3 ms·

A lot of these companies over hired the past 3 years in a mini arms/labor race. People were hopping jobs and getting 25%+ increases in comp. No one could hire

by ProAm 3y ago

A lot of these companies over hired the past 3 years in a mini arms/labor race. People were hopping jobs and getting 25%+ increases in comp. No one could hire fast enough or enough people. But now that the economy is cooling, there isnt any free money, and some of the labor hired isn't doing work to the level they are being paid at, companies are looking for ways to trim fat. This is an easy way to do it. Everyone that moved, or that the company feels is being lazy, or not contributing to the level they want will be the first to go. Im not arguing the validity of their thoughts and if remote work is good or bad, or etc.... It's just an easy way to save a lot of money, and keep better tabs on your workforce.

mvncleaninst 3y ago
You're making two assumptions that stick out to me: - job hoppers perform worse (as opposed to better) than people who stay put - layoffs are based on contribution level Two things that if believed in aggregate will make it easier for companies to short and manipulate employees into overworking and staying. I don't buy it personally
- ProAm 3y ago
  Not all job hoppers, Im saying we just went through a period of time where companies were hiring as fast as they could and the salaries were high because of the arms race, our of proportion to what they normally were for the given experience level. Many of the job hoppers were not at the skill level they should have been, but what does it matter a person stays around for a year or less to take another 25% increase and move down the road. Not all layoffs are based on contribution level, but once a company realized they have over hired, and are paying more than they should it is very easy to start chopping heads. And an easy legal way to do it is to force an in-office schedule. I dont think they care if they over work or not, I think they want the comp expenditure back, and want to be able to keep their thumb more closely on 'productivity'

by ProAm 3y ago

mvncleaninst 3y ago

You're making two assumptions that stick out to me: - job hoppers perform worse (as opposed to better) than people who stay put - layoffs are based on contribution level Two things that if believed in aggregate will make it easier for companies to short and manipulate employees into overworking and staying. I don't buy it personally

ProAm 3y ago
Not all job hoppers, Im saying we just went through a period of time where companies were hiring as fast as they could and the salaries were high because of the arms race, our of proportion to what they normally were for the given experience level. Many of the job hoppers were not at the skill level they should have been, but what does it matter a person stays around for a year or less to take another 25% increase and move down the road. Not all layoffs are based on contribution level, but once a company realized they have over hired, and are paying more than they should it is very easy to start chopping heads. And an easy legal way to do it is to force an in-office schedule. I dont think they care if they over work or not, I think they want the comp expenditure back, and want to be able to keep their thumb more closely on 'productivity'