What is the alternative? Have 30,000 meetings? How long will that take?

steve_adams_86 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

A great alternative would be operating a company correctly so you don't end up in a situation where you need to cut 30k jobs at once with no notice. That's a bizarre thing that's becoming practically normalized in the USA tech industry.

▲

DebtDeflation a day ago | parent | next [-]

Agree. People understand and accept firing for performance issues. People understand and accept layoffs when they're a rare event needed to save the company from bankruptcy. What's not understandable or acceptable to most is the current trend of companies doing annual or even quarterly layoffs as an ongoing way to manage earnings.

▲

IshKebab 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The realistic alternative is to regularly cut a smaller number of people, which is awful for morale.

▲

steve_adams_86 3 days ago | parent [-]

Does it have to be awful for morale if the reasoning is clear and compassionate? People understand that shit happens.

And I don't mean this in a mean or evil way, but (of course there's a but) I wonder if this would motivate people to work more effectively as well. My organization has had cuts lately, but it hasn't in a decade. It has been transformative. People are reminded that their jobs depend on them showing up and being valuable.

I don't want people to be scared for their jobs. Perhaps this cycle creates false security, though. There must be a balance in here somewhere.

	▲	nedt 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		People tend to be bad in estimating the performance of others and are almost always bad in estimating their own performance. So you end up with people asking themself why it wasn't them and if they will be next. And management can't tell you you are safe, because it might change - and if they promise they can only do that once.

▲

Barbing 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Can you imagine a company spending a long time on meetings?!

▲

zerr 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

6+ months' notice with a severance package equal to at least an annual salary.

▲

dpark 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Why would you give someone 6 months notice? What good is that for the employee? Especially if the severance is generous.

“Hey, we’re going to fire you in 6 months. Just a heads up.”

Nah. Give me the year of salary and send me home today. Better for the employee and for the company than pointlessly dragging it out. Again, this is assuming generous severance.

▲

zerr 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Job hunting takes time. Also, they won't be deported in 30 days, along with their families.

▲

dpark 3 days ago | parent [-]

I can do a lot of job hunting with a year of severance.

Valid point about employees on visas though.

▲

HomeDeLaPot 3 days ago | parent [-]

Maybe they could be kept on the payroll without access to actually work.

But the real problem is any law that would deport someone 30 days after they were laid off, even if they had been working for years. That should be 6 months minimum.

	▲	dpark 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Keeping them on the payroll also enables companies to easily manage and extend medical insurance. I’m pretty sure that what you propose is what a lot of companies actually do, too. They keep them on the payroll for the duration of their severance but do not expect them to actually work. Agree that no one should be getting deported on 30 days because they got laid off.

▲

bombcar 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

A "performance improvement plan" is almost always a 6-month/1 year warning that you're going to get fired/laid off.

It's common in some companies.

▲

HomeDeLaPot 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Giving any kind of notice about layoffs while expecting employees to continue working is just bad for everyone.

The employees stress out about whether they're going to be impacted. Nobody gets much work done as they update their resumes and prepare for the worst. The best people start looking for other opportunities and find them. If specific employees are told they're going to be laid off, some seek revenge.

Much better to immediately notify those impacted, revoke their access, give them generous severance instead of expecting them to work, and let everyone else know they're safe.

	▲	zerr 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		You immediately notify to the affected persons with the given notice period. This is how it's done in civilized countries.

▲

emmp 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

6 months notice + 12 months salary, which is what you are proposing, seems strictly worse to me than just 18 months salary and no notice.

▲

mitthrowaway2 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Were those people not already having regular 1-on-1 meetings with a manager?

	▲	lateforwork 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		In many cases the manager is among those laid off. In fact some VPs and their entire org have been laid off.