One of my past employers tried to give laid off employees a dignified send offs including not immediately revoking their access.

The number of people who snap and make rash decisions to try to exfiltrate data, plant backdoor logins for themselves, or sabotage company work in those hours was a much larger number than I would have guessed prior to seeing it.

▲

jimkleiber 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Maybe the solution is to not do mass layoffs. Not sure there's a dignified way to let go of many humans at the same time with almost no reason for why they're being let go except maybe a vague profitability scorecard.

And also to expect and manage people snapping and giving them an off-ramp, financially but emotionally as well and maybe professionally, too. Why not try to help them find other jobs?

Companies don't just provide money, they provide people with meaning, routine, social circle, and so much, and layoffs cut all of those immediately.

▲

Aurornis 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Maybe the solution is to not do mass layoffs. Not sure there's a dignified way to let go of many humans at the same time

The number of people included in a single layoff wasn't a factor.

The people who snapped treated it as a personal affront and wanted revenge on the company. If anything, being laid off in a large group made it feel less personal to people. The people who felt unfairly singled out were the angriest. If an entire satellite office was closed or a department was laid off together they didn't take it as personally.

	▲	jimkleiber 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah that makes sense to me and I appreciate you saying it. If the whole team gets laid off, it's we all go down with the ship. But if one person gets laid off on a team, I think it can create intense dynamics. Like why them specifically? It wasn't about the department, it was about them. I can see why they'd take it personally and why the survivor guilt might be stronger on that team as well.

▲

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

> Companies don't just provide money, they provide people with meaning, routine, social circle, and so much, and layoffs cut all of those immediately.

I think that in a way, to really learn why you shouldn't depend on your company for your social circle, it sort of requires being laid off (not really, but kind of; some sudden permanent intervention in your work-life). I consider it a blessing in disguise that I realized this early, even if it meant a job loss. People who get comfy in marriages or long-term jobs or buy a house early on tend to spend their resources in the obvious optimal efficient ways, which is to make their friends at work or through their partner or literally right next door to their house. But those are not generally or reliably resilient to significant change. Proximity will always be important, but if your friends need to be literally where you work every day or over the fence, you are isolated and socially vulnerable. If you leave the job or move, it's now dramatically more expensive for both parties to encounter each other, and it's best to incur that expense intentionally before you end up needing to.

▲

HeyLaughingBoy 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah, but of that list, the only thing I want my employer to provide me is the money. The rest I can do on my own.

▲

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

I have seen that too. People on the way out trying to get access to production systems. Layoffs suck, but the business needs to protect itself from those who are departing. The company used to have more lax separation procedures but after that incident everything got locked down.

▲

jp0d 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I've been through two restructures and both times I'd full access to everything for a month until my position was being decided. There thousand plus employees affected and not a single one did anything like what you've described. I'm Australian if that helps.

▲

turtlesdown11 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah, I'm confident that didn't happen