> you're specifically filtering out...
...everyone for whom a full return to the office is a breaking point. You assume that correlates with capability of the employeeto perform their job well.
That does seem reasonable, but it remains just that: an assumption. And you know the thing about assumptions : they make a donkey out of U and MPTIONS.
No, he's assuming that low performers would have a harder time finding a new job with equal or better pay. Which may or may not be true.
Why would they be looking for a new job if this wasn't a breaking point or final straw for them?
They wouldn't be, which is why I believe this forced return to office action just filters out high-performers who wish to remain remote and it retains almost all of the low/medium skill workers and almost all of the high-skill no preference or work in office preferred high skill workers.
Re:Tesla to Cut 10% of Jobs
by sillysaurusx on Friday June 03, 2022 @11:31AM
(#31609698)
As a fly on the wall, I think you both agree! Both of your points are very good and aren’t mutually exclusive at all. Quite the opposite.
Keep in mind though that Elon can just say this, even send the memo... Then fire who he wants anyway, keep whoever is still remote and kept and pitch to the market that this "realignment" has made the company stronger by sucking right up to the expectations of your average distrustful exec.
In the case of the return to office dynamic, you're specifically filtering out high-quality workers who also prefer to be remote, and the results are retention of all low/medium quality workers regardless of remote/office preference, and high quality workers who don't mind or have some reason that keeps them in the office. You don't filter out low-quality workers whatsoever because they'll at least go to the office to keep their job assuming they don't have options (or else they'd be higher quality workers or maybe they just leave the work force).