Thread regarding 3M layoffs

Quiet Cutting

Companies are now "quiet cutting" workers. Here's what that means.

Some companies are reassigning workers in a way that's sending them mixed messages. Emails informing employees that their current job role has been eliminated, but they have not been fired, are leaving those staff members with feelings of confusion, fear and anger.

Dubbed "quiet cutting," this latest outgrowth of the "quiet quitting" movement, effectively allows companies to cut jobs and trim costs without actually laying off workers.

The strategy is gaining traction as a restructuring move: Companies including Adidas, Adobe, IBM and Salesforce are among employers that have restructured its workforces in this way over the past year.

Financial research platform AlphaSense found that, over the last year, such reassignments have more than tripled.

Lower status, lower pay

"Quiet cutting" taps into workers' fears of layoffs at their company, amid a weakening job market. While reassigned workers remain employed, the reassignments often land them in roles with titles that are less prestigious, come with lower pay, and are more demanding.

"They recounted getting a phone call or an email from a manager basically telling them your job has been reassigned and you will be doing this from now on, and basically take it or leave," careers reporter with the Wall Street Journal, Ray Smith, who first reported on the trend, told CBS News.

According to Smith, some individuals initially felt relieved they weren't being axed.

"But on the other side, they were angry or confused, and they felt the new job they had was either lower status or lower pay or more responsibilities, or something that they didn't even have experience in," Smith said. "And so they were really angry at the companies about this."

Smith spoke to some workers who said the backhanded demotions took a toll on their mental health.

"Their identity is tied up with their titles and the work that they do — and if you're suddenly being told do something else, especially if it's a demotion ... it can send you spiraling and wondering, 'What is the message that the company is sending to me?”

"Passive-aggressive" termination?

Quietly cut workers also feared their employers were trying to force them into roles in which they would be so miserable, they would eventually quit, according to Smith.

"It's sort of like pushing you into this corner and saying if you don't take it, you have to leave," Smith said, adding that "No company will say 'we're quietly cutting people.'"

"It is sort of a reduction in workforce, almost in a passive-aggressive way," he said.

"The bottom line is, if someone who refuses a reassignment or eventually leaves after not liking the reassignment — once they leave, the company doesn't have to pay thousands of dollars in severance costs. So it actually saves them in costs," said Smith.

by
| 2502 views | | 9 replies (last September 2, 2023) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1omzSbbm

9 replies (most recent on top)

"Quiet Quitting" and "Quiet Cutting" are just recent buzz words.

I can see quiet quitting (individuals just doing the minimum to get by) being widespread but to implement quiet cutting would require corporate level planning. Essentially this would mean significant planning and foresight from HR down to your direct supervisor to reassign new jobs /tasks catered for each individual that would by definition "force the employee to quit on their own through overwork and misery."

This could happen at a specific job or individual level (mostly higher up positions) but for a company to depend on this sort of cost cutting strategy across the board is not feasible. There is no guarantee this strategy will work and furthermore there is no time horizon when it comes to when targeted jobs/employees will eventually depart on their own. While the company waits I guess they continue to pay out salary and benefits? Sounds more retrogressive versus just standard layoffs and severance in which time and costs can be fully controlled.

If the company really wants to save on severance costs they should bring everyone back to the office and eliminate Work your way.

I am pretty certain many current employees will gladly leave on their own. Obviously the leadership team would also be shooting themselves in the foot as they would also lose WYW benefit but more unsettling is the potential mass exodus of employees leaving the company to a point where the organization is no longer able to operate.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @3kmx+1omzSbbm

Get fired. Sue for loss wages. Simple.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1tar+1omzSbbm

A page from every CEO’s handbook. No conscience.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @son+1omzSbbm

They do it in other ways too. Such as give you projects to do that either aren’t a real priority or aren’t funded so you can’t complete them. And then hold it over your head at the end of the year for not completing them!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bqm+1omzSbbm

@wfv+1omzSbbm

Reading instead of chin wagging you would have identified ‘CBS News’ as the source.

If you were given $1 million check, you probably would complain that you had to go all the way to the bank to cash it.

Sit down.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bhu+1omzSbbm

Happened many cases in 3M especially to those higher ranked as they are usually held hostage. They have no choice as they cannot get a better pay package outside

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ecr+1omzSbbm

This is nothing new. 3M - at least in the US - has been doing it for decades. Most recently it came in the form of A3M.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @uhc+1omzSbbm

Thanks for clipping that from the Wall Street journal and posting it as your own

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @wfv+1omzSbbm

There is absolutely nothing an American business does to employees these days that surprises me. It is a disgusting way to treat people, but papa needs a new yacht.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ija+1omzSbbm

Post a reply

: