Employers encouraging and promoting workforce attrition?

[jeromedawg]

Hey all,

Is it legal for companies to tell or imply to their staff that they're encouraging or promoting workforce attrition as a means to increase the bottom line? Obviously it's a sucky thing to say and do but this was part of the "strategy" the CEO discussed a while back and it seems like they've been "working magic" behind the scenes to make it happen as many people have left since.
I believe the main methods they're using to reduce employee morale and to "encourage attrition" are to A) have lay-offs every month or other month in some capacity and also B) constantly bombarding us in townhalls and emails with "RTO" rhetoric and how life will be better for everyone once we're all back together in person (including those who were hired on as full time remote before the pandemic). This despite being in the middle of the Delta surge AND even though most of the teams (at least in my group) are very much geographically dispersed (RTO for me would mean going into an office with a bunch of people I don't know/not on my team, and then hopping on Skype/chat to collaborate with my team which is what I already do from home anyway)

Wondering about all this in the sense of a potential lawsuit though... I would think, in order for that to happen as well, there would need to be A LOT of impacted employees onboard

[Paper Chaser]

How is this any different than other "downsizing" or "corporate restructuring"? Then there's the more gradual tact of letting employees leave and not back filling those roles seems super common to me when a business needs to tighten it's belt.
It sounds like it's not the nicest place to work, but I'm not sure there are grounds for any kind of suit.

[Dave1442397]

It's the usual bs. My company does exactly the same thing, and you can be sure that anything they say has been vetted by the legal department and HR, so the chances of a lawsuit succeeding (at least in the US) are negligible to zero.

[jeromedawg]

How is this any different than other "downsizing" or "corporate restructuring"? Then there's the more gradual tact of letting employees leave and not back filling those roles seems super common to me when a business needs to tighten it's belt.
It sounds like it's not the nicest place to work, but I'm not sure there are grounds for any kind of suit.

Makes sense. In that sense then, I think their choice of words and tact are just coming across as more tone-deaf than normal. Maybe this, in of itself, is a way for them to promote attrition. I'm sure all or most of these execs have golden parachutes anyway, so it's not like they would care.

[OtherJen]

I guess it seems a bit refreshing that they're being upfront, rather than couching it in BS jargon about "restructuring" or "rightsizing."

[jeromedawg]

I guess it seems a bit refreshing that they're being upfront, rather than couching it in BS jargon about "restructuring" or "rightsizing."

I'm pretty sure they've thrown "restructuring" around too. And "reorg" and what have you. "Rightsizing" is a new one I haven't heard lol

[TrMama]

My company does this all the time via hiring freezes. When people leave they don't get replaced which leaves more work, but no extra pay, for those who are left. Those people then get tired of being overworked so they leave too. I live somewhere with stronger employee protection laws than in the US. It's harder to fire us and more expensive to lay us off. This kind of nonsense is the result.

[seattlecyclone]

Yeah this is totally common and not illegal to my knowledge. They're putting the writing on the wall that layoffs may be coming if an insufficient number of people leave voluntarily, and now might be a good time to start looking for a new job if you have any inclination to do so.

[jeromedawg]

Yeah this is totally common and not illegal to my knowledge. They're putting the writing on the wall that layoffs may be coming if an insufficient number of people leave voluntarily, and now might be a good time to start looking for a new job if you have any inclination to do so.

Definitely. I, for one, am not conceding to this RTO nonsense especially right now. Worst idea ever.

I have a couple possibilities in the works right now, so hopefully one works out.

[FLBiker]

I've been at places that did something similar (perhaps a bit more subtly) and it always struck me as a dumb approach.  If you do this, the good people leave and the bad people stay.  If you just bite the bullet and do layoffs, you have some choice in the matter.  I'm oversimplifying of course, but at my last employer, everyone who could jumped off the ship, and the folks left behind are mostly folks who couldn't find a better gig.

[jeromedawg]

I've been at places that did something similar (perhaps a bit more subtly) and it always struck me as a dumb approach.  If you do this, the good people leave and the bad people stay.  If you just bite the bullet and do layoffs, you have some choice in the matter.  I'm oversimplifying of course, but at my last employer, everyone who could jumped off the ship, and the folks left behind are mostly folks who couldn't find a better gig.

