Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Agreed, and not just a remote thing generally.

This is why one big and well communicated cut is always better than round after round.

Once your company tilts into the direction of getting worse, anyone with better options leaves. You end up with a lot of adverse selection as an employer if you take the slow burn approach.



Not necessarily better, at least for the company. The slow burn works out much better for them:

- Gets rid of employees who were on the fence of leaving anyway

- No need to pay out unemployment

- No need to pay out unused PTO (depends on the state)

- No need to notify months in advance (WARN act [1]) or risk heavy fines

- End up with "loyal" employees in the end

If they can get through the short-term pain of losing some good workers, it will eventually balance out, and the show will go on.

[1]

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/layoffs/warn

https://www.warntracker.com




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: