So far this year, companies have laid off just under 100,000 employees, according to layoffs.fyi, which emphasizes losses at tech companies. Job cuts totaled more than 260,000 in 2023, so, while the trend appears to be down a little for 2024, layoffs continue. (For another up-to-date list of tech-specific layoffs, see TechCrunch.)

What’s changed since February, when I wrote about the economics of job cuts, is that some companies are using new tactics to avoid negative publicity, lawsuits, and paying out potentially costly layoff benefits:

• Silent layoffs occur when a company offers severance on condition that the employee keep quiet about the details of his or her exit.

• Quiet firing is when bosses intentionally or unintentionally make a role less appealing, thereby provoking workers to quit instead of forcing them out via layoffs that might entail severance packages.

• Return to office mandates (RTO); many believe stringent RTO mandates are a form of quiet firing. They also duck the cost of severance benefits.

Silent layoffs

Silent layoffs (a.k.a. quiet layoffs) have been in the news lately. PwC (PricewaterhouseCoopers) is widely reported to have launched a round of silent layoffs in the UK last month. According to the Financial Times, “the affected staff [members were] told they must not inform colleagues why they are leaving and they should follow a ‘suggested wording’ if they want to send goodbye messages.” The move backfired on the Big Four accountancy firm. Any semblance of silence was lost to the negative publicity, which is worse than it would have been had PwC simply announced the layoffs publicly and taken its lumps.

In early 2023, silent layoffs became unlawful in the US when the National Labor Relations Board overturned a 2020 ruling that allowed employers to use confidentiality and non-disparagement language in their severance agreements. The move reinstates rights afforded by the National Labor Relations Act (1935) and blocks the use of nondisclosure and other agreements that seek to prevent employees from speaking out about the terms of their severance and unfair practices of employers.

Quiet firing

The prevalence of bosses subtly pressuring employees to quit their jobs, or “quiet firing” (also. known as quiet cutting) in the US is partly the result of the National Labor Relations Board’s 2023 action. There’s a catch for employees, too; the ruling disincentivizes companies to pay severance, and even if they do, employee resignation obviates any possible severance benefits.

That companies resort to this toxic method of job cutting is especially cruel because it stresses out employees both professionally and financially. The flagrant disregard for employees’ well being in the name of avoiding bad publicity is a harsh reality. The fallout for companies using this tactic could be consequential.

Return-to-office mandates and quiet firing

A recent study from BambooHR (of just over 1,500 US full-time salaried employees) shows that 25% of top-level execs and C-suite respondents — and 18% of HR pros — admit they hoped for a voluntary employee exodus as a result of RTO mandates. Some 37% of managers, directors and executives said they enacted layoffs during the past year because their RTO mandate pushed fewer people to quit than expected. Nearly half of respondents who have experienced an RTO order report significant talent loss from the best and brightest in their organizations.

The report concludes that the current level of employee “dissatisfaction could lead to a further drain of talent, affecting not just morale but also stability and the [potential for innovation].”

‍

Read full article here