←back to thread

1041 points mertbio | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.517s | source
Show context
alkonaut ◴[] No.42841445[source]
These leave-on-the-day layoffs are really strange to me. Unless there was a bankruptcy or something, I'd most likely be convinced by management to stay my entire period of notice (3 months) because the company would need to PAY me 100% my salary for that period anyway. If they thought I was a risk to keep around, or they had no work for me at all, then they could just give me paid leave for 3 months. But more likely I'd be doing handovers and documentation and whatnot for the 3 months. But like, closing down accounts immediately? Do companies really think any laid off employee is an immediate security risk to the extent they need to lock them out as soon as they lay them off?
replies(2): >>42842106 #>>42844182 #
elijaht ◴[] No.42844182[source]
I’ve been through several waves of layoffs. Every employee kept on temporarily to transition things over (IMO quite rationally) did the absolute minimum required and I don’t think it was worth the companies money to keep them on. Additionally since their immediate manager was not part of the layoff decision making process, no one cared they were doing nothing.
replies(1): >>42849621 #
1. alkonaut ◴[] No.42849621[source]
That’s a waste of resources the company pays for anyway.