upvote
A great alternative would be operating a company correctly so you don't end up in a situation where you need to cut 30k jobs at once with no notice. That's a bizarre thing that's becoming practically normalized in the USA tech industry.
reply
The realistic alternative is to regularly cut a smaller number of people, which is awful for morale.
reply
Does it have to be awful for morale if the reasoning is clear and compassionate? People understand that shit happens.

And I don't mean this in a mean or evil way, but (of course there's a but) I wonder if this would motivate people to work more effectively as well. My organization has had cuts lately, but it hasn't in a decade. It has been transformative. People are reminded that their jobs depend on them showing up and being valuable.

I don't want people to be scared for their jobs. Perhaps this cycle creates false security, though. There must be a balance in here somewhere.

reply
Can you imagine a company spending a long time on meetings?!
reply
6+ months' notice with a severance package equal to at least an annual salary.
reply
Why would you give someone 6 months notice? What good is that for the employee? Especially if the severance is generous.

“Hey, we’re going to fire you in 6 months. Just a heads up.”

Nah. Give me the year of salary and send me home today. Better for the employee and for the company than pointlessly dragging it out. Again, this is assuming generous severance.

reply
A "performance improvement plan" is almost always a 6-month/1 year warning that you're going to get fired/laid off.

It's common in some companies.

reply
Job hunting takes time. Also, they won't be deported in 30 days, along with their families.
reply
I can do a lot of job hunting with a year of severance.

Valid point about employees on visas though.

reply
Maybe they could be kept on the payroll without access to actually work.

But the real problem is any law that would deport someone 30 days after they were laid off, even if they had been working for years. That should be 6 months minimum.

reply
Keeping them on the payroll also enables companies to easily manage and extend medical insurance. I’m pretty sure that what you propose is what a lot of companies actually do, too. They keep them on the payroll for the duration of their severance but do not expect them to actually work.

Agree that no one should be getting deported on 30 days because they got laid off.

reply
Giving any kind of notice about layoffs while expecting employees to continue working is just bad for everyone.

The employees stress out about whether they're going to be impacted. Nobody gets much work done as they update their resumes and prepare for the worst. The best people start looking for other opportunities and find them. If specific employees are told they're going to be laid off, some seek revenge.

Much better to immediately notify those impacted, revoke their access, give them generous severance instead of expecting them to work, and let everyone else know they're safe.

reply
You immediately notify to the affected persons with the given notice period. This is how it's done in civilized countries.
reply
6 months notice + 12 months salary, which is what you are proposing, seems strictly worse to me than just 18 months salary and no notice.
reply
Were those people not already having regular 1-on-1 meetings with a manager?
reply
In many cases the manager is among those laid off. In fact some VPs and their entire org have been laid off.
reply