The problem is, before the layoffs, the employee may have felt they had an obligation to do right by the company. Once they're fired, it may no longer be the case. Some may very well become spiteful, act on their vengeance, & seek immediate retribution.
The risk posed by an employee going rouge is what most CEOs are playing for, especially as in GP's case, for a company as large as Google, where they need to plan for all possible failures and scenarios, some of which may or may not have happened before hand.
Maybe in US laid off employees can go rogue because they're treated like shit in the process?
Some employers may decide to give a few months of pay and benefits to laid off employees (although 6 months would be unusually large) but it is definitely not required and is not always done. Mass layoffs of 100+ people need to be announced 60 days ahead (but without naming who will be laid off) but there are no requirements for any kind of severance.
After college I worked for a large regional manufacturer. They laid off about 10% of their employees, I got nothing.
Severance pay is a white collar benefit.
He literally just told you it’s different in France?
> It is a genuinely terrible idea by the CEO though.
Maybe in your culture, but not all. In many cultures (people have shared numerous personal stories here), there are more humane ways to handle layoffs rather than treating former employees like a trespasser/thief/criminal one microsecond after the announcement.This is the culture where I am from. Nevertheless I absolutely believe that work relationships should be professional relationships, based on the employer paying for the employees time. Mutating that into "trust" will only create problems. The only thing I trust my employer with is him fulfilling his legal obligations towards me and I will fulfill my legal obligations towards him.