[Reason077]

> "I don't get the play here. What's the outlook on the next release cycle without talent?"

Devil's advocate: maybe it's a low-cost way to avoid layoffs? As in "we'd like to reduce headcount, but layoffs are expensive and look bad. If we enforce RTO, a certain percentage of our less-dedicated employees will quit and we won't have to pay out severance etc..."

[rfreiberger]

I believe this is the way many companies are going, even if they don't need to reduce the headcount, they can scoop up hungry workers cycling them out for average performers.

I keep sharing that many companies have not defined the remote policy. It's up in the air and they simply haven't said anything about not working remote. My fear is it will all end in two weeks, asking all non-dedicated full time remote workers to be in the office.

[bb88]

Okay sure.

Now what happens when your company's processes require high performing people with experience that can't be hired just of the street? Or need several months to years worth of recruiting to replace?

[Reason077]

Companies always lose talent, experience and institutional knowledge when they cut headcount - whether it's through conventional layoffs or otherwise. The gamble is that the reduced expenses are more important/valuable to the company than what is lost.

[Suppafly]

I feel like vaccine mandates did something similar for companies, it helped them to remove the less intelligent employees. Sometimes it's better to convince the trash to take itself out.