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.