3 ms·
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 havin
by 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 agoExceptions for top performers will make it hard to keep the tier just below them.
- HWR_14 4y agoGiven 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 agoTerminating 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 agoHuh? 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.