[yallpendantools]

If you quit (because of, say, RTO) then you quit. It's a fairly standard deal between you and your employer.

If you get laid-off, employer has to give you a severance package for any number of reasons (local labor laws, agreement with the union, corporate PR). This is not a standard deal and is, simply put, more expensive than if the employee just quit of their own accord.

In both cases, employer gets the benefit of reduced head count.

[itake]

Yes… but they are asking why now? Why did Microsoft start with traditional layoffs and then transition into RTO layoffs years later?

[johnnyanmac]

Hard to say. Different regions will have different "tools" to use. For a large round, it's probably because they need to cut a lot of staff ASAP or because they have the offshoring ready to replace them. Paying them off is best in those situations.

If you need to fine cut a few particular teams then poking it with an RTO is better than giving them a severance package. This is all conjecture, but that's probably what those up top are considering with every move.

[novok]

Market dynamics. Everyone is doing some form of RTO now. If you're the only RTO place, then hiring and retaining the people you want will be more difficult. It's a big game of chicken.

[fastily]

It’s just another tool in the downsizing toolbox. Also traditional layoffs and RTO “layoffs” don’t have to be mutually exclusive, both can easily occur at the same time

[itake]

you're still avoiding the question. Why does Microsoft decide RTO "layoffs" are the right tool for 2025, but not 2022-2024? Many companies used both tools at the same time. Why did Microsoft wait until 2025?

[Longlius]

Because it's politically expedient. They know the political climate is currently hostile to them requesting H1Bs while doing layoffs. RTO lets them get another round of layoffs without calling them layoffs and avoid the bad PR.

[somekindaguy]

Microsoft compensates less than other top tech companies and remote work aligns with their lifestyle-first approach to compensation. Being on the early end of RTO would have worked against the perception that Microsoft is "the tech company with good work life balance," but now that most other companies have done it first they can get away with it as just them following the industry trend.

[throwaway2037]

    > If you get laid-off, employer has to give you a severance package for any number of reasons (local labor laws, agreement with the union, corporate PR). This is not a standard deal and is, simply put, more expensive than if the employee just quit of their own accord.

I don't think this is true in the US. And severance packages are cheaper than you think. Most people only get a couple of months of pay.

[aeternum]

Pretty much every big tech company was still providing severance for those who decline RTO.

Maybe they don't have to but there's sufficient murkiness that it's probably cheaper to just give the severance than go to court.

[int_19h]

Which big tech companies provide severance for those who decide to leave because of RTO? It's not normally framed as "declining", either - you're simply expected to be there starting at a specific date, and if you're not then you're basically not performing your assigned work duties. You don't get to "decline".

[scarface_74]

There are absolutely no labor laws in the US where an employer has to give severance.

[hylaride]

But you tend to lose your most capable employees when you create a bad/undesirable/etc work environment. I think people are attributing malice where the intent is merely...not incompetence, but it's what everybody else is doing. People forget that business goes through fashionable phases just like everything else. Microsoft fell victim to idiotic trends (stack-ranking, AI, etc) just like everybody else has.