• ryathal@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s a balancing act though. A lot of top talent is going to leave either way, so over focusing on them hurts everyone else. Mandatory return to office was a lot more costly than most companies hoped for though. It was essentially a lay-off, but it left companies with pretty much only the bad employees compared to a more traditional approach.

    • ParanoiaComplex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      Problem is that post-pandemic market is ripe for a layoff. Companies purposely over-hired during the pandemic and then in the past couple years the layoffs achieved 2 things: 1) Thin the staff to show shareholders a higher short term profit in an age where they cant get cheap loans and show they’re undertaking new risky ventures (interest rate is high from the fight against inflation), and 2) They can use the layoffs to undermine the leverage of employees to create a “hard pull” back to office policy. It makes laying off people much easier when they “volunteer”

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        The problem with the hard pull is that the employees that had options left. Those are generally the better employees.

        • Ragnarok314159
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 months ago

          What happened at my last job. The absolute moron head of HR told the engineers with 5-20 years experience how “we are all lucky to have jobs, and we would be flipping burgers at McDonalds if it were not for him”.

          Most of us left, he didn’t even give us counter offer and said how we will all be begging him for our jobs back. He was dismissed by the Japanese management a few months later and told to never return.