undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjohnnyanmac6mo ago0 comments

We should know by now that all these RTO initiatives are not grounded in any reasonable logistics nor financial reasoning. Right now all of tech is in cut mode, and RTO's are a great way to do layoffs without calling them layoffs. Note that when Google got "too many" people RTO'ing, they did layoffs anyway.

If your office does try to make things stricter, it's another layoff attempt. I don't think it will work, because at this point we're in a "sticky" job market; those out of work are facing some of the stiffest markets in decades, those in work are holding on for deal life.

0 comments

aeternum6mo ago

This theory is often-quoted but doesn't make much sense. Big tech including Microsoft already did multiple rounds of layoffs. Why not just do another round?

yallpendantools6mo ago

If you quit (because of, say, RTO) then you quit. It's a fairly standard deal between you and your employer.

If you get laid-off, employer has to give you a severance package for any number of reasons (local labor laws, agreement with the union, corporate PR). This is not a standard deal and is, simply put, more expensive than if the employee just quit of their own accord.

In both cases, employer gets the benefit of reduced head count.

itake6mo ago

Yes… but they are asking why now? Why did Microsoft start with traditional layoffs and then transition into RTO layoffs years later?

3 more replies

throwaway20376mo ago

    > If you get laid-off, employer has to give you a severance package for any number of reasons (local labor laws, agreement with the union, corporate PR). This is not a standard deal and is, simply put, more expensive than if the employee just quit of their own accord.

I don't think this is true in the US. And severance packages are cheaper than you think. Most people only get a couple of months of pay.

aeternum6mo ago

Pretty much every big tech company was still providing severance for those who decline RTO.

Maybe they don't have to but there's sufficient murkiness that it's probably cheaper to just give the severance than go to court.

1 more reply

scarface_746mo ago

There are absolutely no labor laws in the US where an employer has to give severance.

hylaride6mo ago

But you tend to lose your most capable employees when you create a bad/undesirable/etc work environment. I think people are attributing malice where the intent is merely...not incompetence, but it's what everybody else is doing. People forget that business goes through fashionable phases just like everything else. Microsoft fell victim to idiotic trends (stack-ranking, AI, etc) just like everybody else has.

dghlsakjg6mo ago

Layoffs are expensive and destroy morale of those that remain (to say nothing of those that have to leave). When people suspect layoffs are coming, all work comes to a screeching halt around the event.

Getting people to quit is much cheaper (no severance if that exists, and your unemployment insurance costs don't go up).

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

aeternum6mo ago

This theory is often-quoted but doesn't make much sense. Big tech including Microsoft already did multiple rounds of layoffs. Why not just do another round?

yallpendantools6mo ago

If you quit (because of, say, RTO) then you quit. It's a fairly standard deal between you and your employer.

In both cases, employer gets the benefit of reduced head count.

itake6mo ago

Yes… but they are asking why now? Why did Microsoft start with traditional layoffs and then transition into RTO layoffs years later?

3 more replies

throwaway20376mo ago

    > If you get laid-off, employer has to give you a severance package for any number of reasons (local labor laws, agreement with the union, corporate PR). This is not a standard deal and is, simply put, more expensive than if the employee just quit of their own accord.

I don't think this is true in the US. And severance packages are cheaper than you think. Most people only get a couple of months of pay.

aeternum6mo ago

Pretty much every big tech company was still providing severance for those who decline RTO.

Maybe they don't have to but there's sufficient murkiness that it's probably cheaper to just give the severance than go to court.

1 more reply

scarface_746mo ago

There are absolutely no labor laws in the US where an employer has to give severance.

hylaride6mo ago

dghlsakjg6mo ago

Getting people to quit is much cheaper (no severance if that exists, and your unemployment insurance costs don't go up).

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse