My prediction is that this strategy will work out better for the companies than the article expects. Why? Because firms are actually often absolutely lousy at recognising which of their employees are high performers in the first place.

▲

3eb7988a1663 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It is a tough job market. Minus the very top echelon of talent, switching jobs today is a lot more challenging than in the past. Management knows this and can shave a few pennies off the books by capitalizing on this moment.

▲

bdangubic 2 hours ago | parent [-]

it is management that is successfully convincing people that it is a tough job market - it is not - it is same as before. I am a contractor, have more work offered than I can take (same as before, maybe even slightly more). four friends/former colleagues got new jobs since the beginning of December, each had multiple offers and got decent to significant pay increases compared to previous positions.

	▲	lovich 3 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		If we’re doing anecdata I haven’t been able to get w-2 work in over a year and have been taking sporadic contract work. I’m several hundred applications in and have hired a recruitment firm to help me find positions. Multiple companies where I referred by friends of mine declined to even phone screen and then those respective friends reported that the position was closed and they were given zero info as to what was happening.
	▲	rythmshifter an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		14 months can’t find IT ops remote work

▲

catsquirrel28 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Maybe that's because most jobs are Graberesque bullshit jobs where "high performance" is meaningless.

Most jobs shouldn't exist at all. The value captured by "firms" should instead be captured by the state and distributed peanut butter style to everyone.