I find that unconvincing. That they will give up all control in order to save what is ultimately a small amount of money. Paying severance to cut people is already a way to save and reduce budgets. To say they will give up control and take real risks with who they lose just to avoid a piddling 2 months salary per head… it doesn’t add up.
Comment on Amazon tech workers leaving for other jobs in response to return to office mandate
zbyte64@awful.systems 1 day agoSo they don’t have to pay severance or other state penalties for doing an actual layoff. They aren’t thinking of talent with this move.
scarabic@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
zbyte64@awful.systems 11 hours ago
They’re giving up control by exercising control?
scarabic@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
They’re giving up control over exactly who leaves. When you do a layoff you can choose to cut your lowest performers or most overpaid employees or everyone in a small office which you can then close.
These hypothesized “soft layoffs” where they supposedly encourage people to leave give them no real control over how many people leave, which ones leave, etc. And it’s the top employees generally who have the best options elsewhere. So you’re really inviting a brain drain by putting broad pressure on everyone to quit.
It’s just not a smart move. I think we have a lot of armchair CEOs here who think a company would just suck up all these downside to save on a little severance and that doesn’t add up for me.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Yeah, I think they want to reduce headcount, and this is the cheapest way to do it. I’m guessing they’re getting some flack for investing so much in AI w/o enough return to justify it, so they’re culling a lot of the workforce to juice the numbers a bit until that investment starts to make sense.