I'm not sure why so many companies are obsessed with getting their employees back to the office, not needing to have everyone within a 1 hour radius of your offices opens a lot of doors when it comes to recruitment while not affecting performance.
this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2023
2 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
57997 readers
5314 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I'd speculate some combination of control over employees (poor management practices, etc) and making use of owned land/offices that are difficult to sell otherwise. Not much else makes sense to me, especially for tech companies where nearly the entire job exists in virtual space of some kind - no wrenches to turn.
Edit: Someone else suggested a way to "lay off" folks by having them voluntarily leave the job to avoid the return to office. That also sounds pretty plausible to me with the extent to which companies are starting to squeeze with what feels like an incoming recession period.
Using it as a way to reduce your workforce is so short sighted. The top performers are the ones most capable of getting a new job and most willing to leave over the issue. Instead of it being a calculated set of layoffs in specific areas of the company it’ll just be all the good employees leaving.
Pretty bad optics when your company depends on enabling collaboration in virtual settings.
This is what is referred to as a "backdoor" or "quite" layoff.
They know there are people who either can't come in or who will refuse to come in. By getting people to trim themselves from their books, they get to cut costs without actually having to do layoffs.
This is the first step of modern cost cutting. Next we will hear about other cost cutting measures, and then eventually layoffs.
I never understood this tactic. Why demoralize your whole workforce for months until enough motivated and talented people leave that you don't have to fire anyone. The useless ones are never the first ones to leave, especially if they don't have any talents to sell to other companies. Also people don't leave immediately after it turns bad, it usually takes months for them to be demoralized enough and find new arrangements.
By that time wouldn't it be smarter to eat the cost of firing people from the start, get rid of the fat, pay the severance and move on with those that can still lead you to success? I'm convinced the moral hit would be a lot less this way and the bounce back would be faster.
It makes the short term numbers look good. They just want to produce a spreadsheet that tells Wall Street that they cut $x million in labour costs, and don't really care how that affects the long term health of the company.
Besides, when a corporation becomes a certain size, they don't invest in innovation any more, they just buy a start-up that did something innovative, integrate it into their existing product and then repeat the cycle.
Capitalism is trending more and more into short term thinking, because Wall Street realised that capital can be moved at the press of a button. When a corporation is sucked dry, you load it with debt, sell your stock to retail investors, pension funds and/or the government and move on to the next opportunity.
That is indeed bizarre. They're saying "zoom is no longer required"
They rather say "we don't solve the problem"
Leading by watching asses in seats.