TBJ posted last week that CED laid off about 5 of its 19 employees. Chair Steve Wiehe remarked that the change was in response to a slowing economy and aims to optimize CED’s contributions and services to the community.
I speculated before that the new president Joan Siefert Rose might make some drastic changes, considering her background in managing non-profits. Officially, Rose is not yet employed at CED; perhaps the layoffs may be an internal decision that has been under consideration for some time?
A statement from Rose as posted by TBJ:
“My sense is we’re not looking at a significant change in direction with CED,” she says. “It’s focusing on the core areas where the organization can deliver the most value to the people that it serves.”
The current economic lull has definitely affected this business decision. It should come as no surprise that CED, a private non-profit group of business advisers to other Triangle business-men and -women would make some fiscal choices to increase ROI for its donors and members. After all, the organization does exist to serve the community.
On a possibly related note, WRAL posts that one CED executive left the organization for a management position at Frontier Capital.
As a counterpoint to discussing layoffs, Daily WTF posted an excellent summary of what the author terms “Employment 2.0″. This analysis of modern careers argues that the best philosophy an employer can have concerning employee retention is promoting the contrary: expecting employees to gain experience and then leave the company to further their careers. With this expectation, bosses can work toward win-win situations for both the company and the employee. It is a clever article and a great read.
TBJ reports that the legal climate in NC is favorable to businesses, according to an annual study published in Directorship magazine.
Steven B. Hantler writes:
The state has maintained a fair and predictable liability climate that leads to growth and job creation. It ranks among the three best states for monetary tort losses, improving from 7th in 2006. However, North Carolina’s product liability losses rank 36th, which indicates heightened litigation activity and a rise in jury verdicts. Further, the state’s plaintiffs’ bar is very active in the state legislature: a bill defeated last year extending the statute of repose from 6 to 15 years would have made North Carolina one of three states with the longest period for filing claims. There is a rule-flaw majority on the state Supreme Court and the state business court serves as a model for the nation. North Carolina, however, is a state to be watched because of aggressive trial bar legislative efforts.
The present legal environment seems positive, if fickle. In the case of novel biomedical devices, I think that equal attention should be given to creating a solid legistlative foundation and to product development. That is, new technologies in areas such as tissue engineering, stem cell research, and genetic profiling should be introduced to markets only after preparing laws and regulations to preemptively limit inury and unethical activity resulting from the products’ introduction. The experts who develop these technologies should take some responsibility for the ultimate social and economic implications of their work. They are, after all, probably the most informed on the subject of their work. Whether in academia or industry, there is a need for concurrent technological and legislative development to prepare society for the introduction of potentially controversial medical technology.
The pharmaceutical industry is marked with many examples of litigation that may have been prevented. One example is the enormous lawsuit against Purdue Pharma for the unethical and unlawful marketing and litigations over their pain reliever OxyContin. In addition to monopoly, Purdue was accused of downplaying the fact that the drug was addictive. Clearly, opportinities abound that pit profits against the public’s best interest, and businesses can mandate product safety, availability, and pricing without transparency to any regulating body.
Fortunately, consumer advocate groups such as Community Catalyst are acting to protect (and inform!) the public. However as initiators of change, researchers, med tech businesses, and legislators share responsibility in preparing society for new technologies. It is not enough to bring a medical solution to fruition; one must acknowledge the responsibility of also creating a stable environment for the technology.
