5 ms·

I'm suspecting that we'll see forced return to office as a way to implement layoffs without as much bad PR. Stock will go up since costs will drop, but manageme

I'm suspecting that we'll see forced return to office as a way to implement layoffs without as much bad PR. Stock will go up since costs will drop, but management will be able to say that is more an issue with return to office rather than a company failing. "We're doing great, it's just that some employees don't share our commitment and focus on doing things well, and making our mission a priority." There has been a sudden uptick in return to office talk (despite plenty of reporting that covid is actually much worse than people realize now). Other people on HN have mentioned it and all of a sudden the leadership at my office, who were always extremely pro-remote work have suddenly started making mention of how valuable in-face communication is. So the feeling of a "soft layoff" might be the intended effect.

ericmay 4y ago
The main issue with that approach is that you basically also lay off all of your good workers who prefer remote. Maybe it's worth the cost for employers. Idk. We're remote-first and hiring. Looking forward to chatting with these employees once companies try and implement their in-office policies.
- PheonixPharts 4y ago
  Been through a couple of layoffs at a variety of different companies through out my career and personally managed to dodge the bullet each time (so this isn't a sour grapes type response). It is very important to recognize: who gets laid off has nothing to do with whether or not they are a "good worker". The "good worker" narrative is there to justify management's decisions and reduce survivor's guilt, but you'll see when layoffs come amazing talent and mediocre talent are equally removed. Management has zero problem laying off incredible people en masse.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    Yes but in this case we're talking about returning to the office, which doesn't have the exact same dynamics. In the case of the return to office dynamic, you're specifically filtering out high-quality workers who also prefer to be remote, and the results are retention of all low/medium quality workers regardless of remote/office preference, and high quality workers who don't mind or have some reason that keeps them in the office. You don't filter out low-quality workers whatsoever because they'll at least go to the office to keep their job assuming they don't have options (or else they'd be higher quality workers or maybe they just leave the work force).
    - sillysaurusx 4y ago
      As a fly on the wall, I think you both agree! Both of your points are very good and aren’t mutually exclusive at all. Quite the opposite.
    - XorNot 4y ago
      Keep in mind though that Elon can just say this, even send the memo... Then fire who he wants anyway, keep whoever is still remote and kept and pitch to the market that this "realignment" has made the company stronger by sucking right up to the expectations of your average distrustful exec.
    - Beldin 4y ago
      > you're specifically filtering out... ...everyone for whom a full return to the office is a breaking point. You assume that correlates with capability of the employeeto perform their job well. That does seem reasonable, but it remains just that: an assumption. And you know the thing about assumptions : they make a donkey out of U and MPTIONS.
      - Shaanie 4y ago
        No, he's assuming that low performers would have a harder time finding a new job with equal or better pay. Which may or may not be true.
        Beldin 4y ago
        Why would they be looking for a new job if this wasn't a breaking point or final straw for them?
        ericmay 4y ago
        They wouldn't be, which is why I believe this forced return to office action just filters out high-performers who wish to remain remote and it retains almost all of the low/medium skill workers and almost all of the high-skill no preference or work in office preferred high skill workers.
- Robotbeat 4y ago
  How true is the claim that a hybrid WFH/in-person setup is worse than either pure WFH or pure in-person? I’ve seen many claim that it causes a cultural disconnect. I’ve wanted to defend the hybrid scenario, and yet I’ve also seen many problems with communication in a hybrid setup.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    Personally, I think all three are equal. Each have merits and pros and cons. What we should do is leave people to decide what arrangement works best for them. Though companies can also decide what they think works best for their organization, in which case employees may have to leave or join new organizations depending on their work preferences or their options. All this to say here in response that I'm increasingly irritated at the, what's the right word? Polarization? Radicalization? Politicization? Of work options and how those options are creating new tribes and battlegrounds.
hedora 4y ago
Here's the covid sewage data for Silicon Valley: https://covid19.sccgov.org/dashboard-wastewater https://covid19.sccgov.org/dashboard-wastewater A week or so ago, it didn't look too bad. It is indeed much worse than I realized right now.
- notabee 4y ago
  I think the parent poster might also be talking about consequences, such as this gem that the CDC dropped recently. 20% of the working age adult population possibly having new onset long term health effects. Oops! (And that's not even getting into things like whether certain chopped up viral fragments might be seeding protein tangles and thus Alzheimer's or Parkinson's.) >These findings translate to one in five COVID-19 survivors aged 18–64 years, and one in four survivors aged ≥65 years experiencing an incident condition that might be attributable to previous COVID-19. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7121e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7121e1.htm
  - marcosdumay 4y ago
    Risk is the product of probability and severity. The OP is talking about severity being corrected upwards, while the GP is talking about probability increasing too.
  - Auracle 4y ago
    Eh, this limitation mentioned in the study seems pretty huge to me: > Finally, the study only assessed conditions thought to be attributable to COVID-19 or post-COVID illness, which might have biased RRs away from the null. For example, clinicians might have been more likely to document possible post-COVID conditions among case-patients. In addition, because several conditions examined are also risk factors for moderate to severe COVID-19, it is possible that case-patients were more likely to have had an existing condition that was not documented in their EHR during the year preceding their COVID-19 diagnosis, resulting in overestimated risk for this group. It also seems very possible that people with COVID diagnoses would be more likely to be on edge about their health / long COVID type symptoms. It also would have been nice if they differentiated things that can actually be tested for vs. things that can’t. I’m not saying there isn’t an effect. I had bad cases of COVID twice. The first time I didn’t have any apparent effects afterwards other than my sense of taste taking a while to come back. After the second time - Delta - I definitely had some after effects. We just need to be careful about claiming how many people get them. People are placeboing themselves into actually having symptoms (or thinking they do), and it’s hard to design studies to get around that.
WinstonSmith84 4y ago
this might be a good excuse for companies under-performing but others doing (rather) well, will be (are) able to save a lot of costs (office spaces is #2 expenditure for software companies). And then the added possibility to recruit talent worldwide (and paying those in developing countries a fraction of resources in US / EU :-) )
rzz3 4y ago
But at this point everyone knows. It’s already become mainstream business news. If other companies try this, the market will absolutely know they’re lying, and additionally lack the transparency and morality to actually admit they need to do layoffs.
- scarab92 4y ago
  I'm not convinced this is a case of "soft layoffs". You'll save on severence costs, but those costs are so small compared to the cost of having no control over who decides to leave.
loceng 4y ago
Elon has in the past talked about a growth-pruning cycle, so this is likely part of that - planned to some degree. I imagine, too, if there are "100x engineers" (or whatever their role is) there may be compromise otherwise that's not generally applied; I would however think that someone who's that production - unless it's somehow a mostly solo role - would necessarily need to be on-site to utilize whatever resources necessary.

ericmay 4y ago

The main issue with that approach is that you basically also lay off all of your good workers who prefer remote. Maybe it's worth the cost for employers. Idk. We're remote-first and hiring. Looking forward to chatting with these employees once companies try and implement their in-office policies.

PheonixPharts 4y ago
Been through a couple of layoffs at a variety of different companies through out my career and personally managed to dodge the bullet each time (so this isn't a sour grapes type response). It is very important to recognize: who gets laid off has nothing to do with whether or not they are a "good worker". The "good worker" narrative is there to justify management's decisions and reduce survivor's guilt, but you'll see when layoffs come amazing talent and mediocre talent are equally removed. Management has zero problem laying off incredible people en masse.
- ericmay 4y ago
  Yes but in this case we're talking about returning to the office, which doesn't have the exact same dynamics. In the case of the return to office dynamic, you're specifically filtering out high-quality workers who also prefer to be remote, and the results are retention of all low/medium quality workers regardless of remote/office preference, and high quality workers who don't mind or have some reason that keeps them in the office. You don't filter out low-quality workers whatsoever because they'll at least go to the office to keep their job assuming they don't have options (or else they'd be higher quality workers or maybe they just leave the work force).
  - sillysaurusx 4y ago
    As a fly on the wall, I think you both agree! Both of your points are very good and aren’t mutually exclusive at all. Quite the opposite.
  - XorNot 4y ago
    Keep in mind though that Elon can just say this, even send the memo... Then fire who he wants anyway, keep whoever is still remote and kept and pitch to the market that this "realignment" has made the company stronger by sucking right up to the expectations of your average distrustful exec.
  - Beldin 4y ago
    > you're specifically filtering out... ...everyone for whom a full return to the office is a breaking point. You assume that correlates with capability of the employeeto perform their job well. That does seem reasonable, but it remains just that: an assumption. And you know the thing about assumptions : they make a donkey out of U and MPTIONS.
    - Shaanie 4y ago
      No, he's assuming that low performers would have a harder time finding a new job with equal or better pay. Which may or may not be true.
      - Beldin 4y ago
        Why would they be looking for a new job if this wasn't a breaking point or final straw for them?
        ericmay 4y ago
        They wouldn't be, which is why I believe this forced return to office action just filters out high-performers who wish to remain remote and it retains almost all of the low/medium skill workers and almost all of the high-skill no preference or work in office preferred high skill workers.
Robotbeat 4y ago
How true is the claim that a hybrid WFH/in-person setup is worse than either pure WFH or pure in-person? I’ve seen many claim that it causes a cultural disconnect. I’ve wanted to defend the hybrid scenario, and yet I’ve also seen many problems with communication in a hybrid setup.
- ericmay 4y ago
  Personally, I think all three are equal. Each have merits and pros and cons. What we should do is leave people to decide what arrangement works best for them. Though companies can also decide what they think works best for their organization, in which case employees may have to leave or join new organizations depending on their work preferences or their options. All this to say here in response that I'm increasingly irritated at the, what's the right word? Polarization? Radicalization? Politicization? Of work options and how those options are creating new tribes and battlegrounds.

