which know how one works. Outsourcing usually increases company’s competitiveness.

The fact that for example Nokia is doing, we think, creates animosity towards Asian. As well as people should eat local food, companies should hire “local people” (by local people we don’t mean that immigrants shouldn’t get the jobs). Finnish people always talks about how Finland is a welfare state but today it’s only slogan to make Finnish people happy. At the end of the day it’s money that talks.

Team 1: Mirva, Vilka, Riina
(09 Oct 2011)
My oppinion is that companys should think their decisions in a long run.Cost can be lower but quality of work is not sow good. Companys should alsow think what are the consuquenses of their disions. Exmple Asia it can change nature for worse.Companys think that peaple don't need survers.They feel that macine can do peaples work.
(09 Oct 2011)
I also think that the companies should keep their operations here in Finland and try not to take it abroad.
Although I'm aware of the fact that it is more cost-effective to take the operations abroad. But companies should open their eyes and see how much damage their decisions cause to, not only Finland, but other countries too.
Because there is some ethical problmes when companies takes their operation abroad. For example in Asia and India people work under mininum salary and child labor is used. It is sad that in this capitalistic world humans welfare is a secondary matter and money talkes first.
(09 Oct 2011)
One solution to unemployment would be to develop entrepreneurship. Finland has very little entrepreneurship compared to many other European countries. Government could encourage private enterprises more via education and guidance. There could be a possibility to have a mentor or some support group who could help new entrepreneurs develop their business ideas. For example at the moment Nokia is laying off lots of highly educated labors. They could create new companies and workplaces to replace the lost ones. The government is already offering start-up money to help launch new businesses. They should also lower the taxes for new companies since they are already being taxed too much. That is one of the problems in starting a new company. After the new company has started to make profit they could increase the taxes gradually. What we need is more ways to lower the bar to start your own enterprise.

The text continues as reply
Team 3: Liukkonen J, Lundgren M, Kärkinen S ja Lindström M
(16 Oct 2011)
I think that it's very nice an idea. When someone starts establishing company, it has lots of problems. Tax and enter fee are good example. So, the goverment should be encourage to start business. and if the company are stable, the goverment can charge more tax. it will be benefit both the company and goverment.
(16 Oct 2011)
I agree. We should start to take care of ourselves. We can't always rely on the government to secure our livelihood. People are already depending too much on the welfare network. That's making people lazy. I know a lot of people who are not doing "shitty" jobs because they get more money from the government. They would like start their own businesses but without necessary capital it is really difficult. By supporting entrepreneurship the government would get a lot more than the invested money back. e.g. workplaces and a developing, innovative economy.
(09 Oct 2011)
Your ideas about developing entrepreneurship sound very promising. Especially lowering the taxes of new companies is something that should be implemented ASAP since it's an easy and effective way to promote entrepreneurship. Development requires innovations to progress, and the more there are fresh blood in the business, the more there will be new ideas.

Team 2
(09 Oct 2011)
We agree with you team 3 about the new businesses and helping them to grow. How are we ever going to have new success stories when starting something new can be really hard?
Team 4.
(09 Oct 2011)
In Finland we have a lot of technological knowledge that must not go to waste just because economical issues are suppressing companies’ growth right now. New companies lead the way to the future as old company structures become overly costly.

-Team 3.
(08 Oct 2011)
Ultimately, companies are mostly set up to make profits. For some companies CSR may only be a good marketing trick. Best case scenario for the companies promoting their presumed CSR is that their sales will grow, as social responsibility is what the consumers highly value these days. And when it comes to laying employees off, it is challenging to come up with some kind of common rules or regulations for the companies to act a certain way when dismissing employees. Sometimes it’s the only and the best option. Full employment is desireable, but it will also cost a lot for the society to have to pay for unnecessary jobs.
(09 Oct 2011)
Companies should try to help relocate people to new jobs when they are about to lay off or move their plants to a new location.
(08 Oct 2011)
I think that Nordea's cross-border mobility speaks for social responsibility. I look it as a way to place the workers if for somereason they are not needed in their own country. Off course Cross-border mobility and international assignments are first ways to enhance job rotation and develop the employee’s competence, and also build overall corporate citizenship and culture, but I do see social responsibility there as well.

