Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses

Staff Say Dell's Return To Office Mandate is a Stealth Layoff (theregister.com) 165

Dell's "return to office" mandate has left employees confused about which offices they can use and the future of their jobs -- and concerned the initiative is a stealth layoff program that will disproportionately harm women at the IT giant. From a report: As El Reg broke this month, Dell told employees they each needed to choose between resuming a hybrid work schedule -- working from a corporate office part of the time -- or continue working remotely. Those who chose to remain as remote workers were effectively making a career-limiting decision.

The implications of choosing to work remotely, we're told, are: "1) no funding for team onsite meetings, even if a large portion of the team is flying in for the meeting from other Dell locations; 2) no career advancement; 3) no career movements; and 4) remote status will be considered when planning or organization changes -- AKA workforce reductions." Another employee said: "Choosing to be remote does indeed put career advancement at a standstill. If you choose to accept a promotion after going remote, that comes with the requirement of being in office 39 days out of the quarter" and you have to reclassify yourself as hybrid. The employee continued: "Even if you choose to make a lateral career move, the same expectation applies. In-role promotions are possible, but rare enough to not be a realistic option."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Staff Say Dell's Return To Office Mandate is a Stealth Layoff

Comments Filter:
  • By denying advancement rather than threatening termination they're firmly in the clear, legally speaking. I fail to see how "Stealth Layoff" applies. Layoff is a pretty specific term, both in colloquial usage and in legal terms. Prefixing it with "stealth" might as well nullify the term.

    It it's encouraging resignations, well, sure. That makes sense I'm not objecting to the intent, but rather to the characterization.

    • by DesScorp ( 410532 ) on Friday February 23, 2024 @03:30PM (#64263476) Journal

      That makes sense I'm not objecting to the intent, but rather to the characterization.

      It's not a "stealth layoff". It's an ultimatum: either come to the office, or accept that you're in a career dead-end at Dell.

      If Dell wants everyone working from an office, then they need to just say so outright: "Company policy is changing, and we'll require all employees to work at office locations. This is mandatory company policy starting on *insert date*". I get that they're trying to do kind of a stick and carrot thing here, but they need to just be blunt about it if this is what they want.

      • It's also a wage reduction. Because of inflation, you need a raise every year, or your salary keeps decreasing.

      • by omnichad ( 1198475 ) on Friday February 23, 2024 @04:11PM (#64263644) Homepage

        If they had a mass layoff, they would need to tell the world via a WARN Act notification. They don't want any hit to their stock price from such an announcement. They absolutely want to make staying with Dell as unattractive as possible for current remote employees for whom it's likely impractical to move closer to the office now.

        • WARN Act notification. They don't want any hit to their stock price from such an announcement.

          Conventional wisdom on the internet is shareholders always respond positively to layoffs.

        • They don't want any hit to their stock price from such an announcement.

          Layoffs almost always boost stock prices. It shows that the company is cutting costs.

        • No one is losing their jobs, they have a clear choice they are being offered, return to at least a hybrid schedule (39 days in office/quarter), or remain working from home 5 days a week. They are letting employees know the 'cost' of refusing even the hybrid work arrangement... they are big boys and girls, they can make the choice that best suits their situation.

      • by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Friday February 23, 2024 @04:56PM (#64263830)

        That makes sense I'm not objecting to the intent, but rather to the characterization.

        It's not a "stealth layoff". It's an ultimatum: either come to the office, or accept that you're in a career dead-end at Dell.

        Seems like no one from Dell is saying the people demanding to work in some safe space are being fired. And yes, it is simple math that if you won't leave home to work, you are limiting yourself to only careers that you never have to go to an office.

        Not everyone is a programmer that probably does better the less contact they have with others. Some work requires an in person presence. If you refuse to be some place in person, that is a job you will never have, and the same for in-company work that requires it.

        The whole story seems more like Dell saying "You can refuse to come in, but that will have an effect on your career" - that's undeniable.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by DaFallus ( 805248 )

          That makes sense I'm not objecting to the intent, but rather to the characterization.

          It's not a "stealth layoff". It's an ultimatum: either come to the office, or accept that you're in a career dead-end at Dell.

          Seems like no one from Dell is saying the people demanding to work in some safe space are being fired. And yes, it is simple math that if you won't leave home to work, you are limiting yourself to only careers that you never have to go to an office.

