There's a thousand reasons people stay or leave companies and just slightly adjusting how much you're working to keep people can often be the difference in the attrition rate.
Even small pay cuts are pretty good at getting people to quit. (uh particularly talented ones that have many options ...)
If anything, being a FAANG SWE puts you at a disadvantage for ever having stability. Financially risky startups would love to have you, but a lot of industry verticals simply won't take a look at you because they figure you wouldn't be interested or you're perceived as a flight risk. Thing is, if you plan to retire from this profession those are the kinds of jobs you're going to need.
Based on your understanding, if other companies perceived me as being a flight risk because I'd worked in FAANG (?) I probably wouldn't be interested in them either, so it sounds like the system's working as expected.
If someone’s on the receiving end of all of those things they’ll usually leave sooner or later. Who wouldn’t want to?
https://employmenttribunal.claims/employment-law/bonus-dispu...
As for an employee quitting on their own accord before the bonus dispersal date (which they otherwise hit the bar to receive), every tech company I worked for or have friends working at, they have pretty fair systems for dealing with it.
Generally, there is a cutoff date (which is usually about 4-6 months before the bonus disbursal/announcement date). If you leave at any point after that date, but before the bonus announcement/disbursal date, you still get your bonus in full. If you quit before the cutoff date, it gets prorated based on how many days you were an employee between the previous cut-off date and the upcoming one. There is also usually an extra nuance in math for people who just started working at the company and been there less than a year, but that detail is largely irrelevant.
For a specific example, at MSFT, they had a cut-off date somewhere mid-june. The bonus got announced early september and disbursed in mid-second half of september. If you quit at any point after that date in June, you get your full bonus. If you quit exactly 2 months before the cutoff date, lets, say mid April, you get full_bonus*10/12.
It is dishonesty in the service of profit, the simplest type of corruption available. Euphemisms are always just euphemisms.
Amazon's hire-to-fire strategy is now widely known
EDIT: Added last sentence.
When was this? Just to confirm, you're referring to a data plane team and not a control plane team?
I'm just saying, it's worth giving a shot. You might like it. If you don't, switch orgs/teams. You can switch just a couple months after joining if it doesn't work out for you. I switched from my last org quite quickly cause while I had good work life balance, the work was just so boring.
This is about the worst kind of doublespeak I have ever heard. It is actively malicious, the very thought of it brings images of purposeful abuse of employees. Seriously, just fire people.
Right - it's actually far worse than outright firing or laying off people. As in, genuinely harmful to people from a psychological (and hence physical) point of view. All so the company can save a few dollars, and hit certain quarterly targets a bit sooner.
That's why there's a name for it (since long before the "quiet" meme), and legal precedents that are supposed to prevent companies from doing this (if any of them would take heed, which of course they won't):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal
So the question to our friend thrwawayacc up above is -- OK, so this is what the director told you to do (and thanks for for sharing, BTW). But are you actually going to -- go through with what you were told to do? Are are you going to tell these people at the director level some version of:
I understand your concerns, and the financial position that the company in. But at the end of the day, this isn't the right way to go about conducting what everyone can plainly see it as -- a layoff. Ultimately, if we go this route, it will be harmful to the company's reputation and long-term growth -- but more importantly, it will cause genuine harm to people who, until now, have been considered part of the Amazon Family.
If Corporate insists on going this route, there's no way I can stop them of course. However, for my part, in my role, I will not be be able to participate in this extremely ill-advised course of action.
This is your moment. So what's it going to be?
Agreed - and corporate life often gets that way.
But another way of looking at the payoff matrix might be: "I've got kids to support - and that means having parents they can trust, and look up to in this chaotic and morally ambivalent world. Even if it means we might have to work a year or two more before being able to retire more comfortably, or we might not get to take that vacation to Tulum this year."
that's a high level of Maslow's hierarchy there, especially in the U.S with few support nets heading into what will probably be a really bad recession.
Ramping up work expectations
With the specific intent of causing the employee to quit, you meant to say. This in fact fits precisely with the language of the California Supreme Court in the section you referred to.
A good manager can do some 'managing out' simply by communicating to her team that there are reduced opportunities for promotion or new projects coming up, and that they may be layoffs. At any time in any workplace a certain fraction of people are actively looking for a new job, and another, usually much larger fraction are open to a move, might be hearing from recruiters, etc. A manager can create a mood of "if you have a decent offer, you should take it" without making people's lives miserable.
I'd personally prefer equality in such conversations. I believe corporate can survive with mediocre performers. Just like many of us live with not so great companies we work in everyday.
Makes me wonder how they avoid being sued ?
There are also a significant number of ways you can 'manage someone out' which are not any more 'constructive dismissal' than 'quiet quitting' is 'constructive resignation'.
For example, reducing flexibility in things like lateness policies, shift swaps, holidays, etc. is likely to be unpopular, but as long as it's applied fairly across all employees, would not likely be found as unfair, but may well result in people quitting.
Instead it's just thick layers of bullshit during performance review time or people getting blindsided by a layoff or a fake PIP. From the employee side, one can't simply express what they need out of a job and folks are forced to just look for something better and then announce they're leaving with a 2 week notice.
Ironically, companies spare no expense when it comes to turgid, grinding performance eval exercises but ALWAYS kick honest discussions to the side.
At least facebook, it seems (?), is just cutting a bunch of folks rapidly rather than doing stuff like "managing out". That's better than the typical corporate 2-face behaviors.
I would seriously consider working remote for a European company if I could.
E.g. Alexa might be getting headcount trimmed. But other areas might see influx of investment. some Amazon teams had reduced PIP over the last year as well.
In most large companies hiring and firing people are totally different, and rarely ever talk to each other. This is why in most companies if the top management wants to make a big layoff, they first let go the 'recruiting staff', and then work from there.
In smaller layoffs, I'd imagine they'd continue to fill in open positions, while eliminating positions they think they don't need.
There's also another thing where they want to fill in people where they think need for their newer/hot/important project which they think will give them better profits. And cut people/shut down projects which they think are not important/profitable.
Very dystopian.