757
Grindr loses nearly half its staff to strict return-to-work rule (www.latimes.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/workreform@lemmy.world
80 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Grindr has lost about 45% of its staff as it enforces a strict return-to-office policy that was introduced after a majority of employees announced a plan to unionize.

About 80 of the 178 employees at the LGBTQ+ dating app company resigned after the company in August mandated that workers return to work in person two days a week at assigned “hub” offices or be fired, the Communications Workers of America said in a statement Wednesday.

love seeing companies going full mask off now

not even trying to sell the 'collaborative environment' bile, it's purely punitive

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 324 points 3 years ago (5 children)

That's a weird way of saying "grindr found a way to lay off half its staff without having to pay severance"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 100 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    This should honestly be the top comment, most companies appear to be using RTO as a means of doing mass layoffs without the negative PR hit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 45 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Exactly right - this is a thinly veiled excuse for a planned large scale workforce reduction sidestepping some of the normal repercussions.

    What I find most interesting here is that WFH is essentially a benefit (a big one) at this point, and they just eliminated a huge benefit. That usually has the effect of causing some of your greatest talent to walk - and leaving behind those people who either don't care about the benefit (there may be some, but I think this number is small) or don't immediately have the hireability to resign and go for greener pastures.

    The tradeoff for grindr is that it'll make them temporarily look better on paper, but the loss of talent will probably hurt them in the long run. If there's one thing that seems to be true of modern capitalism, it's that companies are more than willing to fuck their futures over some perceived short term gains.

    Grindr isn't the only company doing this. I'll be interested to see how this works out for all the employers using this same tactic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 32 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    how did we get to the point where a gay hookup app is doing evil corporate schemes and attrition

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 3 years ago

    Because once the firm is big enough where the decision-maker doesn't personally know the people they're laying off, it almost immediately turns into this. The severance pay and unemployment of 80 software developers is millions of dollars, enough for even people who are normal and nice to the people they know to look the other way and say it was for the good of the company.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -24 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    How did we get to a point where people online claim a company is evil?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    How did we get to a point where people started becoming anti-employee corporate apologists?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Let me guess- corporations are people.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    That was never a thing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    If you read it. It isn't saying corporations/business are people. It is saying they are owned by people and people have rights that cannot be violated.

    People have rights and a business inherits the rights of the people who work within and own it. Just think about what it would mean otherwise. A bank or hospital holds countless private information of anyone who uses them. Any business does, as they all hold private information of clients and employees. That information by extension has a right to certain things like privacy. The government or others cannot just force their way in when they want to get information they want.

    That isn't because businesses are people. Its because businesses are created and owned by people. That's all that law is saying and it gets twisted every time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Right. This produces the opposite result of what a layoff usually obtains, retaining talented key personnel while cutting the chaff. That's why I'm not sure layoffs were the actual goal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    back to the comments above: the management knows not the people who do the actual work. They can't immediately tell if the Chris who left was carrying his team or was the worst slacker in the company. They'll learn after they audit the remaining workforce and see The Spreadsheet say the people who remained are bottom performers (pun probably intended) but it'll be too late - the talent is gone, the trust is broken. Whether different companies learn from each others' mistakes is a mystery to me, apparently the global conspiracy of billionaire CEOs is not as robust as I expected (/s)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 23 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    RTO itself isn't negative PR?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago

    Depends on your audience. Potential employees will hate RTO and fear bad financial news, customers likely won't care about either, shareholders don't really care about RTO but will jump ship with bad financial news

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 41 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    I don't think that's entirely the case though. With layoffs you remove the positions that the company no longer needs, or can't sustain. With this strategy they're just randomly losing half the staff. You wouldn't lay off your chief software architect, or the only guy who knows how your database works, or the account manager who will take all of your vendors with them when they leave. This will cause enormous hardship for the company if the wrong people left.

    I suppose they could have done a bunch of mandatory surveys first, asking employees how they felt about a return to the office and carefully monitoring the responses from key personnel, even preemptively mandating documentation or hand-off of responsibilities. That's incredibly nefarious though if that's what they did. That might even border on illegal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 35 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    You're taking them at their word that all hands are required back. It is zero effort for them to carve out exceptions for key staff -- or literally any group or individual they want to please -- while still bleating about 'come back to the office or be fired' to the press and everyone else. Corporate heads talking out of both sides of their mouth is the norm, not the exception.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 32 points 3 years ago

    They did that to me. I'm in IT in a 'critical' (read - too expensive to rehire for) role for a large company doing forced RTO. I'm the only one on the team in my state, and not near any remaining offices, because they closed my building during COVID. My boss knew I was going to walk if they tried to force me to move, so they carved out an exception for me and I'm still WFH full time while the rest of my team has to go to the office 2 days a week minimum. The whole thing is toxic and destructive to morale. I'm trying to finagle a way to get the severance package because I want out of here before everything finishes circling the drain.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago

    I can't agree at all. We do attrition based staff reduction all the time. Years upon years of it. Is it smart and planned? No. Do we survive anyway? Sure.

    They're not losing clients over this so they'll be fine if they're less efficient for a while.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago*

    Agreed with this, if it's an attrition play it's an incredibly incompetent one. I'd argue there's reason to believe you'd lose the senior employees that you'd want to keep.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    If an important position is paid enough, they won't leave just because of this return to office

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 3 years ago

    Yes, they might. The more important they are, the higher the likelihood that they can get high pay and remote work elsewhere, and have plenty of savings on hand to weather the transition.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I'm not sure about anyone who was hired before WFH, but generally, a substantial change to job duties or location is considered constructive dismissal. ie, it's legally the same as being fired without cause. That might be eligible for severance and definitely for unemployment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago*

    For most roles, severance is not a guarantee and only given as part of layoffs because companies that don't are crucified.

    I.e. getting fired/quitting will not trigger some severance clause for nearly all employees, even constructive dismissal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    This really needs to be some level of labor issue. If an office decided to move across the country and you didn't move with it, would that be you quitting? You applied for the job that was on your side of the country, not the one across the country. To me, the employer's terms changed, which means they need to handle the difference.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent