6 ms·

Layoffs are down, but employers are still finding ways to cut jobs

46 points by Bostonian 3y ago

Bostonian 3y ago
https://archive.is/ZURCV https://archive.is/ZURCV
version_five 3y ago
This appears to be a way to avoid paying severance. I'd expect any decent employer would offer employees the choice to leave with appropriate severance if they were going to do this to them.
- toss1 3y ago
  Not only severance but unemployment compensation (which can significantly affect mandatory unemployment insurance costs to the company) can also be avoided by companies if their people quit instead of being laid off. That is why there is the concept of "Constructive Dismissal" (or other similar terms). If the company is significantly degrading your work conditions, hours, requirements, interactions, responsibilities, etc., for the reason of getting you to quit instead of firing you, there may be an issue. If you have immediate better employment options, take them without doing your old company any favors. But if you do not, start making detailed contemporaneous logs of what is happening to you (and what happened before) and talk to an attorney specializing in your state's employment law. Do not take it lying down, especially if you don't have immediate better options.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    > If you have immediate better employment options, take them without doing your old company any favors. Not sure about the US but here in Europe that's a very bad idea. If you change jobs willingly you give up your "seniority" meaning if your next job lays you off you will get no severance and also lower unemployment benefits. So caving in you would give up a huge chunk of social security. If you have a mortgage in particular I wouldn't risk it. I have 15 years seniority right now. Meaning I'd get full pay for more than a year after being laid off. No way would I quit voluntarily. But this coercion is pretty rare here because unions are strong. They won't put up with that shit. On an individual level it's probably best to play the same game. They screw you just within the lines, you screw them back just within the lines. But again luckily this skullduggery is rare here.
    - toss1 3y ago
      Indeed!! - I was speaking only in the US context and I am not a lawyer; not legal advice). Same sort of applies here but usually only if you are a union employee, but then you have your union management who can resolve such issues.
    - nradov 3y ago
      Wow that's really terrible advice. If you see a good opportunity then jump on it and don't look back. Otherwise your career will stagnate and you'll eventually get stuck somewhere with no growth potential. As for paying your mortgage, anyone working in a volatile field such as tech should prioritize saving up several months of living expenses. You have to assume that on any given day your employer might get destroyed by an upstart competitor and lay everyone off.
      - wkat4242 3y ago
        That's a very US centric view IMO. Here the companies stick around longer. We don't do that survival of the fittest mindset here. And with the ridiculous house prices and crap wages even in tech it's not really possible to save anymore. I'd take social security over anything. My accrued benefits are something I am entitled to and I worked hard for and I wouldn't drop them without a fight.
        Detrytus 3y ago
        > We don't do that survival of the fittest mindset here. Which is why the gap between US and Europe is widening - 20 years ago EU GDP was on par with US, now it is 2/3rds of it (and that's after adding UK, to make things comparable after Brexit).
        wkat4242 3y ago
        I don't really care though. I don't always want more more more. I have enough. The only thing that's really crazy expensive is housing but that follows GDP anyway, the real issue is shortage. I even took a pay cut to move to a lower-wage country with higher quality of life. Slower pace, better weather, better infrastructure and social services. I don't even need a car now because public transport is amazing where I live and I really enjoy not having to worry about one. But what I want from my job is stability and security. Not golden mountains in the distance if I work myself down to the bone.
  - frumper 3y ago
    At least in California, if your employer substantially changes your work duties or schedule, then you can very likely collect UI. Your advice to take better employment options is still the best advice though.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  Unless there is a contract with the employee, such as a collective bargaining agreement with a union, there is no legal reason a business has to pay an employee severance in the US. A business might pay an employee severance for morale purposes, good PR, and/or to entice the employee to sign agreements that reduce the business's future liabilities. If an employee agrees to quit their job in exchange for severance money, this would result in lower unemployment insurance premiums (i.e. tax liability) for the business because the employee would not be eligible for unemployment benefits from the government. The more unemployment benefits former employees receive, the higher the unemployment insurance premiums for the business.
  - tpankaj 3y ago
    There's a difference between legal reasons and decency
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      Sure, but note that anyone who does not work for government or big or well funded businesses is not going to get severance when they are laid off or terminated. Which is probably half of the US or maybe even more. All the franchised restaurants/hotels, most retail, smaller construction contractors, etc. It is mostly a benefit for those earning more than median incomes.
  - gustavus 3y ago
    My understanding, which could be wrong, is that in a lot of cases severance is offered on condition you won't fight the termination or take legal action. So it is in part a CYA from the companies side.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      Yes, that is what I meant in: > and/or to entice the employee to sign agreements that reduce the business's future liabilities.
  - mvdtnz 3y ago
gmerc 3y ago
Old hat in new clothes https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50865211.amp https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50865211.amp
buggy6257 3y ago
So is this one just as much of a media-created nothing burger as Quiet Quitting was? I'm betting yes...
- ratsmack 3y ago
  It seems that media today is all about volume of content, which requires that controversy is created from virtually nothing to justify another pointless article.
willcipriano 3y ago
> Employees to whom it would be costly to pay severance or months of unemployment benefits might decide to leave on their own if they feel stuck in a job they don’t want, executive coaches say. The hourly rate these "executive coaches" must charge for this is probably hilarious.
datavirtue 3y ago
Head of growth marketing? Sales enablement? My god, your job title should have given you sufficient heads-up. My advice to new college students is to code whether you like it or not. Work sucks, period. Might as well get paid and have free time and enjoy being in demand. Those are definitely bullshit jobs.
- IMTDb 3y ago
  Yeah, the dude checks all the red flags. He needs an enabler/management position with "senior" in the title (at 34), and of course we have the combo of remote + baby at home mixed in. When asked to actually sell software himself it "took a hit on his mental health". Not quitting was "a matter of principle". TBH it was a bit more than that; if not at IBM, where else could he have found such an entrenched position ?
- bdcravens 3y ago
  Not that I support it in totality, but that's why I wasn't surprised when Twitter didn't fall over when Elon fired 80% of staff.
  - ae_throw 3y ago
    [flagged]
ae_throw 3y ago
[flagged]
- bendhoefs 3y ago
  I don't agree with your assertions. They have a center-left worldview which I personally don't share but I find that they are generally factually accurate. >We know they post propaganda, spin stories however they please Don't speak for me. I don't know that, every publication has a slant of some kind.
gymbeaux 3y ago
People like the gentleman in the article are PART OF THE PROBLEM, because they (and it seems most people) seem to have a certain benevolence towards their employer (and US capitalism) no matter how hard they’re fucked by it. He was reassigned to sales, it took a toll on his mental health, but hey no hard feelings because now he’s in a role he enjoys at IBM. The message to IBM is that they can get away with it and this trend will no doubt continue there and elsewhere in the US. We could unionize like that, guys, especially the software engineers. Where are your balls?
- BigRedDog1669 3y ago
  Why not do it then rather than shaming others for not doing it?
  - gymbeaux 3y ago
    I don’t have an employer for which to unionize
noname123 3y ago
Folks flagged ae_throw's question and got it to be muted (which I found very interesting)... so I'm resurrecting his question from <dead> and answering it anyways: >Can someone give a reasonable argument as to why we should read WSJ? Or WaPo? Or NYT or any other large publication of this nature (looking particularly at The Economist). We know they post propaganda, spin stories however they please, and we know their fact checking is awful. I don’t think they have any journalistic integrity left.Please enlighten, am curious. I find it useful to understand the other side and the echo chamber/bubble they are in; and by extension, leads to better insight and critique of the echo chamber my side is in. As a right-winger (I put my bias forward to help communicate up-front my angle/bias as everybody has their biases) - for instance, I stopped reacting to NYT, NPR and WaPo's headlines and instead just categorized and label mechanically (as an AI sentiment bot might do) what their purpose for "manufactured consent" is; the headline behind the headline, for example for the left: Many headline news if you flip to any NYT headlines any time of day, you can categorize them as "climate insecurity" (Global Warming is eating up a local area, Maui/Florida), the "MAGA threat" (a minority group is being persecuted by the vengeful "white right"), "neo-conservative foreign policy endorsements" (Ukraine is 'wining the war; Ughyur human rights violations; America is winning against Russia/China bloc and always on the progressive side of human rights). It helps me frame critically the right-wing biases in my own echo chamber. For instance, it makes me realize that WSJ's more endorsement for "holier-than-thou" free-wheeling enterprise/business is really the equivalent right-wing propaganda to indoctrinate its side against left's efforts to union and regulate businesses for consumer rights and the environment. Similarly, the anti-SJW, exodus from California to Texas theme in Fox News is parallel to the "MAGA threat" stories from the left; and is just right-wing identity politics - just as bad as left-wing identity politics. And foreign policy-wise, both left and right are surprisingly uniform and orthodox to American exceptionalism and interventionism. It makes me realize that American politics and journalism is at large a game of sports, marketing where both sides hype up the "brand-values" of their sides and vilify the other side; but at the end of the day, the owners in the box seats at the top of the arena have the same values; and the fans/citizens though may spit and belittle each other in the spirit of factional rivalary, surprisingly have so much in common with each other as jersey-wearing blue collar tailgating fans - than the NFL owners in their suites and boardrooms. And this notion of simultaneously gives me both great cynicism and hope for the state of America.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
aylmao 3y ago
This isn't new, right? I've heard it's especially prevalent for management positions, both because the severance would be higher, and because it's "better for office politics" to slowly push someone out, or have the official story be that they left, than to fire someone with power and followers.
pylua 3y ago
You don’t hear about companies innovating anymore — you just hear about them screwing over workers and customers.
- chung8123 3y ago
  I think LLMs are pretty innovated. The new Mac chips seem pretty innovated. Nvidia's H100 are so innovated they cannot keep them stocked. Companies are innovating all the time. Maybe it is because we are too focused on doom and gloom in the news.
  - pylua 3y ago
    That is true, but it does seem like the innovation is coming from a small number of companies while most other companies are relentlessly trying to cut costs at the expense of the customer and employee. Maybe the news is biased towards these types of articles. I do think this type of negativity goes against the positive mindset you need to start a company .

46 points by Bostonian 3y ago

https://archive.is/ZURCV https://archive.is/ZURCV

This appears to be a way to avoid paying severance. I'd expect any decent employer would offer employees the choice to leave with appropriate severance if they were going to do this to them.

toss1 3y ago
Not only severance but unemployment compensation (which can significantly affect mandatory unemployment insurance costs to the company) can also be avoided by companies if their people quit instead of being laid off. That is why there is the concept of "Constructive Dismissal" (or other similar terms). If the company is significantly degrading your work conditions, hours, requirements, interactions, responsibilities, etc., for the reason of getting you to quit instead of firing you, there may be an issue. If you have immediate better employment options, take them without doing your old company any favors. But if you do not, start making detailed contemporaneous logs of what is happening to you (and what happened before) and talk to an attorney specializing in your state's employment law. Do not take it lying down, especially if you don't have immediate better options.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  > If you have immediate better employment options, take them without doing your old company any favors. Not sure about the US but here in Europe that's a very bad idea. If you change jobs willingly you give up your "seniority" meaning if your next job lays you off you will get no severance and also lower unemployment benefits. So caving in you would give up a huge chunk of social security. If you have a mortgage in particular I wouldn't risk it. I have 15 years seniority right now. Meaning I'd get full pay for more than a year after being laid off. No way would I quit voluntarily. But this coercion is pretty rare here because unions are strong. They won't put up with that shit. On an individual level it's probably best to play the same game. They screw you just within the lines, you screw them back just within the lines. But again luckily this skullduggery is rare here.
  - toss1 3y ago
    Indeed!! - I was speaking only in the US context and I am not a lawyer; not legal advice). Same sort of applies here but usually only if you are a union employee, but then you have your union management who can resolve such issues.
  - nradov 3y ago
    Wow that's really terrible advice. If you see a good opportunity then jump on it and don't look back. Otherwise your career will stagnate and you'll eventually get stuck somewhere with no growth potential. As for paying your mortgage, anyone working in a volatile field such as tech should prioritize saving up several months of living expenses. You have to assume that on any given day your employer might get destroyed by an upstart competitor and lay everyone off.
    - wkat4242 3y ago
      That's a very US centric view IMO. Here the companies stick around longer. We don't do that survival of the fittest mindset here. And with the ridiculous house prices and crap wages even in tech it's not really possible to save anymore. I'd take social security over anything. My accrued benefits are something I am entitled to and I worked hard for and I wouldn't drop them without a fight.
      - Detrytus 3y ago
        > We don't do that survival of the fittest mindset here. Which is why the gap between US and Europe is widening - 20 years ago EU GDP was on par with US, now it is 2/3rds of it (and that's after adding UK, to make things comparable after Brexit).
        wkat4242 3y ago
        I don't really care though. I don't always want more more more. I have enough. The only thing that's really crazy expensive is housing but that follows GDP anyway, the real issue is shortage. I even took a pay cut to move to a lower-wage country with higher quality of life. Slower pace, better weather, better infrastructure and social services. I don't even need a car now because public transport is amazing where I live and I really enjoy not having to worry about one. But what I want from my job is stability and security. Not golden mountains in the distance if I work myself down to the bone.
