Layoffs are down, but employers are still finding ways to cut jobs

https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/careers/youve-heard-of-quiet-quitting-now-companies-are-quiet-cutting-ba2c326d

by Bostonian • 3 years ago

46 50 3 years ago

Bostonian• 3 years ago

This appears to be a way to avoid paying severance. I'd expect any decent employer would offer employees the choice to leave with appropriate severance if they were going to do this to them.

toss12• 3 years ago

Not only severance but unemployment compensation (which can significantly affect mandatory unemployment insurance costs to the company) can also be avoided by companies if their people quit instead of being laid off.

That is why there is the concept of "Constructive Dismissal" (or other similar terms). If the company is significantly degrading your work conditions, hours, requirements, interactions, responsibilities, etc., for the reason of getting you to quit instead of firing you, there may be an issue.

If you have immediate better employment options, take them without doing your old company any favors. But if you do not, start making detailed contemporaneous logs of what is happening to you (and what happened before) and talk to an attorney specializing in your state's employment law. Do not take it lying down, especially if you don't have immediate better options.

wkat42427• 3 years ago

If you have immediate better employment options, take them without doing your old company any favors.

Not sure about the US but here in Europe that's a very bad idea. If you change jobs willingly you give up your "seniority" meaning if your next job lays you off you will get no severance and also lower unemployment benefits. So caving in you would give up a huge chunk of social security.

If you have a mortgage in particular I wouldn't risk it. I have 15 years seniority right now. Meaning I'd get full pay for more than a year after being laid off. No way would I quit voluntarily.

But this coercion is pretty rare here because unions are strong. They won't put up with that shit.

On an individual level it's probably best to play the same game. They screw you just within the lines, you screw them back just within the lines. But again luckily this skullduggery is rare here.

frumper• 3 years ago

At least in California, if your employer substantially changes your work duties or schedule, then you can very likely collect UI. Your advice to take better employment options is still the best advice though.

lotsofpulp7• 3 years ago

Unless there is a contract with the employee, such as a collective bargaining agreement with a union, there is no legal reason a business has to pay an employee severance in the US.

A business might pay an employee severance for morale purposes, good PR, and/or to entice the employee to sign agreements that reduce the business's future liabilities.

If an employee agrees to quit their job in exchange for severance money, this would result in lower unemployment insurance premiums (i.e. tax liability) for the business because the employee would not be eligible for unemployment benefits from the government. The more unemployment benefits former employees receive, the higher the unemployment insurance premiums for the business.

tpankaj• 3 years ago

There's a difference between legal reasons and decency

gustavus• 3 years ago

My understanding, which could be wrong, is that in a lot of cases severance is offered on condition you won't fight the termination or take legal action.

So it is in part a CYA from the companies side.

mvdtnz3• 3 years ago

Unless there is a contract with the employee, such as a collective bargaining agreement with a union, there is no legal reason a business has to pay an employee severance in the US.

Who on Earth is working without an employment contract?

gmerc• 3 years ago

Old hat in new clothes

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50865211.amp

buggy6257• 3 years ago

So is this one just as much of a media-created nothing burger as Quiet Quitting was? I'm betting yes...

ratsmack• 3 years ago

It seems that media today is all about volume of content, which requires that controversy is created from virtually nothing to justify another pointless article.

willcipriano• 3 years ago

Employees to whom it would be costly to pay severance or months of unemployment benefits might decide to leave on their own if they feel stuck in a job they don’t want, executive coaches say.

The hourly rate these "executive coaches" must charge for this is probably hilarious.

datavirtue• 3 years ago

Head of growth marketing? Sales enablement? My god, your job title should have given you sufficient heads-up.

My advice to new college students is to code whether you like it or not. Work sucks, period. Might as well get paid and have free time and enjoy being in demand.

Those are definitely bullshit jobs.

IMTDb• 3 years ago

Yeah, the dude checks all the red flags. He needs an enabler/management position with "senior" in the title (at 34), and of course we have the combo of remote + baby at home mixed in. When asked to actually sell software himself it "took a hit on his mental health". Not quitting was "a matter of principle". TBH it was a bit more than that; if not at IBM, where else could he have found such an entrenched position ?

bdcravens• 3 years ago

Not that I support it in totality, but that's why I wasn't surprised when Twitter didn't fall over when Elon fired 80% of staff.

gymbeaux2• 3 years ago

People like the gentleman in the article are PART OF THE PROBLEM, because they (and it seems most people) seem to have a certain benevolence towards their employer (and US capitalism) no matter how hard they’re fucked by it. He was reassigned to sales, it took a toll on his mental health, but hey no hard feelings because now he’s in a role he enjoys at IBM. The message to IBM is that they can get away with it and this trend will no doubt continue there and elsewhere in the US.

