3 ms·

You keep talking about collusion. Do you have any supporting data to back this up?

• bugglebeetle 3y ago
  Every FAANG simultaneously decided they needed to layoff roughly the same percentage of workers, and even more through return to office, with no justification or demonstrated impact on profits, productivity etc, they share large investors, and oh, yes, they all got busted for colluding in the past? It’s all pretty much out there in the open.
  • IX-103 3y ago
    Not to mention they're immediately hiring to replace those workers that they laid off. The management is either incompetent or they're trying to depress wages. They openly admit they're trying to achieve "durable savings" which seems like it may be an MBA code word for depressing wages.
• soupfordummies 3y ago
  What if it’s not a decision made in a smoky back room behind closed doors but rather monkey-see-monkey-do/“hey we can get away with it”? Definitely is weird to say the least. Even small companies often have HUGE investment firms behind them of course.
• thrway63245 3y ago
  This is exactly what you would have said the last time there was proven collusion. It takes a while for the proof to come out, but as the sibling comment says: it's awfully convenient that all the RTO policies and layoff ratios are in alignment.
• alexashka 3y ago
  Collusion is the default human condition. It is absence of collusion that has to be proven. Or are we assuming governments around the world are effectively preventing collusion of multi-national corporations? Now that would require incredible proof.
• braelen7 3y ago
  [flagged]