What were the specific list of proposals? The only one you mentioned (voluntary layoffs) is a bad idea because it leads the most talented people to leave.
Roughly, voluntary redundancies, pay cuts, unpaid sabbaticals, job trades, and various other implementation details.
They also presented a range of options for those at risk of, for example, deportation, including those at risk of deportation to face legal consequences at home or conscription. None of these suggestions were accepted.
Sabbaticals tend to increase retention, as those with long tenure can take a break without quitting.
And anyway, the company doesn't necessarily only want to cut the "bottom talent", they may want to cut expensive talent.
I am blending the Zurich case with the UK case in my mind, though. There's a lot to keep track of here.
DO you have any information on the Zurich case? I'm not aware of any layoffs there.
When the company stops listening to the employees.
Oh wait, Google already has that. If that's not working well, that's its own problem. These layoffs were somewhat indiscriminate, with high-performing people getting fired.
They might leave anyway...?
Not necessarily.
Also people who have been sticking around out of inertia and doing the bare minimum. People ready to retire a bit early. Etc. Basically, it's reasonable to think that most people who would volunteer--especially at a very top-tier pay job--might well not be there in a year or so anyway. (There is I guess an argument that the people who are going to leave anyway will leave with or without a package so why pay for the package?)
While you might not want to choose people purely based on volunteers, it's not clear that taking at least some volunteers doesn't benefit both the company and workers.
I'd be willing to bet that whatever 94% Google ended up deciding to keep would not be the "best" working on the most important/strategic projects and unlikely to leave Google anyway in the next 6-12 months.
The “it”s you are referencing here are different things. There is a formal process. And employees did give negative feedback.
I was never suggesting the formal process is negative feedback. In fact that seems non-sensical which makes me wonder how you thought that I thought that made sense. It seems like a lazy dismissal, quite frankly. In what way could someone think an overarching policy is negative feedback on a particular event?
It sucks to have a corporation say "okay we'll have a discussion and come to a solution that achieves our goals while also maximizing your goals" and then turn around and say "nah, we are just going to do it our way with no changes."
In the US there are little protections so the company just gets to say "you are all fired" but the policies are supposed to be different in some other countries. Since the end result was that Google just picks however they want it feels like crap that the UK folks had to wait 2.5 months to figure out who was going to be fired with no influence at all in the process.