- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fans
- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fans
There is a discussion on Hacker News, but feel free to comment here as well.
There is a discussion on Hacker News, but feel free to comment here as well.
Slightly different translation: We need to lay people off, but announcing layoffs will drop our stock prices, so enacting policies to get people to quit - especially if those policies disproportionately target people with disabilities, health issues, people who don’t conform to our economic or social values (must be willing to be yanked around by corporate, be willing to live paycheck to paycheck in high cost of living area, must not have other priorities such as children) - so that we don’t have to deal stock price drops or lawsuits for laying off vulnerable members of staff.
It’s ‘secret layoff’ with a purity test.
Folks who are less committed to the corporate bullshit fail. Folks who have other priorities fail. Those who really believe, or are desperate for the job are left behind.
For sure. This essentially axes all of your remote employees.
Announcing layoffs usually improves stock price 🤣
I have to be honest: I don’t know if you’re right.
What I know (or at least, think I know), is that layoffs indicate poor company performance and that tanks stock prices.
But the reality is that the world has moved into an openly greedy phase of business. It’s totally plausible that companies and investors don’t bother with the charade and know that layoffs are often just money grabs. I don’t have time right now to actually look it up, but what you said is totally believable, and probably accurate.
Ugh. Can we replace business classes with empathy classes?