Agreed, especially given the other info:

- The severance package is apparently very generous

- The relocation package is just $4K, not at all generous

- They’re giving ppl just 3 days to accept the relocation option, too little time for most people to decide on a major life move

Sounds like what they really want to do is a layoff, which is fine (especially if the severance package is strong), and a normal part of businesses. But they didn’t have the guts to just do it, and instead are doing a thinly veiled layoff that makes it seem like the employee’s choice.

Imagine showing up to one of the hub cities ready to work after your manager assumed you were toast…

“Oh hi Mark”

Especially awkward if your name is Tom.

This is definitely better for employees who are on H1B than a regular lay-off. At least, they have the option to keep their job while looking for a new one. Otherwise, the 60 day clock starts and the employee may have to leave the country. Which is much worse than relocating to another state.

I would expect better for a company owned by nonprofits.

Ok so how would they have to formulate it if it was true? I really dislike these large corporations and their mechanical way of treating employees like cattle, but Patagonia really isn’t that.

All this “see? They are not the angels they say they are!” I see in the comments here really feels disappointing to me. We should be happy such companies exist, as opposed to H&M for example.

No company is "good" forever, companies are only "good" for as long as it is good for business.

I disagree, it’s a gross generalisation across millions of companies worldwide, and a very manichaean one at that.

“Good for business” is not something that is easy to measure and hence sometimes you make a decision without knowing what is better for business, which leaves the door open to ethics and moral values.

Example: „let’s reduce the waste we produce by reutilising more, which is going to cost us more in terms of logistics but if we can advertise it as green maybe it helps our sales” => impossible to conclusively verify, so what is going to drive the decision? Ethics, values (good or bad ones).

And all companies are not 100% unabatedly profit maximising machines. Some are, most of all the ones where faceless stock holders hold the power.

No company is anything "forever". What kind of statement is this, or is it just /r/antiwork propaganda.

Can you not just lay people off with a good severance package in America? Is there a reason for the charade? Maybe supposed to be better optics but definitely just looks worse

What? I've been laid off a couple of times without any kind of severance package. The severance package is the exception not the rule.

I was subject to a layoff at one point in my career and it is really up to the management. We ended up with severance, a year of warning the end is coming and some informal help with finding a new position. Then again, the company was removing its presence from state and it needed our help to make sure transition was smooth. I guess in this case, management felt there was no need for any niceties.