My company asked us to return to the office. We have like 4 developers, with a minimum experience of 15 years. We work in an unpopular language, in a niche market, in a technologically dead area of the country. And the pay is shit.
I pointed this out in detail. We were no longer asked to return to the office.
My friend works as a corporate “efficiency expert,” and yes, we joke about Office Space with him all the time. According to him, one of the latest tools for cutting labor costs is the inflated perception of WFH positions. Many people are willing to accept lower pay for a remote role, making it a highly effective tool for companies to leverage against workers. The strategy described in the article is precisely what he and others are advising corporate clients to use. As a result, you’ll likely see more companies adopt this approach in workplaces that mix WFH and RTO policies.
This explains why RTO mandates are becoming more common. The increased push for RTO makes fully remote jobs rarer, which in turn heightens competition for these positions. RTO also serves as a cheap and easy tactic for downsizing—companies can issue an RTO mandate, see a voluntary exodus, and then re-advertise those same roles as remote positions with reduced pay. Often, they hire fewer people overall. With such fierce demand for WFH, businesses can reduce their workforce cost-effectively, attract top talent, and drive down wages.
At this point, WFH is largely a tool for managing labor costs. Many workers will leave a job over an RTO mandate, swearing off office work for good, only to find that the market is flooded with people making the same choice. If they’re lucky, they’ll find a new WFH job, but often it comes with less pay or stability—just delaying the next inevitable RTO push. Sure, some find a better fit, but for most, this cycle of WFH, RTO, pay cuts, and re-shuffled roles is only going to intensify.
The underlying issue here is intense competition for WFH roles. Many workers overestimate their irreplaceability, yet most can be easily swapped out. More often than not, these replacements are higher-skilled individuals willing to accept lower pay. There’s no shortage of people vying for remote roles. And notably, in the article, the complaints about losing “high-skill employees” come from the employees themselves—not the companies.
The underlying issue is really just that these companies are banking on desperate workers always being available, and that productive workers will continue to expand the company’s capabilities. And that is not the case, in the long run.
Within the next 1-2 years we will see the pendulum swing back as more Boomers exit the workforce, and more young workers find their apathetic reactions to Corporate behavior normalized.
In other words, Management makes these decisions because they, themselves, usually have plans to move on to the next parasitic host within 1-2 years, leaving behind the mess of their decisions.
Perhaps. Good to remember that the Boomers aren’t the largest generation. Millennials are. And Gen Z is only slightly smaller. There’s a workforce-entry delay usually related to training/education, but workforce participation is likely to go up. You’re assuming that position growth will continue to pace workforce entry. But, as I noted, many companies are finding ways to decrease their workforce and maintain productivity levels. And they’re doing it successfully, so I don’t know if there will magically be less desperate workers in two years.
You’re correct if you’re talking about skilled trades and medicine. Those are and will continue to be high-demand jobs. But that’s largely because young people typically choose not to learn a trade. Most college students think they’re going to/want to work in: tech and data science, business and management, environmental, and media and creative. Just like everyone else. There’s not going to be a sudden dearth of workers in those fields. If anything, it seems likely to become more competitive.
Were I you, I wouldn’t be so confident that things are going to just happen to work out in precisely the way you’d like. But, I’m not, so carry on – and good luck.
That’s dumb. You get the capable people to quit first that way.
Right, but you are under the impression that companies want to keep those. My personal experience is that they just don’t give a fuck. At. All.
Yes, but those are the ones that get paid more. So you get rid of a big financial drain, and then you can hire cheaper people and dump more work onto them.
It works great, unfortunately.
Remember, the C-Suites of today don’t give two fucks about the company they’re ‘running’. They want line to go up so their pay goes up, and so they can use line-go-up to golden parachute to the next company where they repeat the process.
100%
The people least loyal to the company are at the top.
If execs want to reduce workforce size they should offer voluntary layoffs. Ya know, unless they’re scared of too many people leaving or something
If they lay off employees, they have to pay severance and/or unemployment. If the employees quit due to unreasonable mandates, they can be fired with “cause”.
They’ve been mass laying off people regardless. May as well give people the chance to leave on good terms.
If they can keep a bit of money for themselves by not doing this, they will not do this. For the people who run corporations the emphasis in “human resources” is on resources. You are to be mined for value until it is no longer profitable to use you.
Voluntary layoffs - probably the best form of layoffs if you ask me - still come with severance packages that have to be paid. Very few people will be interested in quitting just because you ask them, but a good many will do it if you sweeten the deal.
Basically we have 3 variants here:
Regular layoffs - have to pay severance + can select who leaves RTO stealth layoffs - don’t have to pay severance + can’t select who leaves Voluntary layoffs - have to pay severance + can’t select who leaves
Any morally bankrupt business would of course want a fourth variant where they get to select who leaves and don’t have to pay severance, but thankfully this option is generally not available to them.
Anyway, voluntary layoffs are the best out of a selection of bad choices for the workers, but come with the most downsides for the morally bankrupt business.
They also want to get rid of long-time, well paid staff to hire replacements for way less.
It only works once…so what’s their plan now?
Ease on the rto rules until people are comfy and yank the chain again. Rinse and repeat every 5 years and you can continuously flush out the seniors for freshly graduated blood.
I’d be hesitant to work for a company that has a reputation of calling remote employees to RTO. At least, I’d factor that in when deciding to take the job and need a much higher salary for the reduced job security.
Corporate execs these days are not exactly known for their long term thinking. Doesn’t matter if the doors are flying off your airplanes tomorrow as long as the stock price goes up today.
Only has to work once, you pocket the savings on severance packages one time and then go back to regular layoffs.
Dystopian as all hell, but such is the corporate world.
Just had to work once, next time they’ll cook up some other thing
A 12 o clock punch in the nuts daily
Umm, doest that fall into the realm of constructive dismissal?
Yes, but that’s not specifically illegal in the US.
Is it different if they fire you for not returning to work?
If they wanted to shed a chunk of workforce they’d be on the hook for a period of notice as well as some compensation, and the employees would be able to file for unemployment insurance once let go. If the employee quits because they refuse to come back to the office then the company is free of those obligations.
Depends on the individual curcumstances.
Not a lawyer, but have had way to many trainings on unemployment law over the years.
Circumstance 1: An employee moved further away from the office and can no longer feesibly make the commute to the office. Back to office mandates would be a change in the primary work location. The employee would qualify unemployment even if they “quit”. This is the same for people who started remotely.
Circumstance 2: The employee became the primary caregiver of children or a relative due to the flexibility allowed in working from home. A back to the office mandate would not allow them to continue this. The employee can argue for unemployment due to a change in the required work schedule (my wife successfully did this back in 2010).
Circumstance 3: This one is a bit harder. The employee has performed their job superbly from home. They clearly and openly (preferably in writing) have stated they will not work in the office. The company has a back to the office mandate and then fires the employee for not showing up. The employee can argue this was a creative firing and the employer is on the hook for unemployment. The employee must have evidence that managers were aware of their unwillingness to work from the office prior to the mandate.
You’re focused on the individual scale - check out the WARN act requirements for larger scale layoffs. A lot of the RTO mandates were a way to skirt notice and compensation requirements by getting large numbers of employees to quit on their own.
