you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 27 points 5 months ago (2 children)

The justification they give for the figure is that it’s the lowest performing 10% according to internal key performance indicator (KPI) metrics

The thing is, that's not what layoffs are supposed to be. That's effectively firing someone for cause. Maybe in America the difference doesn't matter, but in the civilised world, at least in theory, it does. But in reality they can somehow get away with this and call it "layoffs".

If a company does layoffs, they should not be allowed to hire any staff in the same or similar roles for 12 months.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago*

    If a company does layoffs, they should not be allowed to hire any staff in the same or similar roles for 12 months.

    Either that, or the laid-off workers should get right of first refusal for the positions. (Along with some additional incentive for the company not to game it.)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    If a company does layoffs, they should not be allowed to hire any staff in the same or similar roles for 12 months.

    The workload doesn't decrease, it just gets spread to the remaining workers who are already overloaded because of the previous round of layoffs...

  • source
  • parent