          Not everyone is a programmer that probably does better the less contact they have with others. Some work requires an in person presence. If you refuse to be some place in person, that is a job you will never have, and the same for in-company work that requires it.

          The whole story seems more like Dell saying "You can refuse to come in, but that will have an effect on your career" - that's undeniable.

          And yet these people seem to have been doing their jobs remotely just fine up until now. So what changed?

          • You literally made up the part about "being able to meet all the requirements of their jobs" - no where in the article I read was worker performance rating or productivity metrics presented to counter the employers desire to have workers return to the office, at least part-time.

    • The remote rules are a poison pill that Dell is counting on as motivation for the vast majority of its remote workers to give up and come back to the office. Saying it's "not a layoff" because they "technically" aren't letting the remote workers go, is kind of like saying that a company offering buyout packages to encourage people to retire, isn't really laying off people. The only difference here is that buyout packages offer a carrot, while Dell is prodding with a stick. Yeah, it's a layoff.

      • They aren't releasing anybody, or even asking for voluntary exits. They aren't even engaging in constructive dismissal.

        "You get to keep doing what you're doing" is not a layoff. I don't know how you can conclude that.

        • They aren't even engaging in constructive dismissal.

          I think a lawyer could make a good argument that this is constructive dismissal:

          "1) no funding for team onsite meetings, even if a large portion of the team is flying in for the meeting from other Dell locations; "

          They are clearly downgrading the employees who choose to be remote.

          • A lawyer can always make an argument, but could they win with it? My understanding is that constructive dismissal occurs when the employer changes the "powers or duties" of an employee.

            If it landed in court, my completely unprofessional suspicion is that the claim of constructive dismissal would likely fail - especially if the person was hired pre-pandemic, and the work was performed in the office at that time. Somebody hired since then might have a better shot, since work from home was the conditions durin

            • A lawyer can always make an argument, but could they win with it? My understanding is that constructive dismissal occurs when the employer changes the "powers or duties" of an employee.

              The employer has changed the "duties": attending meetings, by removing the "attending offsite meetings" part of their duties. But this is likely an area of state law, so it may depend on the actual state in which they "work" (might be their former office address, might be their home address).

              There is an article that discusses California law here:
              https://www.rutan.com/wp-conte... [rutan.com]
              and one about Florida law here:
              https://www.mavricklaw.com/blo... [mavricklaw.com]

              I think that the criteria for constructive dismissal in the two sta

        • by jvkjvk ( 102057 )

          They objectively have less money at their job now than before. Dell was the entity that did this. This is a punishment to "keep doing what you're doing" and thus is an incentive to leave. Thus, a 'stealth layoff' as it is called.

          • No company owes annual salary increases, unless they are explicitly guaranteed in the employment contract. Objectively the employee has the same money at their job as before. The purchasing power of money is a different matter, and that's arguably more subjective.

        • or even asking for voluntary exits

          I disagree. When you change the rules, the employment agreement, in a way that you *know* will cause some of your employees to leave voluntarily, you are in effect asking for voluntary exits.

          You get to keep doing what you're doing

          This is disingenuous. Most employees expect to have opportunities to advance, if they do their jobs well. Dell is taking this opportunity away. That's not actually maintaining the status quo, it is making it worse.

          • If they changed the employment agreement, I absolutely agree with you. But what the employee "expects" in the future isn't binding on the employer. At all.

            • There are lots of aspects of a person's employment that are not "binding." That does not mean those aspects aren't "expected." Binding is a legal concept, expectations are understandings. Sure, if you look only at legal requirements, Dell is no doubt complying with those. But there are lots of ways of pushing people towards the exists, that don't involve violating legally binding agreements.

              This conversion isn't even about binding agreements. It's about how Dell is treating its remote workforce, and how tha

              • I think perhaps you misunderstand me. I don't condone what they're doing - not at all. I only objected to the characterization of what they are doing as "layoffs".

                • We can agree to disagree then. Layoffs can be achieved in many ways. In this case, they are creating a work environment that is objectively worse for some of their staff, an act that will inevitably push some of them out. They have to know that will be the result, and if they don't, it's only because they are incompetent. In my book, that's a layoff.

                  • Layoff is being dismissed from your job. This isn't being dismissed. Precision of language!

                    No one is losing their job here. They are welcome to keeping working from home but now they are being told directly that they shouldn't expect promotions and also are more likely to actually be laid off in the future if it comes to that.

                    The smart ones should just starting looking for a new job now. The lazier ones will just keep on coasting.

