Comment

Comment on Business execs just said the quiet part out loud on RTO mandates — A quarter admit forcing staff back into the office was meant to make them quit

WoahWoah@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

RTO is becoming more widespread, WFH positions are becoming more rare and competition for them is dramatically increasing due to the increase in RTO. Additionally, RTO is a cheap and easy way get rid of employees. If you look, you’ll often see the same positions offered as WFH with less pay and less total positions. Because competition is so fierce for WFH, companies are generally able to cheaply reduce their workforce, attract high-quality talent, and reduce labor costs.

WFH is fully a tool to manipulate and manage workforce expenditures at this point. People will literally quit a job out of a RTO mandate because they’ve decided they’re never going to work in an office again, and then they face the cold reality that many, many people are trying to do the same thing. If they’re lucky, the end up with a worse position and/or worse pay with WFH, which inevitably only buys them time until RTO happens for the new position as well. That’s not true for everyone bailing because of a RTO mandate – some get extremely lucky and end up in something better – but it’s the case for most people. And this cycle of WFH-RTO-decrease pay for same WFH position-RTO cycle will only increase in prevalence.

Part of the problem is, again, competition for WFH positions. People also tend to overestimate their unique value and contribution to a company. Unfortunately, most people are able to be adequately replaced fairly easily. Very often, as I noted, they’re replaced with a higher-skill worker who takes less pay. There are no shortage of workers aggressively seeking WFH jobs.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Wooki@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
This type of policy has absolutely created the quiet quitters.

Not smart medium-long term strategy.

source
- kralk@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  Yeah but look how much we reduced costs this quarter!
  
  source
Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
The underlying issue is really just that these companies are banking on desperate workers always being available, and that productive workers will continue to expand the company’s capabilities. And that is not the case, in the long run.

Within the next 1-2 years we will see the pendulum swing back as more Boomers exit the workforce, and more young workers find their apathetic reactions to Corporate behavior normalized.

In other words, Management makes these decisions because they, themselves, usually have plans to move on to the next parasitic host within 1-2 years, leaving behind the mess of their decisions.

source
- WoahWoah@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  Perhaps. Were I you, I wouldn’t be so confident that this are going to work out just the way you’d like them to. But, I’m not, so carry on – and good luck.
  
  source
NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
Time to negotiate a high severance in your job offer if they change their minds and make you return to office or quit.

source
- WoahWoah@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  Yes for sure. Be prepared for a “no,” or even to have the offer withdrawn if competition is particularly robust, but getting as much into pre-hire contract language is absolutely a good idea.
  
  source
Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

Many people are willing to accept lower pay for a remote role, making it a highly effective tool for companies to leverage against workers.

Interesting way to look at things. You could then look at it like this: Allowing people to work from home was essentially a raise. And now they are rescinding it.

source
- WoahWoah@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  Sure, you can frame it however you want, but the reality is that companies are using people’s attachment to WFH as a tool to cut costs and churn out employees more cheaply. By pushing return-to-office mandates, they’re nudging people to leave without having to call it a pay cut or layoff—it’s a workaround that makes it easier for them to replace folks with new hires who’ll take the conditions they’re setting.
  
  Whether you want to call it a “rescinded raise” or not doesn’t change the fact that this tactic is all about control and cutting down labor costs. And unlike an actual rescinded raise, there aren’t as many laws and rules about notification, etc. So it’s fine to think of it that way as long as you don’t convince yourself RTO has the same provisions required of a pay cut, which is why it’s being used in the ways I described previously.
  
  source