Hacker News Reader

Comment by xt00 | Hacker News Reader

Would be interesting to see if there is a strong relationship between the companies doing layoffs and the companies who did WFH en masse and might be thinking a layoff will “encourage” their compliance to come back to the office.

View on HN

One company did exactlly that: everybody must be in the office in 3 weeks, 25% quit, no layoffs needed.

In countries with strong labor laws, that rapid dramatic unilateral change in working location itself would count as similar to a sudden firing without cause for workers who don't want to accept the change in work location, either for all such workers or for those who can't easily begin or resume a commute to the office on such short notice.

I wish the US had stronger labor laws. :(

You can make a constructive dismissal claim if permanent WFH was agreed upon. But doubt that was the case here.

The US has extremely strong labor laws in favor of the employer.

My personal favorite one is where under at-will employment, either party can end the relationship at any time, which generally translates to:

At any time:

the company is free to simply make do with one fewer person

and

the employee is free to simply make do without affordable health/dental/vision insurance, a pay check, a retirement account, and other such niceties.

Great deal. Very balanced and fair.

Then the sector wouldn't be as dynamic. weak labor laws means rapid response to changing conditions. The onus should be on workers to stay fresh, out of debt, and ready to hustle.

That’s constructive dismissal

Which company?

but did that help the stock prices? Layoffs boost stock prices, which I think is one of the main reasons why tech giants did that instead of just accelerating un-regretted attrition.

I think the WARN act (here in the US) is site based. They don't need employees to be encouraged. If they want to tell people: "Get to a site or don't have a job", they can do that already. (I think, I am not a lawyer.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com