1054
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] paddirn@lemmy.world 102 points 1 month 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.

[-] jewbacca117@lemmy.world 83 points 1 month ago

Seems like a great way to lose all your talented employees

[-] Confused_Emus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 36 points 1 month ago

Unfortunately a dollar in cut costs is more valuable than employee talent these days.

[-] jaybone@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

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

[-] mjhelto@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month 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 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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 1 points 1 month 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 2 points 1 month 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 2 points 1 month 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.

this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2024
1054 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

59366 readers
1309 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS