So employees are also not "quiet quiting" but "optimizing effort/reward strategies".
Nobody is "working somewhere else" but just "geographically re-engaging opportunities".
this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2024
359 points (98.4% liked)
Technology
59091 readers
4107 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 had a (wonderful) colleague who would call a big fuck up an "opportunity for excellence".
I like that better than "resume generating event"
I’ve always heard that “they’re pursuing other opportunities.”
They're actually violating laws. They want to layoff but that would involve giving severance and pay for unemployment benefits. They want to freeload off of tech worker productivity while not compensating fairly.
This is exactly it. Corporate weasels trying to weasel.
Not if they’re in the US. There are no state or federal laws mandating severance.
My favorite is "transformation", like the company is a fucking caterpillar turning into a butterfly just by shedding more employees.
Bruh my company did this months before layoffs. They even sent out origami paper with instructions to make butterflies. What a crock of shit.
Yeah, I have experienced the magic of the "transformation".
So they've hired too much people and now they need to let them go. Why doesn't this have consequences for the people hiring in the first place? It is your responsibility to adapt to market changes but when you mess up, your head is not on the line?
If you fuck up at work you get fired. If your work fucks up, you get fired. How is that fair?
Because over hiring is not a fireable offense and it wouldn't make sense that it would be? Say you have a manager of 10 programmers and company sales projections day you're getting 20% more business that year, so you get approved to hire 2 new programmers. Turns out you only increase by 10% and more there's nothing for 1 new programmer to do.
Do you fire the hiring manager? They were just going by the corporate plan and moreover you still need a manager. You still need sales guys. The only one not doing anything is the programmer. Doesn't have to be the new person fired but the worst programmer needs to be moved somewhere where they're needed, or fired.
I am not saying you fire some hiring manager but I'm saying fire who is responsible for hiring more people than you need. Clearly someone is not doing their job properly or you wouldn't get these mass firings.
Weak labor laws? Where I live after 3 months (with some exceptions) they can't just fire you. They pretty much have to prove you're incapable of working or that the position will no longer exist (which in this scenario is probably not even possible) or have a collective layoff with some serious benefits for the laid off workers. I've seen some companies try to kinda coerce people into quitting to get around the laws (because they're so much pain in the ass for shitty companies), but at that point you just have to stick to your rights and tell them to get fucked because they can't do shit.
Because it's not true. It feels believable, but it's a lie. Everyone, especially at the top, know this so no one is punished.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Perhaps you were a casualty of “corporate outplacing,” the unfortunate, yet ostensibly necessary result of your company “rightsizing.” Managers are running out of ways to say you no longer have a job.
The way the bad news is delivered is more important than ever, as companies fear being canceled on social media after a poorly executed final conversation.
Harvard Business School professor Sandra Sucher said that delicate language is the result of “moral disengagement,” a harm-doer’s effort to rationalize and soften the action for themselves.
“The fact that you’re calling it downsizing or an org change — which it very well probably is — doesn’t mean that workers are not going to feel something as a result of what you’re doing,” said Sucher.
In early December, Spotify Technology SA opted for the term “right-sized” in its letter announcing job cuts.
The general shift away from the word “firing” is likely because of the stigma associated with it, according to Wayne Cascio, a professor at CU Denver Business School.
The original article contains 589 words, the summary contains 164 words. Saved 72%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Imagine if companies quit with the bs fluff talk and just told it like is. I think it might be easier to take their shit if they just told you things straight up.
A recent example of this is the skiff email they sent out to everyone. Six paragraphs of time wasting fluff that the end user doesn't give a damn about. They could have simply said something along the lines of "We have sold our company to notion and will be sunsetting our products in 6 months. This means you will need to find another email provider within that time.".
@L4s "Embracing Global Diversity" is a euphemism for laying off local and outsourcing abroad to the lowest bidder