3 ms·
We are likely about to find out. In the end this could be a good thing, shake out a lot the bootcampers and leave the people who like to code. On the downside,
by nebula8804 4y ago
We are likely about to find out. In the end this could be a good thing, shake out a lot the bootcampers and leave the people who like to code. On the downside, people like me like to code and also rest n' vest. :/
- metadat 4y agoYou're assuming that management can and does differentiate between the two and only fires the sitters. Life experience tells me this is highly unlikely.
- andsoitis 4y agoIf that is true (managers cannot filter for sitters), then I know which wins: random layoffs vs. surgical firings at scale
- whateveracct 4y agoI think neither? Or rather, it's a function of 1) the accuracy of managers knowing who is a sitter and 2) the percentage of your company is sitters. If the percentage is, say, 20% and the manager hit rate is, say, 20%..I'd say both moves end up firing more useful people than sitters. Even if you take it to say managers cannot figure it out and always get it wrong (0% hit rate). Random layoffs are still a net negative even if they outperform managers picking the firings. It's pretty funny how even without unions, companies have no recourse to me barely working and collecting a quarter mil a year.