I don't know. Pre-pandemic, when doing mass layoffs, it wasn't unusual for a company to hold a giant update meeting and let everyone know they're shutting down the division and that everyone's been laid off.

How is this different?

▲

happytoexplain an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Shutting down is a subset of reasons for mass layoffs. They are not equivalent.

Disregarding that, it's not very different. What is the implication you're making? That it's good because it's common?

	▲	BeetleB 36 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Shutting down is a subset of reasons for mass layoffs. Not shutting down the company, but shutting down a division. The reasons are almost always the same. > Disregarding that, it's not very different. What is the implication you're making? That it's good because it's common? Having been at a company that had several rounds of layoffs over several years, I can assure you there's no way to do a layoff were people won't complain (and the complaints can be quite petty). In the last round, it was the manager scheduling calls to let people know. He scheduled them over two days (not enough hours in the day to do everyone). We're all in a team meeting (without the manager), and random people are just piping up "Oh wow. I just got a meeting request." Each of them knew they were getting laid off just by the mere fact of getting a calendar invite. So they have to spend the rest of the day waiting to formally hear what they already know when their time comes. I dunno. Not saying it's worse than what this CEO did, but I can't see it being better either.

▲

Quekid5 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

It might surprise you to learn that that would also be considered a dick move.

	▲	BeetleB 33 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		As I alluded to elsewhere, I've yet to see a layoff where there's no one who doesn't consider how it was done "a dick move." Your preferred way of doing a layoff will be someone else's "dick move" judgement.