Submitted 10 months ago by neme@lemm.ee to workreform@lemmy.world
My company asked us to return to the office. We have like 4 developers, with a minimum experience of 15 years. We work in an unpopular language, in a niche market, in a technologically dead area of the country. And the pay is shit.
I pointed this out in detail. We were no longer asked to return to the office.
That’s dumb. You get the capable people to quit first that way.
Yes, but those are the ones that get paid more. So you get rid of a big financial drain, and then you can hire cheaper people and dump more work onto them.
It works great, unfortunately.
Remember, the C-Suites of today don’t give two fucks about the company they’re ‘running’. They want line to go up so their pay goes up, and so they can use line-go-up to golden parachute to the next company where they repeat the process.
100%
The people least loyal to the company are at the top.
Right, but you are under the impression that companies want to keep those. My personal experience is that they just don’t give a fuck. At. All.
Yea this is definitely the case cause companies still make money even while enshittifying
If execs want to reduce workforce size they should offer voluntary layoffs. Ya know, unless they’re scared of too many people leaving or something
If they lay off employees, they have to pay severance and/or unemployment. If the employees quit due to unreasonable mandates, they can be fired with “cause”.
They’ve been mass laying off people regardless. May as well give people the chance to leave on good terms.
Voluntary layoffs - probably the best form of layoffs if you ask me - still come with severance packages that have to be paid. Very few people will be interested in quitting just because you ask them, but a good many will do it if you sweeten the deal.
Basically we have 3 variants here:
Regular layoffs - have to pay severance + can select who leaves RTO stealth layoffs - don’t have to pay severance + can’t select who leaves Voluntary layoffs - have to pay severance + can’t select who leaves
Any morally bankrupt business would of course want a fourth variant where they get to select who leaves and don’t have to pay severance, but thankfully this option is generally not available to them.
Anyway, voluntary layoffs are the best out of a selection of bad choices for the workers, but come with the most downsides for the morally bankrupt business.
They also want to get rid of long-time, well paid staff to hire replacements for way less.
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.
This type of policy has absolutely created the quiet quitters.
Not smart medium-long term strategy.
Yeah but look how much we reduced costs this quarter!
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.
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.
Time to negotiate a high severance in your job offer if they change their minds and make you return to office or quit.
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.
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.
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.
Is it different if they fire you for not returning to work?
If they wanted to shed a chunk of workforce they’d be on the hook for a period of notice as well as some compensation, and the employees would be able to file for unemployment insurance once let go. If the employee quits because they refuse to come back to the office then the company is free of those obligations.
Depends on the individual curcumstances.
Not a lawyer, but have had way to many trainings on unemployment law over the years.
Circumstance 1: An employee moved further away from the office and can no longer feesibly make the commute to the office. Back to office mandates would be a change in the primary work location. The employee would qualify unemployment even if they “quit”. This is the same for people who started remotely.
Circumstance 2: The employee became the primary caregiver of children or a relative due to the flexibility allowed in working from home. A back to the office mandate would not allow them to continue this. The employee can argue for unemployment due to a change in the required work schedule (my wife successfully did this back in 2010).
Circumstance 3: This one is a bit harder. The employee has performed their job superbly from home. They clearly and openly (preferably in writing) have stated they will not work in the office. The company has a back to the office mandate and then fires the employee for not showing up. The employee can argue this was a creative firing and the employer is on the hook for unemployment. The employee must have evidence that managers were aware of their unwillingness to work from the office prior to the mandate.
I figured it was strictly about the control aspect of things, but this makes sense too. suppose it could always just be about both as well.
Umm, doest that fall into the realm of constructive dismissal?
Yes, but that’s not specifically illegal in the US.
It just means you could claim EI.
mesamunefire@lemmy.world 10 months ago
It only works once…so what’s their plan now?
jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
Corporate execs these days are not exactly known for their long term thinking. Doesn’t matter if the doors are flying off your airplanes tomorrow as long as the stock price goes up today.
Takumidesh@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Ease on the rto rules until people are comfy and yank the chain again. Rinse and repeat every 5 years and you can continuously flush out the seniors for freshly graduated blood.
eltrain123@lemmy.world 10 months ago
GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 10 months ago
Only has to work once, you pocket the savings on severance packages one time and then go back to regular layoffs.
Dystopian as all hell, but such is the corporate world.
Evotech@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Just had to work once, next time they’ll cook up some other thing
Badeendje@lemmy.world 10 months ago
A 12 o clock punch in the nuts daily