5 ms·

If a company is giving 12+ weeks of severance, you’d think they could just say “12 weeks from now is your last day. If you find new work before then you’re free

If a company is giving 12+ weeks of severance, you’d think they could just say “12 weeks from now is your last day. If you find new work before then you’re free to leave. We’ll pay you to keep working on your projects for the next 12 weeks” Why pay someone expensive a salary to not work if the company is facing issues with money already? Like i get the idea of severance, and would want it as an individual, but it seems like it just bleeds extra resources.

taftster 4y ago
If someone were to tell me, you've got 12 weeks left on your job. And then adds, and you can leave early when you find work. I'm probably not going to be the most motivated/productive employee. In fact, I might cause more harm than good. It's better to just rip that bandaid off and let people move on with their lives. 12 weeks severance is (hopefully) enough time that the former employee can find new work, and also that the company can start adjusting to the down sizing. A non-productive worker is probably worse than no worker at all.
- bad416f1f5a2 4y ago
  > A non-productive worker is probably worse than no worker at all. There's no "probably" to it. Offering a fired employee the right to stay around until their time is up is a mindbogglingly stupid idea. It's a recipe for massive negativity from them & for your existing teams. Having participated in a RIF before, the two most common questions are 1) "why me?" and 2) "why my friend and not someone else?" Keeping someone who you've clearly said has no future around & asking them to contribute to the future of a company is ... what?
  - mvc 4y ago
    And yet here in the UK, it's quite normal for senior engineers to be faced with 3 months (I've even heard of 6!) working for a company after deciding to quit and hand in their notice. Completely bonkers if you ask me.
  - taftster 4y ago
    I actually agree. I was originally not going to include the word "probably", but I thought I would soften the message a little bit. There's likely a few outside examples, but yeah, keeping an employee on the roster after telling them they will be let go is just asking for trouble.
bad416f1f5a2 4y ago
Do you really think you'll get quality work from someone who knows the clock is ticking & they'll be out in 12 weeks? From someone who is going to be busy looking for their next move? And that's ignoring the chance that one of your employees isn't too happy at losing their job and decides to make your company a bit uglier in the process.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
alpha_squared 4y ago
> Why pay someone expensive a salary to not work if the company is facing issues with money already? Like i get the idea of severance, and would want it as an individual, but it seems like it just bleeds extra resources. It destroys morale. Yes, even more than the layoffs alone. Imagine working alongside people who know, in advance, their days are numbered. Motivation to accomplish work goes out the window, progress slows, and the internal culture will feel like a zombie during that transition and it will probably linger well after those people are gone as that culture infects other members who weren't let go. It's better to just rip the bandaid, take the financial hit, and attempt to salvage whatever remains of the culture.
kube-system 4y ago
No, this is a very bad idea. Because layoffs are involuntary, they crater morale. If you keep those people at work, it is not like they will all show up and pretend like nothing happened.

taftster 4y ago

If someone were to tell me, you've got 12 weeks left on your job. And then adds, and you can leave early when you find work. I'm probably not going to be the most motivated/productive employee. In fact, I might cause more harm than good. It's better to just rip that bandaid off and let people move on with their lives. 12 weeks severance is (hopefully) enough time that the former employee can find new work, and also that the company can start adjusting to the down sizing. A non-productive worker is probably worse than no worker at all.

bad416f1f5a2 4y ago
> A non-productive worker is probably worse than no worker at all. There's no "probably" to it. Offering a fired employee the right to stay around until their time is up is a mindbogglingly stupid idea. It's a recipe for massive negativity from them & for your existing teams. Having participated in a RIF before, the two most common questions are 1) "why me?" and 2) "why my friend and not someone else?" Keeping someone who you've clearly said has no future around & asking them to contribute to the future of a company is ... what?
- mvc 4y ago
  And yet here in the UK, it's quite normal for senior engineers to be faced with 3 months (I've even heard of 6!) working for a company after deciding to quit and hand in their notice. Completely bonkers if you ask me.
- taftster 4y ago
  I actually agree. I was originally not going to include the word "probably", but I thought I would soften the message a little bit. There's likely a few outside examples, but yeah, keeping an employee on the roster after telling them they will be let go is just asking for trouble.

bad416f1f5a2 4y ago

Do you really think you'll get quality work from someone who knows the clock is ticking & they'll be out in 12 weeks? From someone who is going to be busy looking for their next move? And that's ignoring the chance that one of your employees isn't too happy at losing their job and decides to make your company a bit uglier in the process.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

alpha_squared 4y ago

> Why pay someone expensive a salary to not work if the company is facing issues with money already? Like i get the idea of severance, and would want it as an individual, but it seems like it just bleeds extra resources. It destroys morale. Yes, even more than the layoffs alone. Imagine working alongside people who know, in advance, their days are numbered. Motivation to accomplish work goes out the window, progress slows, and the internal culture will feel like a zombie during that transition and it will probably linger well after those people are gone as that culture infects other members who weren't let go. It's better to just rip the bandaid, take the financial hit, and attempt to salvage whatever remains of the culture.

kube-system 4y ago

No, this is a very bad idea. Because layoffs are involuntary, they crater morale. If you keep those people at work, it is not like they will all show up and pretend like nothing happened.