The problem with this method is that many people DID relocate to keep their jobs. And then were layed off two months later.
Imagine uplifting your life for your job, and then being told you need to find a new job anyway.
At the end of the year they said no bonuses, followed by an email saying despite covid they made a profit.
Companies lie to employees all the time.
Since suing your employer is a career-ending move, contracts don't make much of a difference either.
My friends and I have no loyalty to our employers at this point. Big or small, we've all been burned. Some places are just less unpleasant than others. My bar is so low that as long as no one is screaming at me or threatening my coworkers I usually call that a good day. Getting out of retail helped.
These large companies are struggling.
I understand that to many people they seem like they are in the same category of "spending money" but spending money on an income earning investment is not the same as spending money on operating expenses.
I spoke to people from the UK (seems they were from an AI related acquisition .. not sure what acquisition). They seem to have good infra and intelligent technical people.
That's literally the raison d'etre of commercial companies. So, yeah, most will do what it takes to remain profitable.
Maybe for some financial companies, perhaps crypto or high-frequency trading firms, I might imagine.
But for most companies, the reason they exist is that they provide some product or service to customers. For example, FedEx delivers packages. Apple makes smartphones and runs its App Store. Netflix provides video streaming services and makes its own programs. Etc.. Without such a product or service, there is little reason for any of these companies to exist.
I've yet to find a company mission statement which is "make as much of a profit as possible." There probably is one somewhere, but they certainly aren't the norm.
If we look at Netflix, for example, we see
"We promise our customers stellar service, our suppliers a valuable partner, our investors the prospects of sustained profitable growth, and our employees the allure of huge impact."
In this statement they acknowledge multiple stakeholders: customers, suppliers, investors, and employees. A company without customers is either a startup or a pyramid scheme.
"FOR A BETTER SHARED FUTURE • Invest in employees’ personal growth and talent • Empower people’s access to equal opportunities, build inclusion • Create value for customers—big and the many small • Support our local communities, both to achieve more and in times of need • Deliver returns to our investors"
source: https://www.coca-colacompany.com/content/dam/journey/us/en/o...
see also: https://investors.coca-colacompany.com/about/our-purpose
And let's be honest, Musk isn't doing it in this order for the wellbeing of Twitter's employees.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2022/10/20/musk...
Then a week later took it back:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/musk-tells-twitter-employees-...
I think every single person at Twitter should be contemplating their employment right now.
If you have employable skills you will find work
But, seriously, I’ve got the worlds smallest fiddle for someone who is worried that they may not make 270K+ going forward.
Yes my stock has dropped by 50% from its 52 week high. It stings. But it doesn’t affect my life at all. I made sure that I could live off of my base pay - and still max out my 401K.
Surely you saved during those years of 270k tc
Also now your skills and experience are more relevant to your salary.
Most of the remaining skilled employees started looking for new jobs immediately. They could see the writing on the wall. Others just checked out and stopped caring about their work, doing just the bare minimum. The bulk of the remaining experienced employees were gone within two months. The people who remained were the lower-level employees, without the experience to keep the company working.
Coincidentally, the company fell apart and went into liquidation 6 months later.
But it was absolutely on a fatal path before that event, just a question of how long.
That the company later failed is not proof positive that the layoffs were a bad idea.
With all the upheaval at Twitter, I doubt it's going to survive. Well, the name will remain, and as long as servers keep running, some people will keep using it, so as long as Musk can hire enough people to keep the servers running, Twitter might be able to continue in some form, but it will never be the company it once was.
Well known tactics, usually employed by politicians. Want to raise taxes by 5%? Don't tell that, just announce previously that the country needs a 10% taxes raise, then for pretend for a while you're struggling to lower them because you care for the people and finally settle to 5%.
I went through a layoff where they announced they had to make major reductions in headcount (it ended up being about 30% but I'm not sure that number was announced). There was then several months of discussions with the unions before they announced who had to leave.
If you were not impacted they didn't tell you anything until the announcement. The people who were impacted had been briefed beforehand. As I was staying on I didn't know anything, which was stressful, but I guess that if I had known about the process it would have been less so.
But at least you could avoid some of the "unregretted attrition" of people you decided to keep.
(This assumes Musk isn't intentionally sequencing things to limit the "official" size of the layoff while actually wanting to cut a significantly larger percentage.)