3 ms·

With IBM, one can't help but feel this is a tactic to force layoffs without having to actually do a layoff. I believe they tried similar tactics in their Global

With IBM, one can't help but feel this is a tactic to force layoffs without having to actually do a layoff. I believe they tried similar tactics in their Global Business Services division in the mid-2000s.

matt_wulfeck 9y ago
Of course it's a layoff. It's the same thing yahoo did. When business are doing well they don't force their employees into impossible situations.
- hackunomatter 9y ago
  Yahoo's policy affected about 180 people. That's about 1.5% of the company. Of those 180, about 60 were allowed to WFH. "Firing" 120 people in such a convoluted way is stupid. But the Internet continues to believe in stupider things, so who am I to ask.
  - johnnyfaehell 9y ago
    Didn't Yahoo look at their VPN logs and notice people literally weren't doing any work?
    - hackunomatter 9y ago
      Yes. Most people forget these details and just hate on "Oh noes! Working from home was banned!!".
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - sqeaky 9y ago
    Why is "stupid" for businesses to attempt to coerce employees to quit rather than to fire them? Evil, or assholish sure, but I don't think its stupid. If they had layoffs they would have to deal with unemployment payments. They might have to deal with lawsuits. Dpending on laws they might even need to rehire some of them. They will certainly have higher short term expenses than if a bunch of people choose to leave. If they do get rid of a bunch of people who choose to leave they are also getting rid of people who least wanted to stay, which some might see as a benefit. I don't think this is a good way to decide but I have heard much more stupid logic than this.
    - hackunomatter 9y ago
      Because in the end it was performance based. If your performance was good, you could continue to work from home. So you could have fired the low performers directly (if you wanted to) without going through this whole WFH drama.
korzun 9y ago
They probably took a good look at the performance of people onsite vs. offsite and noticed an issue and decided to act on it. I view this move as a life lesson since they will most likely do their best to retain remote workers that are in-line or above when it comes to performance. The rest will need to figure out what they want to do; you can't cry about this if you did not pull your weight.

matt_wulfeck 9y ago

Of course it's a layoff. It's the same thing yahoo did. When business are doing well they don't force their employees into impossible situations.

hackunomatter 9y ago
Yahoo's policy affected about 180 people. That's about 1.5% of the company. Of those 180, about 60 were allowed to WFH. "Firing" 120 people in such a convoluted way is stupid. But the Internet continues to believe in stupider things, so who am I to ask.
- johnnyfaehell 9y ago
  Didn't Yahoo look at their VPN logs and notice people literally weren't doing any work?
  - hackunomatter 9y ago
    Yes. Most people forget these details and just hate on "Oh noes! Working from home was banned!!".
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- sqeaky 9y ago
  Why is "stupid" for businesses to attempt to coerce employees to quit rather than to fire them? Evil, or assholish sure, but I don't think its stupid. If they had layoffs they would have to deal with unemployment payments. They might have to deal with lawsuits. Dpending on laws they might even need to rehire some of them. They will certainly have higher short term expenses than if a bunch of people choose to leave. If they do get rid of a bunch of people who choose to leave they are also getting rid of people who least wanted to stay, which some might see as a benefit. I don't think this is a good way to decide but I have heard much more stupid logic than this.
  - hackunomatter 9y ago
    Because in the end it was performance based. If your performance was good, you could continue to work from home. So you could have fired the low performers directly (if you wanted to) without going through this whole WFH drama.

korzun 9y ago

They probably took a good look at the performance of people onsite vs. offsite and noticed an issue and decided to act on it. I view this move as a life lesson since they will most likely do their best to retain remote workers that are in-line or above when it comes to performance. The rest will need to figure out what they want to do; you can't cry about this if you did not pull your weight.