Recent news that needed a little help from the PR team BEFORE going public (the color is for emphasis)...

"NBC Universal made the first of potentially several rounds of staffing cuts at The Weather Channel (TWC) on Wednesday, axing the entire staff of the "Forecast Earth" environmental program during the middle of NBC's "Green Week," as well as several on-camera meteorologists...

"The timing of the Forecast Earth cancellation was ironic, since it came in the middle of NBC's "Green Week," during which the network has been touting its environmental coverage across all of its platforms... It was the sole program on TWC that focused on global climate change, which raises the question of whether the station will still report on the subject...

"NBC released the following statement in response to questions about the firings:  The economic realities of recent months have created challenges for everyone in our business. In addition, when NBC Universal purchased the Weather Channel earlier this year, we expected that there would be cost synergies as part of a company reorganization."

Timing is important when planning layoffs. Now it's guaranteed that news outlets will run this story if only for the dark humor, and GE --which has never been a stranger to 'cost synergies' -- is more vulnerable to ridicule. Would it have hurt NBC to wait one more week to make the announcements?

Sometimes our roles allow us to be a little more perceptive than the average staff member when it comes to significant headcount adjustments. ("Rightsized? If you think I'm overweight now, you should have seen me when the donut shop was in the lobby.")

These opinions are based solely on my own pathetic experience with three layoffs (the humor is my own as well). In no particular order, here are some things that make you go "hmmmm."

1) You notice the chief controller is arriving late and leaving early. Nothing says "I'm looking for another job and you should, too" than key finance staff finding little reason to stick around or complaining that they have nothing to do.

2) An executive secretary asks you to lunch to discuss how you do your job--in detail.

3) Your boss tells you communications is merging with marketing, public relations and customer service to 'enhance communication efficiencies.'

4) You're asked to run five days of messages on the benefits of the tuition reimbursement program.

5) The facilities manager asks you what should be done with all the furniture because the building lease isn't being renewed.

Seriously, we have roles that might require us to collaborate with employees across several departments, so we can catch some subtle hints without realizing it. The trick is to acknowledge the possibilities of a downturn in business fortunes and be aware of it without becoming paranoid.

When you're looking for a job, experts say that you should identify the kind of organizations you want to work for and target them. Two layoffs ago I determined that one of the factors important to me was openness.

In my experience, managers who are confident their employees will handle state-of-the-business information with maturity are more likely to be open about details. Managers who have little confidence in their employees--or who are afraid that they will be held accountable for the company's performance--are more likely to cloud messages with meaningless phrases and few facts.

Yesterday I completed an application that requested a "personal statement."  I typed in what I usually say---that open communication is good for business.  My husband read the line and said, "Now companies without open communication won't consider you for the job... and we can't afford that."

Obviously this isn't as clear cut an issue as "if you caught your company dumping toxins, would you report it?" Blame my reporter training, but I have always thought openness was important for a company's health. Should I back off on that statement now to encourage more recruiters to look at me? How much should I weaken my ideals to get a job in a fear-based hiring environment?

I loved the list Michael posted on "Most Irritating Phrases". I see several that make me cringe inwardly every time I heard them used by people who know better. However, what irritates me most is when the phrase is used inaccurately (e.g. fairly unique). 

My beef is over the phrase "24/7" in the phrase "24/7 service." My husband called the customer service line of a known computer manufacturer for assistance one night. The "please hold" message touted their 24/7 customer service line. A digitized voice asked him to confirm the name, address, phone number AND account number. Finally he was transferred to... a machine that asked him to leave his name, number, and a brief description of the problem. He had to wait the next day for a call back.

If an answering machine is sufficient to advertise 24/7 "service," then I'm proud to announce that I, too, provide 24/7 service to anyone who wants to call my household. Press one to reach my father in law, press two to reach my husband or I, or press three to make noises at the cat.

It's been our pleasure to serve you.