The leadership will wait to see how many people walk out due to RTO and other issues before they pull the trigger again. It's cheaper to find a way to get folks to leave than have to pay them to get them out.
6 replies (most recent on top)
@aj If you work for them just search people search and see how many contractors there are. All I am willing to say is the contractors came in were trained on work and people were let go on multiple teams after bringing them in. cheaper to pay 6 dollars and hour than 20 i guess
@hc They replacing people with contractors from other countries. A lot of people recently lost their jobs after contractors joined their teams
@tt They are replacing most employees with contractor employees from another country. If you aren't in office touching mail, paperwork and so on your job isn't safe sadly.
"""Why would any organization risk losing good people over something so arbitrary?"""
.... Because they're id--ts....
Several threads and posters refer to this idea that RTO is a way to reduce headcount without the cost and hassle of layoffs. Maybe it’s me, BUT….
Why would any organization risk losing good people over something so arbitrary?
Why would leadership actively seek a way to make people want to leave the company?
They can’t control who leaves, they can’t control how many leave, and replacing good people (assuming good people are among those who leave) takes forever, not to mention the cost of recruiting and training and getting a new employee up the curve.
This notion of “getting people to leave instead of layoffs” is too arbitrary to make sense for me. It has nothing to do with performance, production, culture-carrying, leadership, or anything else you bring into a decision on reducing your workforce.
I dunno, just escaping me. No insults please; I just don’t see the logic of “RTO vs layoff” if it’s true.
How many layoffs were there and/or what departments?