4 ms·

Perhaps just a disguised layoff? A percentage of workers will not come back, and in case layoffs have to happen; that percentage is already out of the picture.

jallen_dot_dev 4y ago
Yeah I think companies will push for full return to office (while making exceptions for top performers who push back) as a way to reduce headcount without having to layoff. Cheaper that way.
- kenjackson 4y ago
  Exceptions for top performers will make it hard to keep the tier just below them.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  Given that there is no legally required severance, couldn't companies just fire large groups of people. I thought paying people during a layoff was just a morale booster for those who remain anyway, so a thinly disguised layoff benefits no one.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    Terminating emplpyees without cause makes the employee eligible for unemployment benefits. The more employees that receive unemployment benefits, the higher the unemployment insurance premiums will be (billed to the company by the state government).
    - mantas 4y ago
      Huh? So there's a clear incentive for the company to force employee separation in other ways? At least in my country (and I guess in most of europe?) each worker pays % of salary to social benefits fund that pays unemployment benefit. There's severance pay on employer for no-fault separation though. Which is now lowered specifically to avoid situations when employers push people to „voluntarily“ leave.
      - Volundr 4y ago
        > Huh? So there's a clear incentive for the company to force employee separation in other ways? Yep. You've summed up the situation 100% accurately.
      - HWR_14 4y ago
        > there's a clear incentive for the company to force employee separation in other ways? Yes, however the law recognizes that creating a hostile environment to force people to quit is essentially firing them. Which means in that case you can quit, then move on to filing paperwork claiming it was due to the hostile environment, go before a government body, etc.
paxys 4y ago
When you try to reduce employee count by making work conditions worse, the employees who will leave are those who can easily find opportunities elsewhere (so your top performers). With layoffs you want to be targeting the opposite end of the workforce – people who aren't pulling their weight and will never voluntarily quit.
wankerrific 4y ago
100% this is a disguised layoff - “encouraged attrition” if you will. Cheaper than a layoff

jallen_dot_dev 4y ago

Yeah I think companies will push for full return to office (while making exceptions for top performers who push back) as a way to reduce headcount without having to layoff. Cheaper that way.

kenjackson 4y ago
Exceptions for top performers will make it hard to keep the tier just below them.
HWR_14 4y ago
Given that there is no legally required severance, couldn't companies just fire large groups of people. I thought paying people during a layoff was just a morale booster for those who remain anyway, so a thinly disguised layoff benefits no one.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Terminating emplpyees without cause makes the employee eligible for unemployment benefits. The more employees that receive unemployment benefits, the higher the unemployment insurance premiums will be (billed to the company by the state government).
  - mantas 4y ago
    Huh? So there's a clear incentive for the company to force employee separation in other ways? At least in my country (and I guess in most of europe?) each worker pays % of salary to social benefits fund that pays unemployment benefit. There's severance pay on employer for no-fault separation though. Which is now lowered specifically to avoid situations when employers push people to „voluntarily“ leave.
    - Volundr 4y ago
      > Huh? So there's a clear incentive for the company to force employee separation in other ways? Yep. You've summed up the situation 100% accurately.
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      > there's a clear incentive for the company to force employee separation in other ways? Yes, however the law recognizes that creating a hostile environment to force people to quit is essentially firing them. Which means in that case you can quit, then move on to filing paperwork claiming it was due to the hostile environment, go before a government body, etc.

paxys 4y ago

When you try to reduce employee count by making work conditions worse, the employees who will leave are those who can easily find opportunities elsewhere (so your top performers). With layoffs you want to be targeting the opposite end of the workforce – people who aren't pulling their weight and will never voluntarily quit.

wankerrific 4y ago

100% this is a disguised layoff - “encouraged attrition” if you will. Cheaper than a layoff