IIRC, Salesforce also did the same thing. Announced layoffs that would happen over the course of a year, with some effective immediately.
It feels like it would demoralize workers; everyone was already on eggshells leading up to such an announcement and it would suck to continue working while stepping on eggshells for a full year, wondering if tomorrow is your day.
I've seen both. Imo announcing layoffs ahead of time is better because while demoralising it at least gives people time to prepare and a sense that the company cares enough about you to be honest with you and aid with a smooth transition to your next role.
I worked for place which did several mass layoffs. The way they did it was by emailing everyone at end of day Thursday explain that everyone needed to be in the office at 9am tomorrow. Then the next day they'd call people into rooms one by one and tell them they no longer have a job.
It sucks for two reasons, one because in the span of 24 hours you go from feeling secure to panicking about finding a job. And two because everyone who is still there knows that at any point the same thing could happen to them.
The places I've been where they've been up front have been much more pleasant in comparison. While people can feel stressed and demoralised they at least know where they stand and can keep their options open. Managers come across as honest and sympathetic to the situation instead of secretive which helps avoid rumours of impending mass layoffs every couple of months. Plus it also gives everyone a chance to say goodbye.
The entire situation is silly. People shouldn’t be panicking about losing health care etc because of layoffs. Corporations shouldn’t have this much power.
Part of the severance is 60 days notice of any layoff, so nobody would be blindsided in that sense.
I also don’t see how it gives people time to say goodbye considering you still won’t know who is leaving until they’re laid off, which can happen anytime anyways.
Spreading it out does nothing but create more stress and pressure for both the people going and the people staying.
Big brain: I'm telegraphing that we'll be letting lots of people go so they will self-select and we won't have to fire as many. I imagine that someone could have this idea, but I doubt it benefits the company in practice.
Micro brain: 'If you have not received notice that are are affected, your are safe! Resume being 100% productive until you receive notice that you are fired at a later time. That is all.'
Having lived through 2001 dot-com bust, I can say that being the retained employee can be worse than being laid off.
It depends on your circumstances. I had months of sleepless nights when I survived the sequential layoffs at the company where I was working, trying to work out what I could do to secure my wife and I, but had I actually been laid off the theoretical would have been real. I knew good people who were out of work for a year. Not bad people, people generally considered very solid.
If I was laid off tomorrow, though, it would be a relief and I could call it a day.
1 They have to. It’s a “material event” that could impact the stock price, so they have to communicate to investors, once a decision has been taken.
2 They probably want to. It creates clarity for employees after what other commenters here described as months-long rumours. The damage to morale would be greater if they do it in pieces.
I’ve heard this is due to differences in local laws. In the US rumors say it will all happen today. In other countries it may differ. I’ve heard this but can’t confirm if it’s true.
It says "through the end of FY23 Q3". Microsoft's fiscal year ends at the end of June, so their "FY23 Q3" is the current quarter.