Sandström, Team 5.
(08 Oct 2011)
I agree with PJurvanen. Nokia should be more strongly involved in software development. Apple and other similar communities are growing very strongly on the market, and Nokia have already lost some of their own supporters to other companies. What will happens if Nokia does not rise again? Personally, I have always supported the Nokia, but it is really lagging behind the market because it does not develop new things at the same pace as the example of Apple that provides constantly new.

Moving operations to the Far East I think is a bad idea. Finnish know-how is transferred to a cheaper labor force. Can we say that Nokia is the Finnish company, if all action is elsewhere ...?
(20 Oct 2011)
I also agree that Nokia should keep it's operations in Finland. Although it is cheaper in Far East it sounds bad and cheaper for me, and I think for other peoples too, that Nokia's phones are made somewhere else than in Finland. And I think Nokia isn't not that Finnish company anymore if there is nothing action in Finland.

I think Nokia also can develop itself more if it stays in Finland because there are educated people who can be really inventors when it comes to new futures softwares etc. I really hope that Nokia rise again...
(08 Oct 2011)
Team 5 IDEA.

Team 5 thinks that one solution for outplacement process could be a service offered by personnel Service Company for needs to re-employ the personnel laid off. This sort of service would help to responsibly adjust the number of staff while recognizing the needs of all sides (worker and the company that has to outsource, and the company that might need personnel at this time). This type of service would offer retraining as a concrete alternative to simple financial compensation for workers about to lay off. Such workers would be directed to a new career by top career planning and coaching. In the best case this would ensure the fastest possible re-employment.

TEAM 5: Sandström, Rantamäki, Niemiaho ja Paasipuro.
(08 Oct 2011)
Nokias plans to kick out workers in finland is bad thing for us. While they are moving actions to far east. Nokia is losing important know how and finnish engineering skill which has been their key to success. also it shows nokias level of socil responsibility. Electronic devices have been one of our biggest export product. Same thing has been happening with forest industry. What happens next ?
(14 Oct 2011)
Team 5:
Some years ago Nokia closed one location in Germany,before they scoop subsidies of the german government. After that the trust and the loalty to this company dissapeard. German people didn't buy mobile phones of Nokia anymore (for a special periode) and the sales figures collapsed dramtically. So we think a company should think of the effects their behavior. The commerce with their employees has hugh effect on the coperate image of a company.