- frumper 3y ago
  At least in California, if your employer substantially changes your work duties or schedule, then you can very likely collect UI. Your advice to take better employment options is still the best advice though.
lotsofpulp 3y ago
Unless there is a contract with the employee, such as a collective bargaining agreement with a union, there is no legal reason a business has to pay an employee severance in the US. A business might pay an employee severance for morale purposes, good PR, and/or to entice the employee to sign agreements that reduce the business's future liabilities. If an employee agrees to quit their job in exchange for severance money, this would result in lower unemployment insurance premiums (i.e. tax liability) for the business because the employee would not be eligible for unemployment benefits from the government. The more unemployment benefits former employees receive, the higher the unemployment insurance premiums for the business.
- tpankaj 3y ago
  There's a difference between legal reasons and decency
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    Sure, but note that anyone who does not work for government or big or well funded businesses is not going to get severance when they are laid off or terminated. Which is probably half of the US or maybe even more. All the franchised restaurants/hotels, most retail, smaller construction contractors, etc. It is mostly a benefit for those earning more than median incomes.
- gustavus 3y ago
  My understanding, which could be wrong, is that in a lot of cases severance is offered on condition you won't fight the termination or take legal action. So it is in part a CYA from the companies side.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    Yes, that is what I meant in: > and/or to entice the employee to sign agreements that reduce the business's future liabilities.
- mvdtnz 3y ago

gmerc 3y ago

Old hat in new clothes https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50865211.amp https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50865211.amp

buggy6257 3y ago

So is this one just as much of a media-created nothing burger as Quiet Quitting was? I'm betting yes...

ratsmack 3y ago
It seems that media today is all about volume of content, which requires that controversy is created from virtually nothing to justify another pointless article.

willcipriano 3y ago

> Employees to whom it would be costly to pay severance or months of unemployment benefits might decide to leave on their own if they feel stuck in a job they don’t want, executive coaches say. The hourly rate these "executive coaches" must charge for this is probably hilarious.

datavirtue 3y ago

Head of growth marketing? Sales enablement? My god, your job title should have given you sufficient heads-up. My advice to new college students is to code whether you like it or not. Work sucks, period. Might as well get paid and have free time and enjoy being in demand. Those are definitely bullshit jobs.

IMTDb 3y ago
Yeah, the dude checks all the red flags. He needs an enabler/management position with "senior" in the title (at 34), and of course we have the combo of remote + baby at home mixed in. When asked to actually sell software himself it "took a hit on his mental health". Not quitting was "a matter of principle". TBH it was a bit more than that; if not at IBM, where else could he have found such an entrenched position ?
bdcravens 3y ago
Not that I support it in totality, but that's why I wasn't surprised when Twitter didn't fall over when Elon fired 80% of staff.
- ae_throw 3y ago
  [flagged]

ae_throw 3y ago

[flagged]

bendhoefs 3y ago
I don't agree with your assertions. They have a center-left worldview which I personally don't share but I find that they are generally factually accurate. >We know they post propaganda, spin stories however they please Don't speak for me. I don't know that, every publication has a slant of some kind.