We could unionize like that, guys, especially the software engineers. Where are your balls?

BigRedDog1669• 3 years ago

Why not do it then rather than shaming others for not doing it?

gymbeaux2• 3 years ago

I don’t have an employer for which to unionize

noname123• 3 years ago

Folks flagged ae_throw's question and got it to be muted (which I found very interesting)... so I'm resurrecting his question from <dead> and answering it anyways:

Can someone give a reasonable argument as to why we should read WSJ? Or WaPo? Or NYT or any other large publication of this nature (looking particularly at The Economist). We know they post propaganda, spin stories however they please, and we know their fact checking is awful. I don’t think they have any journalistic integrity left.Please enlighten, am curious.

I find it useful to understand the other side and the echo chamber/bubble they are in; and by extension, leads to better insight and critique of the echo chamber my side is in.

As a right-winger (I put my bias forward to help communicate up-front my angle/bias as everybody has their biases) - for instance, I stopped reacting to NYT, NPR and WaPo's headlines and instead just categorized and label mechanically (as an AI sentiment bot might do) what their purpose for "manufactured consent" is; the headline behind the headline, for example for the left:

Many headline news if you flip to any NYT headlines any time of day, you can categorize them as "climate insecurity" (Global Warming is eating up a local area, Maui/Florida), the "MAGA threat" (a minority group is being persecuted by the vengeful "white right"), "neo-conservative foreign policy endorsements" (Ukraine is 'wining the war; Ughyur human rights violations; America is winning against Russia/China bloc and always on the progressive side of human rights).

It helps me frame critically the right-wing biases in my own echo chamber. For instance, it makes me realize that WSJ's more endorsement for "holier-than-thou" free-wheeling enterprise/business is really the equivalent right-wing propaganda to indoctrinate its side against left's efforts to union and regulate businesses for consumer rights and the environment. Similarly, the anti-SJW, exodus from California to Texas theme in Fox News is parallel to the "MAGA threat" stories from the left; and is just right-wing identity politics - just as bad as left-wing identity politics. And foreign policy-wise, both left and right are surprisingly uniform and orthodox to American exceptionalism and interventionism.

It makes me realize that American politics and journalism is at large a game of sports, marketing where both sides hype up the "brand-values" of their sides and vilify the other side; but at the end of the day, the owners in the box seats at the top of the arena have the same values; and the fans/citizens though may spit and belittle each other in the spirit of factional rivalary, surprisingly have so much in common with each other as jersey-wearing blue collar tailgating fans - than the NFL owners in their suites and boardrooms. And this notion of simultaneously gives me both great cynicism and hope for the state of America.

garrickvanburen• 3 years ago

Yes, all media is biased, from well established outlets like WSJ and NYT to Hacker News to my own blog and a random celeb's Twitter feed.

Biased in both how stories are covered as well in _which_ stories are covered.

The bias may not line up neatly to the prevailing major US political partys' platform or narrative - it's still bias.

Very simplistic example; NYT is biased pro-New York. WaPo is biased pro-D.C. The Economist is pro-EU. All are pro-full-time 9-to-5 jobs.

I've been a subscriber to all at one more or another. Those biases means a solid chunk of their articles are irrelevant or just real weird for readers (me) in a different locale and life situations.

The comparison to sports is apt. Unless you're on the field - sports is entertainment. Same is true of media - unless you care how a story you're directly involved in is being discussed - it's all entertainment.

aylmao• 3 years ago

This isn't new, right? I've heard it's especially prevalent for management positions, both because the severance would be higher, and because it's "better for office politics" to slowly push someone out, or have the official story be that they left, than to fire someone with power and followers.

pylua2• 3 years ago

You don’t hear about companies innovating anymore — you just hear about them screwing over workers and customers.

chung8123• 3 years ago

I think LLMs are pretty innovated. The new Mac chips seem pretty innovated. Nvidia's H100 are so innovated they cannot keep them stocked. Companies are innovating all the time. Maybe it is because we are too focused on doom and gloom in the news.

pylua2• 3 years ago

That is true, but it does seem like the innovation is coming from a small number of companies while most other companies are relentlessly trying to cut costs at the expense of the customer and employee.

Maybe the news is biased towards these types of articles.

I do think this type of negativity goes against the positive mindset you need to start a company .

Layoffs are down, but employers are still finding ways to cut jobs

Related Stories