Carlos Munoz, Christina Pache, Ricard Lopez and Tiago Almeida Lopes
(08 Oct 2011)
Nokias biggest problem is dropping out from software development, which has been nokais key to success. This is where nokia loses competiotion against apple or android community
(21 Oct 2011)
I agree, they should be pushing MeeGo forward, since it has shown to
be quite successful. Atleast on the Nokia N9. With Microsoft they will
be doomed.
(09 Oct 2011)
I agree with you that Nokia hasn’t developed enough. That is very sad because Nokia has been very successful company over these years and it has been big employer in Finland. What can be done that Nokia can reach good result again. Is it possible to Nokia to beat Apple in competition anymore? Are all those Nokia`s good days only history?
(16 Oct 2011)
I agree with you... Nokia has been one of the leaders on phone, but by its lack of innovation, has been caught by Apple and Samsung. I think that if Nokia want to meet succes again, it should take big risks to change the face of the brand, a youthful look.
(16 Oct 2011)
We have always known that Nokia is a brand selling phones reliable and resistant. If they want to change that it should be very risky… Not recognize the brand should disrupt the consumers. Of course I think that Nokia should now focus more on design, but should keep its original selling points : resistance and reliability.
(Team 8:Stenberg Juha Pekka, Wang Anqi, Vétillart Guillaume, Wosti Dagendra, Zhang Ji)
(09 Oct 2011)
We believe Nokia's upcoming Windows Mobile device and co-operation with Microsoft will determine and show way to Nokia's future and market value. If the device will be rejected by the market, Nokia is forced to lay off even more people. Software development for Windows Mobile is not done in Finland so the symbian-staff would have to be educated and trained to develop WM-software. We think Nokia will launch their WM-device after Apple will launch their upcoming iPhone 5. Competition between Symbian and Android devices is not as relevant as the competition between Apple and Microsoft.
Team 5 (Outi, Maija, Mirka, Anna-Maija)
(08 Oct 2011)
Absolutely, back when symbian was moderately new thing it showed great promise. However after Nokia started spending less and less time with software development, it gave others quite significant "headstart" in already moving process. If you now compare your typical phones and see the features provided by symbian and android for example. Android provides so much more for you.
(16 Oct 2011)
It is clear that Nokias plan wasnt as successfull as they hoped and that the Symbian OS is seriously lacking performance. Maybe Nokia should go back to developing rubber shoes. I think that they should really consider this option because it might turn a new leaf. Also they might be able to use Symbian there as well.
(16 Oct 2011)
What can explain Nokia's losses of market shares is its lack of proactivity : They didn't react when emerging companies like Apple or Samsung launched their new products. Then these companies quickly expanded by giving their customer the opportunity to download new app's to improve their products. Now it will be really difficult for Nokia to fill in the gap. Apple store and Androïd market are too far ahead.
(08 Oct 2011)
What about the mission of Nokia Corporation? They wanted to have fabulous success by change of management. Have you seen what happend?The leader came from abroads, because of Nokia is n´t that much Finnish corporate anymore because of the stakeholders in abroads. They wanted this management change for having new innovation of mobile and computer or ipad and the other technological solutions. That is their ministry and mission in Finland. If they don´t save the management director in the most high placement, how we could be saved in the lawer placement as the labour. Everybody want to have more and more. Increase consumption is the most important mission for them. How to do the working place to be stabile in that case. The consumers are not acting stabile. In the past time it was easier to know that Nokia, Finnair were stabile choice to Finnish consumer. Is The globalisation on the way to take the working places? What about the new business idea that all workers will be entrepreneurs?
(08 Oct 2011)
I do agree that the leader of Nokia should be a Finn. Then outsourses situations and such social responsibility situations would maybe be look through finnish benefit glasses, if you know what I mean. Finnish consumers are not stabile consumers of those companies anymore due to the fact that they dont feel that those companies are still finnish, I think anyways.
(08 Oct 2011)
And this was Sandström, TEAM 5.
(08 Oct 2011)
The corporate social responsibility acording human rights is very important issue and should to be taken seriously among all the businesses. If the labour are feeling well and they are feeling high motivation to do their everyday work, the results will be always better, than in case if they are high stressed and feel all the time affraid to loose their working place. To be affraid will not give the best results according the companies who wanted to have the better results by laid off their labour. I think they should to use the methods of democracy. Let the people take part in systematic plan, how to do it better. Let them know, that they get more possibilities not to be laid off, if they get the idea how to increase surplus of sales or increase production, or how to get production costs to be reduced. Actually The ordinary labours can see better, how to do all clever, than the administrative management, who haven´t met the customers for example in the store market at all.
(08 Oct 2011)
I agree with the idea according to shorter working weeks.I get recently on this summer 2011, an experience how it could be wonderful to have "a long weekend holidays".I was working as cook in the Institutional Catering Service in the Big organisation. I feel the idea of their working times 9 to 11 hours really bad experience. We should to remember that we are living the biggest part of our day at the working place. Sometimes it was really demanding to do the 9 to 11 hours and even 6 days working without rest. In this case the issue was that: "everyone of their permanent and summer workers have been ill including the chef.(over two weeks). We had at least 3 days free but mostly it was 4 to 5 days after the hard and demanding six days period. We couldn´t get relax during the 5 free days. I think now It could be better to do it for ex. 4 work 4 free 4work 4 free. In that case, you could have done even your free time plan with your family, and friends and get your mind and body relax.
(07 Oct 2011)
Team 7 thinks: (Miia Sollo, Elina Suhonen, Kati Tainio and Pauliina Tamminen)

Comments for team 3:

It is nice you got the point that usually weeks for employees are too heavy when we think personal`s energy. It is very difficult to organize that potential energy correctly. There should be more differens solutions for that what we have today, like outplacement!!!

Comments for team 6:

For example team 6 seems to be very smart because they are telling about network with other companies. It is a very good idea because that way employees feel they have more than one possibility to keep workplace. Also, they can think that they will get more interesting work than before,so that way they are more stimulated to work.
(09 Oct 2011)
I think you had great points and it was good to give a personal example. I find both good and not so good in shortening work weeks. Good because i agree that it could give workers more days of in the week to do other things and for example have long weekends away. In my profession I can't see that working very well. I work as a waitress and I personally think that sometimes even four hours is a lot of work, of course it depends on the days. Maybe in office work you could also try more working from home kind of thing. Then you would be working but you would have to include the travel times to actually go to work.
(07 Oct 2011)
Team 7 thinks ( Miia Sollo, Elina Suhonen, Kati Tainio and Pauliina Tamminen):