hedora 4y ago

Here's the covid sewage data for Silicon Valley: https://covid19.sccgov.org/dashboard-wastewater https://covid19.sccgov.org/dashboard-wastewater A week or so ago, it didn't look too bad. It is indeed much worse than I realized right now.

notabee 4y ago
I think the parent poster might also be talking about consequences, such as this gem that the CDC dropped recently. 20% of the working age adult population possibly having new onset long term health effects. Oops! (And that's not even getting into things like whether certain chopped up viral fragments might be seeding protein tangles and thus Alzheimer's or Parkinson's.) >These findings translate to one in five COVID-19 survivors aged 18–64 years, and one in four survivors aged ≥65 years experiencing an incident condition that might be attributable to previous COVID-19. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7121e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7121e1.htm
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  Risk is the product of probability and severity. The OP is talking about severity being corrected upwards, while the GP is talking about probability increasing too.
- Auracle 4y ago
  Eh, this limitation mentioned in the study seems pretty huge to me: > Finally, the study only assessed conditions thought to be attributable to COVID-19 or post-COVID illness, which might have biased RRs away from the null. For example, clinicians might have been more likely to document possible post-COVID conditions among case-patients. In addition, because several conditions examined are also risk factors for moderate to severe COVID-19, it is possible that case-patients were more likely to have had an existing condition that was not documented in their EHR during the year preceding their COVID-19 diagnosis, resulting in overestimated risk for this group. It also seems very possible that people with COVID diagnoses would be more likely to be on edge about their health / long COVID type symptoms. It also would have been nice if they differentiated things that can actually be tested for vs. things that can’t. I’m not saying there isn’t an effect. I had bad cases of COVID twice. The first time I didn’t have any apparent effects afterwards other than my sense of taste taking a while to come back. After the second time - Delta - I definitely had some after effects. We just need to be careful about claiming how many people get them. People are placeboing themselves into actually having symptoms (or thinking they do), and it’s hard to design studies to get around that.

WinstonSmith84 4y ago

this might be a good excuse for companies under-performing but others doing (rather) well, will be (are) able to save a lot of costs (office spaces is #2 expenditure for software companies). And then the added possibility to recruit talent worldwide (and paying those in developing countries a fraction of resources in US / EU :-) )

rzz3 4y ago

But at this point everyone knows. It’s already become mainstream business news. If other companies try this, the market will absolutely know they’re lying, and additionally lack the transparency and morality to actually admit they need to do layoffs.

scarab92 4y ago
I'm not convinced this is a case of "soft layoffs". You'll save on severence costs, but those costs are so small compared to the cost of having no control over who decides to leave.

loceng 4y ago

Elon has in the past talked about a growth-pruning cycle, so this is likely part of that - planned to some degree. I imagine, too, if there are "100x engineers" (or whatever their role is) there may be compromise otherwise that's not generally applied; I would however think that someone who's that production - unless it's somehow a mostly solo role - would necessarily need to be on-site to utilize whatever resources necessary.