this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023
745 points (98.6% liked)

Work Reform

9836 readers
158 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] muse@kbin.social 318 points 1 year 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"

[–] anon232@lemm.ee 99 points 1 year 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.

[–] krayj@sh.itjust.works 43 points 1 year 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.

[–] _number8_@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago (14 children)

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

[–] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'll give you a hint, the first three letters of the answer are MBA.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Pseu@kbin.social 16 points 1 year 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.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] _number8_@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

RTO itself isn't negative PR?

[–] Dashi@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Less negative than 'Grindr lays off half its staff due to economic troubles'

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year 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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 41 points 1 year ago (7 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.

[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year 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.

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

Ah the Thanos snap approach to firing.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year 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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] CoderKat@lemm.ee 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] root@lemmy.world 100 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Serves them right. When your product is completely virtual/ digital, there's no real reason to be in the office other than "cOLlAboRAtioN"

[–] gullible@kbin.social 83 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This was intentional. Tech companies force people back to the office in order to cull employees. IBM is infamous for getting 20+ year employees to quit in order to deny retirement benefits. Grindr is using a time tested method.

[–] Anonymousllama@lemmy.world 77 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I'm sure they'll find plenty of top tier new engineers who will take a position at Grindr instead of literally any other job that offers full time WFH support 🙄

Wonder which executive got annoyed that they went into the office, they noticed no one else was suffering in-office with them and this is the outcome.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Hypothetically, if I was called in to an empty office during a pandemic while the top brass worked from the comfort of home, I would absolutely work quietly and diligently from my designated space, and I would absolutely not load up on beans before hand and at every urge of my bowels, wander into those empty corner offices and fumigate every chair, book, keyboard, mousepad and drawer individually and repeatedly.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Wonder which executive got annoyed that they went into the office, they noticed no one else was suffering in-office with them and this is the outcome.

The one that gets the bonus.

good.

Companies that mandate a return to the office should pay a big price.

[–] brlemworld@lemmy.world 57 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They didn't lose their staff they constructively laid them off. They drastically changed the terms of their employment. Grindr must pay them unemployment benefits.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] firlefans@lemmy.world 56 points 1 year ago (1 children)

One company I worked at (in Germany) did a survey asking employees for their preference during the pandemic, 78% wanted a hybrid model with less than half of their time spent in the office, citing many legitimate reasons such as childcare. The management interpretation of this openly reported survey was an "overwhelming desire to return to the pre-pandemic office culture"..in a company full of data scientists, and analysts, it didn't land so well.

[–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 1 year ago

If only they had qualified people to interpret the data...

[–] const_void@lemmy.ml 45 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Return to office is a grift. Tech workers need to unionize.

[–] Mamertine@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

They were doing so at Grindr. That's allegedly the catalyst for this happening. The unionize movement has less momentum when you terminate half of your staff.

[–] uis@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

They needed to many years ago

[–] pgetsos@kbin.social 35 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wouldn't resign. Let them fire me and take the severance

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 26 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I'd imagine you aren't getting severance for this. Unemployment, maybe, since you could say your employer moved the job location too far away.

[–] krayj@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I’d imagine you aren’t getting severance for this.

It really depends on what's in their employment contracts...and I will bet that it makes a huge difference whether they accepted their positions as an advertised full-time remote position or not.

Even employers who don't make a habit of offering severance can be convinced to offer it when negotiating the compensation package. I have a pretty standard requirement in all my employment contracts that I am willing to give an equal amount of notice of departure as the company is willing to provide contractual severance. Example: if the company offers zero severance, then I have it written into my employment contract that the amount of notice I'm expected to give before resigning is zero days. If the company wants and expects 2-weeks notice, then I require my employment contract to mandate 2-weeks severance...and then I tell them that I'm happy with anything from zero days to a month and that they are free to choose the amount. This has always resulted in me getting 2-weeks or more of contractual severance even when other employees don't have that provision.

load more comments (3 replies)

Depends on the company. My shitty company is doing forced RTO, in a horrible way, but about the only thing they are doing right is giving standard severance packages for anyone who doesn't want to comply.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DarkSpectrum@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You could say the company came to a grinding halt

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

With gay abandon no less.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 30 points 1 year ago

Not up for the grind, am i rite?

[–] expatriado@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

cut payroll without paying unemployment with this simple trick

[–] moneyinphx@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

It wasn’t because of return to work. Workers were attempting to unionize.

They didn't "lose" their staff— they "discarded" their staff.

load more comments
view more: next ›