Building trust for employees by thinking management is an issue on which we must all work in future, when we think outplacement. That helps personnel for work long time.
For example, how to make personnel feel more confident about themselves? You have to make a mentoring-project that everyone who have been working for like three months would get a chance to tutor a new employee who starts at the company.( as in Finnair) This would show that the management has a faith on the employees - even the ones who haven`t been working there for long. This also makes them feel more confident if they get to train a new employee.
Also, of course the promise of long employment relationship that you don`t have to fear of being laid off.
Some activities outside the working grow up trust also, so the employees are stimulated to work. For example different parties and trips.
(09 Oct 2011)
We think this is a good idea. Team 7 mentioned a mentoring-project which shows that the management truly trusts on the employees. Someone might feel a little unsecure if one feels that one doesn't have enough skills to teach somebody else and this new person won't get the best possible education. But on the other hand, this will also improve the employees' confident when they feel that somebody has trust on them.

Activities outside the work doesn't only stimulate the employees to work but also improves their team spirit. They have more pleasant time at work when the colleagues are more familiar to each other.

Team 4 (Sanna Maukonen, Mariko Niemi, Annikki Mossberg, Marcel Mooij)
(07 Oct 2011)
Team 7 suggests that when an organization is in financial trouble, instead of immediate lay-offs, it should give its employees the option to work for a smaller salary in order for the organization’s financial state to improve. Once finances have recovered, all employees who have opted to continue to work for the company under aforementioned conditions would get the rest of their normal salaries retroactively with an added interest for compensation. Of course, this procedure shouldn't last for long periods of time and the decrease in salaries shouldn't be severe because of employees’ own financial situations. This is not a rosy path to take, but the situation leaves very few other options, namely: losing one’s job because of spending cuts, or, due to the bankruptcy of the company if necessary spending cuts are not made. However, if layoffs are unavoidable, team 7 thinks an organization and its former employees will benefit most from the use of professional outplacement counseling.
(09 Oct 2011)
Team 2 thinks that the idea is good but is unlikely to work in action. A company cannot be absolutely sure that it will succeed better in the future and thus can’t guarantee the raise of salaries. It depends lot on what kind of company is in question. It could be possible if the future is certainly going to be brighter and all the employees will commit to this kind of system. You had a good point there that the increase of salaries should not be a long term arrangement because the employees own economic situation should stay somewhat stable.
Team 2: Johansson, Kari, Kalaja, Kaartinen
(07 Oct 2011)
Team 7: Carita Thornberg, Jenna Tiainen, Julia Tiainen, Sofia Tornberg, Marko Virtakoski
(06 Oct 2011)
As many people here have mentioned, firing people is bad choice because the people who get fired will get problems, and also the people who have change to keep their job will get too stressed because the amount of the work they have might get double. One solution, I think, would be to make the 5-days working week 4-days. Everyone will have a chance to keep their job and the company will save money because they don’t have to pay salaries that much. There are many jobs and offices where the people are just sitting having coffee while they should be working. (I have worked in 4 companies, and 2 of them were like that...) If they had one day less to do the same work, they would be more productive while working. This way the employees would also get more free time, so they would be able to spend more time with their family and hobbies and have more happy life.
(07 Oct 2011)
Team 8 thinks: if it will work those shorter weeks? althought they have to work harder in those four days, they still will still have their non-productive moments during the other four days. Furthermore if people need to work 10 hours a day, they won't be that productive as they would work 8 hours per day. Because their are many jobs were it would be difficult to be focussed for 10 hours instead of 8 hours.

Team: Iida Vuokkovaara, Joonas Tattari, Davey Veenstra, Tytti Viitanen, Anna Virolainen.
(07 Oct 2011)
Team 6 thinks that your idea sounds good, but unfortunately the team doens't believe it could work in real life. Even if it's sounds great to have one more day off a week, it still might be impossible to have, because many people have economic problems even if they work five days a week. What people, who really love their jobs, would think about that idea?

Team also thinks that it might be even more expensive to the company to have one worker more and to shorten the working week. It costs a lot to familiarize new workers and it will causes more work to do the rota of working. The team wants also add the fact that not in the every job workers have a slow power stroke. In some companies it's very hard to find time to do all works during five workdays a week.

