• paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    101
    ·
    3 months ago

    That was probably the intent. It works as a soft layoff. Do something wildly unpopular, knowing that a bunch of employees will quit. The ones left will pick up the slack, because obviously if they had anywhere else to go they would’ve left with the first group.

        • jaybone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          3 months ago

          It costs them more in the long run but those metrics are more difficult to capture and convey, and nobody would care anyway.

          • Ænima@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            The wealthy in this world are just like my 4yo, they just want instant gratification. No amount of justification or considerations matter when your soul purpose is to get as much as possible while you can and fuck everyone else! The race to the bottom continues!

      • scarabic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Which is why everyone who thinks they’re clever to call this a “soft layoff” is not as clever as they think. Amazon isn’t shy about doing layoffs and dismissing low performers. An unpopular decision like this will frequently eject the most capable employees because they are the ones who can most easily find other work. Meanwhile the dead weight employees stick around because they know they can’t find other arrangements as good. It’s a dumb way to reduce staff, and Amazon aren’t dumb.

        No, I think we take Amazon at their word on this one. They are not just fucking around to try to shake 20% of their workforce loose. They genuinely don’t want to do remote anymore.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Why do you think a company like them would do a soft layoff, instead of just picking the low performers they think they should lay off and just dismissing them? What do they gain by leaving it up to chance and the decisions of employees? It could be a lot more disruptive that way, with no control over who leaves or when. If you’re going to say it’s all to save a buck by not paying severance, I’m not convinced that the lack of control and having to deal with the random effects is remotely worth it.

      • paddirn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        I’ve worked for companies that would leave it up to chance without a second thought. I’ve known people that worked there and Amazon doesn’t seem like it cares about its employees. Does it make sense? No, but there’s alot about corporate America that’s pretty dumb.

        • scarabic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          I don’t suggest Amazon cares about its employees - just the results they produce. But they need their best people in order to produce those results. Culling your staff randomly doesn’t make sense, and I don’t believe that Amazon are simply dumb.