My theory is that the people in charge really could care less about the talent pool and are planning to leave the company in shambles and exit at the point that they've "accomplished the goal" of bottom line (whatever this means), having destroyed morale and ruining the existing talent pool in the process. What skin do they have in the game as long as they're getting their large paychecks and or can pull the cord for their golden parachutes? I expect to see many of these execs leave the company or "retire" at that point in time. And then, it will just a game of hot potato as far as who comes in to clean up the mess (or make more of one lol)

[Villanelle]

Is there something specific about this that you think might have crossed a legal line?  Just saying, "hey we have too many employees so we hope some of you quit, and since we actively want people to leave, we aren't going to do anything with employee-satisfaction in mind and in fact might even make life worse, hoping it drives people out"--why would that be illegal?  It's shitty, and I'd probably be looking to make their wishes come true by finding another job, but it isn't--and IMO shouldn't be--illegal. 

Also, remember that it people quit, that's great.  if people are laid off, the company has to deal with UI claims and possibly severance, too.  So by signaling that cuts are coming they can usually get some people to leave voluntarily and thus save the company a few bucks. 

[jeromedawg]

Is there something specific about this that you think might have crossed a legal line?  Just saying, "hey we have too many employees so we hope some of you quit, and since we actively want people to leave, we aren't going to do anything with employee-satisfaction in mind and in fact might even make life worse, hoping it drives people out"--why would that be illegal?  It's shitty, and I'd probably be looking to make their wishes come true by finding another job, but it isn't--and IMO shouldn't be--illegal. 

Also, remember that it people quit, that's great.  if people are laid off, the company has to deal with UI claims and possibly severance, too.  So by signaling that cuts are coming they can usually get some people to leave voluntarily and thus save the company a few bucks.

I'm more just curious because they've been spinning all this rhetoric for a while now and it doesn't feel right at all. But now that we've established there's a difference between that and the legality of it, it's clear there's not much anyone can do. I was just thinking more along the lines of employee rights, etc. Especially being in CA. But on the other hand, I guess that's what Unions are for too haha. The only thing I can think of that might get them in trouble is if they were to mandate RTO with surges and potentially endangering employees, and especially those employees with disabilities or who are at risk etc.


And yes, they are definitely encouraging people to voluntarily leave so they don't have to worry about laying as many people off. I guess part of the strategy is lay-off some but not too many every month or couple of months to bring morale down while not impacting the bottom-line too significantly at a time, while pumping out rhetoric nobody wants to hear and paying lip-service at the same time. Basically just them sending mixed signals and blowing smoke, in hopes that people will just get fed up and leave. I suppose it wouldn't be all that hard to find someone willing to implement this and be an eloquently talking axe man as long as you offered him or her enough money hahaha.

[trollwithamustache]

As others have said, it is totally legal.

OP, how happy are you at this joint?  'cause it sounds like they could hit a wall when they loose the wrong people. What do you want? are you happy with your status quo at this place? do you want to leave? or to shake them down for $$ when they hit the metaphorical wall and really need you?   

[jeromedawg]

As others have said, it is totally legal.

OP, how happy are you at this joint?  'cause it sounds like they could hit a wall when they loose the wrong people. What do you want? are you happy with your status quo at this place? do you want to leave? or to shake them down for $$ when they hit the metaphorical wall and really need you?   

I don't know how to feel at this point. It feels status quo a bit and not very busy, which doesn't help job security wise. I'm not counting on any sort of $$ bump or increase or them "really needing me" for that matter. Things will move on I'm sure. I'm looking around for other jobs and am in the process of interviewing. If it ends up going well and negotiations are favorable, I will probably jump ship. At this point, it *feels* like one of those "the sooner the better" types of situations. But at the same time the company could just be playing "Chicken" with us too.

[maizefolk]

Smaller layoffs every month or two instead of one big one can also be a way to legally avoid having to publicly announce layoffs the way they would if they laid off 500+ people in a single month.