(07 Oct 2011)
There are actually many companies and organisations (at least in USA) who have switched to four-day workweeks. For example in the state of Utah most government workers (80 %) are doing a four-day workweek. The idea is that they do approx. 40 hours in four days, which means ten-hour days. There are many pros in this kind of system. First of all, like many of you have already said it, employees have more time to spend with their family and so on. Also employees save money on commuting to and from work, businesses save money and energy costs and reduce their carbon footprint. Studies show that four-day workweek makes employees more productive and happier overall. Of course ten-hour days are not for everyone and not for every business. To some companies four-day work week is not just possible because customers’ needs do not stop on Fridays. Personally I would prefer four-day work weeks.
(09 Oct 2011)
Of course it depends on what kind a job you have. It is obvious that those 4 days of work per week can´t be organised in all places. And in some places it is not recommended( if you have to for ex. walk a lot). In USA I understand this arrangement because the distances are a bit different then in here. You may even have to drive for two hours to get your office. Then you would obviously prefer this 4 day arrangement. In office work it´s a fact that third (if not half) of the working time the workers do something else at their computers than work. If people were more efficient they could even do 8 hours and 4 days! And I think that too long working days make you loose your concentration.
(08 Oct 2011)
I have actually also ran across this particular study and the results were needless to say quite interesting to read about. As was mentioned before and which propably isn’t new information to any of us, happy employee is a productive employee. Naturally it greatly depends on if the employee has family, can deal with longer hours, has financial problems in check and on dozens of other variables. Overall the switch from 5-day to 4-day schedule does seem like a very good idea provided the company can handle the changes.
(08 Oct 2011)
I prefer four-day workweek too because I would like to work that way. I think that four-day workweek would make people more willing to work weekends too. My only concern is how it would work in companies like Nordea. I can’t speak by own experience but I think it’s very boring and repetitive job. Maybe the fact that you only do it four days a week makes people more producing but is 10 hours too much in one day? I know some people who do more hours in one day so they can leave early on Friday or someday they like. But they don’t do it every week.

Even though I’m not sure could this four-day workweek work, I think in Finland it should be something to try on. After all, we can’t know for sure without trying and it could get support among the employees.
(09 Oct 2011)
I would also prefer four-day workweek if the job is intresting. Then I have energy and passion to work 10 hours in one day. But yes, if the job is boring 10 hours could be too much. We all are different and somebody would like that idea and somebody just hate that. But all are worth to try.
(07 Oct 2011)
This was new information for me. I havent't thought about four-day workweeks at all, so it was good that you and some others have pointed that out. I get that there are many good things and points about that four-day week, but I personally have experience about working ten hours a day, and I think it was very hard. Of course it depends on the character of the work. I can sit and klick computer ten hours but if I have to move and walk fast and I'm in a hurry all the time, ten hours a day would kill me. In McDonald's for example, the work is hard, and there is always hurry - well, it's about fast food. And as you pointed out, customer needs thing also at weekends. But maybe there is a possibility to try that in some companies but it's totally not for every one.
(08 Oct 2011)
I totally agree with you. I'm working in McDonald's and i really know what is tjat job. Even 6 hours make your head blow up when it is hurry. And usually it is! I have had also 10 hours working days and even longer and it is everytime terrible. You feel like death after the shift. Thank God I don't have them anymore. And for example if you have 8 hours shift and you have to work longer for some reason, you won't get that extra time back. I have also worked in office where we had to work 37 hours in a week or something like that with computer. And there it was ok to do some day longer and some day shorter, how you wanted. You just had to get that 37 hours in the week. There it was ok to do 9-10 hours work in day and then some day i was able to sleep longer or left earlier from work. That was nice that we had possibility to do that way. I liked it.
(09 Oct 2011)
I also would prefer a four-day weeks. Although the 10-hour days are really heavy. Three-day free would still be a good thing. I work in customer service work, and sometimes I've done more than 10 hours a days. This working days after the feeling is quite tired. However, if this kind of opportunity I had in my workplace to be involved in this.
(16 Oct 2011)
We could try the arrangement on certain areas of the work life. Like you said, in physical labor and customer service it doesn't sound like such a good idea. I fear that the job satisfaction could suffer quite bit. At least I think I'd have to sleep the whole day on the fifth day. But if this way we could offer more workplaces I think it's worth a shot.
(07 Oct 2011)
Team 3 thinks:

The thought is good but one worker pays a lot to the company. The worker's salary is only half of the costs. Because of this the companies want to hold as few labour as possible in their company. Most companies think only of the victory.

The society takes the present from the worker impossible ones. The worker should be efficient, ideal, skilful in every work, the demands are loading mentally. The week will be heavier if the worker has to work at weekends because the week rhythm is not regular. The general state of the human creak in the long run and the possible cycle with sick leaves begins.

From the worker's point of view it would be really good if one free day per week were more. Many people must use one day off in order to return since the week and this way only one day off be left. For the sake of the people's welfare a really good four-day week would be and that the unemployed would make the work keep the mind lively.

Team 3: Mirja, Juuso, Mikael & Sini
(07 Oct 2011)
That's quite a good idea! But would it work? Many people who just sit in their offices and get paid from that.. Their work is easy! Why would they give up amount of money which they get from just chatting and drinking coffee? Maybe then if the only choice would be getting fired.

Of course if company would have this kind of policy already when hiring people it could work, but changing the current situation with employees consent might be difficult..

And companies must also consider that if working days a week decrease by one, it would bring some negative affects for example in product manufacturing which again leads to lower cash flow. Nice idea but hard to realize.


TEAM 4 : Levoniemi, Nenonen, Lento & Magnier de Maisonneuve
(06 Oct 2011)
Team 1 thinks too one extra free day would be nice! Only a few employees are so motivated to their job that they want to work that as much as they have to do like 5 days per week. A happy family life and hobbies requires much time too. Less working days per week or maybe shorter working hours, why not. The salary of the workers will be smaller but there would be work place for many people.

Team 1: Vilka, Riina, Mirva
(06 Oct 2011)
Team 1 thinks too one extra free day would be nice! Only a few employees are so motivated to their job that they want to work that as much as they have to do like 5 days per week. A happy family life and hobbies requires much time too. Less working days per week or maybe shorter working hours, why not. The salary of the workers will be smaller but there would be work place for many people.

Team 1: Vilka, Riina, Mirva
(06 Oct 2011)
Team 6 thinks that one solution for outplacement process could be a support network with other companies. When company X needs to lay off some of the staff, it would also inform other companies in the network about what kind of workforce is now available. This way it would be easier for the laid off staff to find a new job and other companies could also advantage of the available know-how of the laid off people.

Even if companies weren’t about to fire staff, all companies would be required to create or join unemployment to outplacement network. That is how people under the threat of getting laid off would be able to explore the network. People who weren’t under the threat of getting fired wouldn’t be able to join this network so their current company wouldn’t loose their workforce and all possibilities provided by the network would go to the ones who need it the most.

TEAM 6: Savilampi, Sepponen, Sola, Soratie
(09 Oct 2011)
In one point of view this is a really good idea, but similar companies are usually rivals, and they probably don’t want competitors to know all their commercial secrets. Although this might work well between some lower level workers, the “key players” in companies might still pose a big problem.

-Team 3: Mirja Lundgren, Sini Kärkinen, Juuso Liukkonen ja Mikael Lindström
(09 Oct 2011)
Team 3 agrees with you; companies should consider themselves as a part of the society and take responsibility of their employees as valuable individuals. The idea of having a support network is a true relief if if the going gets rough. The company wouldn’ t totally leave the employees walking on thin ice and the advantages would be mutual.

Team 3: Klemetti, Kuokkanen, Kääriäinen
(07 Oct 2011)
Team 8 thinks this network would be a good idea a well. Not many jobs have to be lost and the Finnish Government does not have to interfere with the companies and the staff. Companies can benifit from eachother instead of competing all the time.

also the idea of the staff who can't participate the network when there is no danger of being fired is a good idea. However who will develop such a network and who will take the initiative to set up a network like this? Many companies will wait instead for other instead of taking the lead.

Team: Iida Vuokkovaara, Joonas Tattari, Davey Veenstra, Tytti Viitanen, Anna Virolainen.
(07 Oct 2011)
Team 7 thinks this idea is very good and that this kind of support network would be beneficial for companies as well as their employees. In addition to making the outplacement process a bit more tolerable for employees, for companies in the network this would also mean a decrease in the need for professional outplacement consultation/coaching brought from outside the organizations, which would save further resources.

Team 7: Thornberg, Tiainen, Tiainen, Tornberg, Virtakoski
(06 Oct 2011)
Our team (Team 5) thinks that the last thing the companies should do is to fire people. If there is a lot of unemployees in the society, that's the base for all the problems. It will cost a lot for the society because the people without a job will get depressed and unsocial. Companies should rather give another look for everyone's salaries and the other costs the company has and cut everything equally. It's always better for the people to have a job, even if they can't get payed that much, than be without a job. If it's not possible to keep all the employees, the company should encourage them for example to get even better education, so that they would have something else to focus in their lives.
(08 Oct 2011)
Team 1 agree with you. Before thinking to fire people, the companies should think what else we should try to cut. Or even what they could do in different way? Maybe they can increase their sales and marketing somehow and that way get more money for company.

TEAM 1: Haapalainen, Heikkinen, Hollstein, Hänninen
(06 Oct 2011)
I really agree your comment. Without a job workable persons will get problems, as you said depression etc., which society have to pay. When thinking about who have to pay it in long term, society means everyone of us and of course corporations, because we are the ones who pay taxes all the time. I think there should be some kind of clear rules how corporations have to act when the situation is getting so bad the corporation have to think about firing people. Education and advices for outplacement are good options.
(06 Oct 2011)
Our team thinks that one solution for this problem could be that the companies bosses should cut their salary, then there is not so huge need to lay off the employees. Usually the big bosses have unreasonable big salaries comparing to the work they do. The government of the company should also be aware of all these money problems pretty early and make reformations before it is too late.

TEAM 5
(21 Oct 2011)
I agree on this one, the salaries have got out of hands. It's kind of funny since
it seems that it is so important to boost the leaders salaries, but not care about
the employees one bit.
(09 Oct 2011)
Team 2 agrees with mavirtak that it is hardly enough to cut off salaries from few people working in management positions to save the situation. These companies are facing such a huge financial problems which are quite unlikely to be solved with minor actions. Yes indeed, by reducing these salaries we may save few people from lay offs but on contrary get bunch of unmotivated CEOs who should lead the company back to the success. Team 2: Johansson, Kari, Kalaja, Kaartinen
(07 Oct 2011)
Team 6 thinks that idea of cutting bosses salaries is good, but it is kind of difficult to realize. Many bosses are earning large sums of money but probably they won't be happy at all if their salaries reduces. It might start to show on work. On the other hand there must be motivated (for example young) people who would be really excited to do the bosses jobs with smaller salary. But if the boss is real expert on area, it is possible that it is difficult to replace the boss.

TEAM 6
(07 Oct 2011)
I think with the same way. The leaders' salaries are so huge and furthermore, they will get the commission if they succeed. In earlier comments possible results have been calculated if the leaders cut their salaries. Most ot the leaders are so rich that they do not have to work ever. Furthermore, they don´t have time to spend their money during their whole lifetime over which the heirs only will fight in the future.


They could do a good one already now and could cut their salaries.
(06 Oct 2011)
I understand what you're after but it wouldn't be enough that only the big bosses would cut from their salaries. Let's say that the big boss earns 10 miljon euros per year and cuts off 50% which is 5 miljon euros. So if an avarage worker in for example Nordea earns 30000 euros per year and the company outplaces 500 of them it means 30000*500= 15 miljon euros per year saved for the company. Plus that there ain't no big boss who would cut off his own salary by 50%.
(06 Oct 2011)
I agree with you. But...if the big bosses cut their salaries, there will be some problems with they. I don't thinks that they want to cut their salaries, because of other employees. Then we are back in the same situation, are we?
(06 Oct 2011)
We agree with you. The big bosses often have just work their way up by hard work but when they get to the top they don't really do that much considering about that big fat salary they are getting. So the idea of cutting their salaries is quite good. It would resolv some problems.

TEAM 6
(06 Oct 2011)
I think that even if these businnesses rearranged their ideas they should try to keep all the employees. If many employess get fired the work ammount to the others is getting bigger so this may create some stress and affect to the results of the work. There should be some arrange that is perfect to all. When there is too much work and everybody is stressing about it, the work environment is getting worse which affects the work moral. No-one wants to work at the place where the working is not fun at all.
(06 Oct 2011)
I don't think that the one and only answer to all these money questions is to kick all employees of, of course it helps with financial situation, but then who does the work? If there is as much as earlier work to do and for example 30% less employees to work, it will only stress the employees too much and the disaster begins. There must be something else to do, because if the companies keep on doing what they are doing, they will end with nothing. Companies need their employees but they also have to save money and that is a challenge they have to figure out.
(06 Oct 2011)
I agree. I think that if companies cut their staff always in the case of a critical financial situation, the pressure on employees' shoulders that stay in the company, can grow too big. This can cause sick leaves, burn outs or re-signings. I understand that some cuts have to be done in some situations, but redundancy shouldn't be the firs option. I think that reducing salary would be a better option; at least most of the people would be able to keep their jobs.
(06 Oct 2011)
I´ll think that the Government should to help the entrepreneur to act as employer to giving working places to many people. It should to be some possibilities to get the money to pay their costs in the beginning. If the worker has good skills, and it seems like the worker could help the entrepreneur to get the succé, the government should come and help the entrepreneur to pay the salary.

