This theory is often-quoted but doesn't make much sense. Big tech including Microsoft already did multiple rounds of layoffs. Why not just do another round?

If you quit (because of, say, RTO) then you quit. It's a fairly standard deal between you and your employer.

If you get laid-off, employer has to give you a severance package for any number of reasons (local labor laws, agreement with the union, corporate PR). This is not a standard deal and is, simply put, more expensive than if the employee just quit of their own accord.

In both cases, employer gets the benefit of reduced head count.

Yes… but they are asking why now? Why did Microsoft start with traditional layoffs and then transition into RTO layoffs years later?

Hard to say. Different regions will have different "tools" to use. For a large round, it's probably because they need to cut a lot of staff ASAP or because they have the offshoring ready to replace them. Paying them off is best in those situations.

If you need to fine cut a few particular teams then poking it with an RTO is better than giving them a severance package. This is all conjecture, but that's probably what those up top are considering with every move.

It’s just another tool in the downsizing toolbox. Also traditional layoffs and RTO “layoffs” don’t have to be mutually exclusive, both can easily occur at the same time

you're still avoiding the question. Why does Microsoft decide RTO "layoffs" are the right tool for 2025, but not 2022-2024? Many companies used both tools at the same time. Why did Microsoft wait until 2025?

Because it's politically expedient. They know the political climate is currently hostile to them requesting H1Bs while doing layoffs. RTO lets them get another round of layoffs without calling them layoffs and avoid the bad PR.

Microsoft compensates less than other top tech companies and remote work aligns with their lifestyle-first approach to compensation. Being on the early end of RTO would have worked against the perception that Microsoft is "the tech company with good work life balance," but now that most other companies have done it first they can get away with it as just them following the industry trend.

Market dynamics. Everyone is doing some form of RTO now. If you're the only RTO place, then hiring and retaining the people you want will be more difficult. It's a big game of chicken.

There are absolutely no labor laws in the US where an employer has to give severance.

    > If you get laid-off, employer has to give you a severance package for any number of reasons (local labor laws, agreement with the union, corporate PR). This is not a standard deal and is, simply put, more expensive than if the employee just quit of their own accord.

I don't think this is true in the US. And severance packages are cheaper than you think. Most people only get a couple of months of pay.

But you tend to lose your most capable employees when you create a bad/undesirable/etc work environment. I think people are attributing malice where the intent is merely...not incompetence, but it's what everybody else is doing. People forget that business goes through fashionable phases just like everything else. Microsoft fell victim to idiotic trends (stack-ranking, AI, etc) just like everybody else has.

Pretty much every big tech company was still providing severance for those who decline RTO.

Maybe they don't have to but there's sufficient murkiness that it's probably cheaper to just give the severance than go to court.

Which big tech companies provide severance for those who decide to leave because of RTO? It's not normally framed as "declining", either - you're simply expected to be there starting at a specific date, and if you're not then you're basically not performing your assigned work duties. You don't get to "decline".

Layoffs are expensive and destroy morale of those that remain (to say nothing of those that have to leave). When people suspect layoffs are coming, all work comes to a screeching halt around the event.

Getting people to quit is much cheaper (no severance if that exists, and your unemployment insurance costs don't go up).

People working in the office is more productive. Period. A few people on HN believing they are superior and are more productive remotely than in the office doesn’t change facts.

You could express this view without breaking the guidelines or dragging down the standard of discourse here. The guidelines address this specifically:

Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

When I was a teenager I played World of Warcraft for 5 years. During that time we did "raids" where 40 people have to pay attention and communicate, sometimes for longer than 8 hours, with people from around the globe.

If teenagers can do it, adults can do it. Period. And if they can't, skill issue I guess.

This assumes productive work in a highly collaborative environment. Meetings aren't usually any of those things. The rest can be done remotely.

The idea that meetings of all things are the part we need to be physically present for is hilarious

I’m absolutely shocked that people think this example is a good comparison here. If only our jobs were exactly as stimulating as a video game, and the outcomes didn’t matter at all - then maybe we could use WOW raids as evidence.

Why does Liquid do the RWF in person then?

Mostly because it’s a lot of fun to get in one room and play together. They’ve pretty consistently said that they’re not even sure that it’s a net benefit for winning.

Every recent RWF, including the one a couple of weeks ago, they have at least a few people who are still remote.

Because they all equally share in the struggle and accomplishment. It’s an actual team not an adult daycare like most jobs.

Love this example. So damn true

Clearly a skill issue on your part that you're projecting on everyone else. As dear leader would say: SAD!

Based example

If you have facts to show the class that haven't already been seen, otherwise...

Citation needed period

I have a more moderate view on RTO elsewhere in this post, so I'm not someone who things WFH is always the best approach. But for now, I have yet to see any study suggest that RTO is more productive across the board all the time.