gymbeaux 3y ago

People like the gentleman in the article are PART OF THE PROBLEM, because they (and it seems most people) seem to have a certain benevolence towards their employer (and US capitalism) no matter how hard they’re fucked by it. He was reassigned to sales, it took a toll on his mental health, but hey no hard feelings because now he’s in a role he enjoys at IBM. The message to IBM is that they can get away with it and this trend will no doubt continue there and elsewhere in the US. We could unionize like that, guys, especially the software engineers. Where are your balls?

BigRedDog1669 3y ago
Why not do it then rather than shaming others for not doing it?
- gymbeaux 3y ago
  I don’t have an employer for which to unionize

noname123 3y ago

Folks flagged ae_throw's question and got it to be muted (which I found very interesting)... so I'm resurrecting his question from <dead> and answering it anyways: >Can someone give a reasonable argument as to why we should read WSJ? Or WaPo? Or NYT or any other large publication of this nature (looking particularly at The Economist). We know they post propaganda, spin stories however they please, and we know their fact checking is awful. I don’t think they have any journalistic integrity left.Please enlighten, am curious. I find it useful to understand the other side and the echo chamber/bubble they are in; and by extension, leads to better insight and critique of the echo chamber my side is in. As a right-winger (I put my bias forward to help communicate up-front my angle/bias as everybody has their biases) - for instance, I stopped reacting to NYT, NPR and WaPo's headlines and instead just categorized and label mechanically (as an AI sentiment bot might do) what their purpose for "manufactured consent" is; the headline behind the headline, for example for the left: Many headline news if you flip to any NYT headlines any time of day, you can categorize them as "climate insecurity" (Global Warming is eating up a local area, Maui/Florida), the "MAGA threat" (a minority group is being persecuted by the vengeful "white right"), "neo-conservative foreign policy endorsements" (Ukraine is 'wining the war; Ughyur human rights violations; America is winning against Russia/China bloc and always on the progressive side of human rights). It helps me frame critically the right-wing biases in my own echo chamber. For instance, it makes me realize that WSJ's more endorsement for "holier-than-thou" free-wheeling enterprise/business is really the equivalent right-wing propaganda to indoctrinate its side against left's efforts to union and regulate businesses for consumer rights and the environment. Similarly, the anti-SJW, exodus from California to Texas theme in Fox News is parallel to the "MAGA threat" stories from the left; and is just right-wing identity politics - just as bad as left-wing identity politics. And foreign policy-wise, both left and right are surprisingly uniform and orthodox to American exceptionalism and interventionism. It makes me realize that American politics and journalism is at large a game of sports, marketing where both sides hype up the "brand-values" of their sides and vilify the other side; but at the end of the day, the owners in the box seats at the top of the arena have the same values; and the fans/citizens though may spit and belittle each other in the spirit of factional rivalary, surprisingly have so much in common with each other as jersey-wearing blue collar tailgating fans - than the NFL owners in their suites and boardrooms. And this notion of simultaneously gives me both great cynicism and hope for the state of America.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

aylmao 3y ago

This isn't new, right? I've heard it's especially prevalent for management positions, both because the severance would be higher, and because it's "better for office politics" to slowly push someone out, or have the official story be that they left, than to fire someone with power and followers.

pylua 3y ago

You don’t hear about companies innovating anymore — you just hear about them screwing over workers and customers.

chung8123 3y ago
I think LLMs are pretty innovated. The new Mac chips seem pretty innovated. Nvidia's H100 are so innovated they cannot keep them stocked. Companies are innovating all the time. Maybe it is because we are too focused on doom and gloom in the news.
- pylua 3y ago
  That is true, but it does seem like the innovation is coming from a small number of companies while most other companies are relentlessly trying to cut costs at the expense of the customer and employee. Maybe the news is biased towards these types of articles. I do think this type of negativity goes against the positive mindset you need to start a company .