Or some other idea: for example they could have possibilities to pay 0 € taxes, when they have one or more Employees. Then the workers are not unemployed but are working and having the money, they need from employer.

All the workers should to think the entrepreneur as their home that they get there their needs. Not to think them as they are some kind of Enemy, but a friend.

The cost of production, are often the reason that the entrepreneur cannot hire more workers. They must often sell their business to somebody, who has the money to pay the rent and salary as well as all kind of costs.
(05 Oct 2011)
The companies have usually been imprudent and hired many people to get better results and profits and now when the world economy is going down, they have to cut down from something and unfortunately it's their personnel.
(07 Oct 2011)
Hiring people is last thing to do if it is not necessary. Getting hired causes many problems for the employee. It might be difficult to get a new job or depressing that you don't have your every day routines and working society anymore. Especielly for those who are almost on the age of retirement, situation can be rough and new work place difficult to get.

In proportion there should develop personnels benefits. Employers should invest in personnels wellness for example organizing different possibilities for employees. For example freetime activities gives employees something else to thing and is good for their wellfare so they have energy to be more motivated on their jobs.
(08 Oct 2011)
I agree with the idea of hired stuff. Even if it would be a little bit cheaper for the firm to hire stuff for example in illness situations, the hired stuff might not be as motivated as the regular stuff and it takes time to teach hired stuff to houses course of action.

I think also that employers should invest in personnels wellness, but it is also very important, maybe even more important, for employers to show that they are pleased with the action of the employee.
(07 Oct 2011)
Personnel is the most important resource in the companies, because without motivated, qualified and skilled personnel, the company can not succeed. Still many people think in the companies that personnel is a huge cost and it could be get rid off if necessary. That is wrong way to think in my opinion. Companies should keep the personnel and make them more motivated so they could make more results economically.
(09 Oct 2011)
Motivating personnel may not always be that easy and unqualified personnel is indeed a huge expense for a company. Personally I would rather fire some slacker than try to boost his working morale; he/she is asking for it. However, exceptions can always be made, of course.
(08 Oct 2011)
I think that companies should not only hire motivated personell, but think about how many fulltime workers they really need at surtain time. There is ways to rent personell if needed. They can rent when needed more for some specific project and if there is quite time (s), there is no need to kick off anyone or send them to another company and so on. Why do not companies utilize this more I wonder? (TEAM 5)
(06 Oct 2011)
Companies should hire only people who are experts and specialists, not those employees who need someone else to do their job together with them. I think there is no sense that companies hires for example hundred non-expert people to do the job, what one specialist could do.
(09 Oct 2011)
Can only one people replace like one hundred people? I think it is not possible. I agree that it is good to strive more effective working but we also have to be careful that people won`t be like worn out. Of course everything is about money and expertise saves money but there are not enough experts like that to do the jobs.
(09 Oct 2011)
" I think there is no sense that companies hires for example hundred non-expert people to do the job, what one specialist could do." When everything has to be so profitable let´s jut leave the others unemployed and wonder why the statistics don´t look so good.
(06 Oct 2011)
We agree, but if we go deeper on that submit: If everybody should be some expert to get a job, would that goes a little too complicated? We thinks that always you don´t need a long term education, sometimes work teach people and after 20 years they can be specialist on their own job. So if companies would hires only specialists and experts would the workers middle of ages go over 50? And in long term that could be a problem in our opinion.

TEAM 1 -Riina, Mirva & Vilka
(04 Oct 2011)
It is very difficult to challenge personal`s energy correctly. For example huge companies in Finland have taken responsibility for their company, personnel. I mean they have at least written about thinking a new way. They have committed personnel, but how to uphold trust along time is the issue, I think.