                    • The headline was "stealth layoff." Words matter. The "stealth" adjective indicates that it's not an *actual* layoff, no one is being dismissed. "Stealth" means that it's a way of persuading employees to leave, without actually dismissing them. The result is that headcount will be reduced, in either case.

                      You are right about the smart vs. lazy ones. And that's how it always happens. When working conditions deteriorate (as is happening here), the good ones always leave first.

    • by Kernel Kurtz ( 182424 ) on Friday February 23, 2024 @03:47PM (#64263550)
      So if you are late in your career and don't care about further advancement, you can keep working from home. Almost like a benefit to seniority. If you are early in your career, it is a good incentive to look for a better job. Basically it sucks most for the people who have significant time invested there and hope to stay on. I'm sure the company will benefit from the morale boost it provides to them LOL.
      • So if you are late in your career and don't care about further advancement, you can keep working from home. Almost like a benefit to seniority. If you are early in your career, it is a good incentive to look for a better job.

        Good point. This is likely to have the opposite outcome to the one they hoped for: younger employees will leave, while older employees will stay.

        • So if you are late in your career and don't care about further advancement, you can keep working from home. Almost like a benefit to seniority. If you are early in your career, it is a good incentive to look for a better job.

          Good point. This is likely to have the opposite outcome to the one they hoped for: younger employees will leave, while older employees will stay.

          Yeah, no - about that thing. I'm back at work now and doing it as a Boomer because the young people couldn't handle it. Hopefully a new generation of people will be less pre-installed with stress.

      • So if you are late in your career and don't care about further advancement, you can keep working from home. Almost like a benefit to seniority. If you are early in your career, it is a good incentive to look for a better job. Basically it sucks most for the people who have significant time invested there and hope to stay on. I'm sure the company will benefit from the morale boost it provides to them LOL.

        Well, most people who are late in their career are likely to be in management positions. Or travel might be simply part of the job.

        My previous work, that I retired from, I travelled, did research, performed experiments wrote papers, and dealt with sensitive matter. Good job, paid well, lots of perks. But not one thing could be done from home. I liked it other than the last person they put me under as my supervisor. So I retired. At my take-home pay.

        Present post retirement work, I do half from home and h

        • Well, most people who are late in their career are likely to be in management positions.

          I can't speak to most people, I have no idea who they are. I was not interested in management myself though I could have gone there. I'd rather play with enterprise grade tech than worry about budgets and tenders and contracts and HR. Absolutely the last thing I would want was my bosses job.

          While there are people who can possibly do everything from home, I only caution that they are limiting their options, and if there was one thing I learned over my career, is that if a person limits their options, they limit their success.

          I'm also mostly retired. My job also required hands on configuration and installation of network equipment. It also had a lot of management and administration of said networks that could be done remotely, including

    • Just like those friendly men in the “sanitation” business when they say it would be a shame if something bad happened to your store.

    • by EvilSS ( 557649 )
      A stealth layoff is when a firm wants to cut headcount, but doesn't want to announce it to the world. So they make changes to allow them to fire individuals (changing performance standards for example) or to put pressure on individuals to leave voluntarily by changing policies like remote work. Then they can cut that 10% (or whatever) in headcount without tipping off Wall Street and the rest of the world.

      Just want to point out a simple google search would have given you this information.
    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      Not everyone wants advancement. In fact, I've worked for companies where they had to drag people kicking and screaming into management. The engineer's pay was excellent (I often earned more than my boss). And we got to mess around with cool technology. And I didn't have to put up with so much office political bullshit.

      Also, see The Dilbert Principle [wikipedia.org].

      • Not everyone wants advancement. In fact, I've worked for companies where they had to drag people kicking and screaming into management.

        Every tech company I've worked at (and I'm old) has had parallel tracks for engineering and management. Equal seniority, equal pay. No good reason to go into management.

        • by jbengt ( 874751 )

          Every tech company I've worked at (and I'm old) has had parallel tracks for engineering and management.

          Every engineering company I've worked at (and I'm old) has had engineers as management, (except for the HR/legal department of one of the larger firms).

    • Prefixing it with "stealth" might as well nullify the term. It it's encouraging resignations, well, sure.

      You do you know that the reason to do this is to avoid meeting their legal obligations when they do layoffs, right? I mean you're hinting at it here.

    • By denying advancement rather than threatening termination they're firmly in the clear, legally speaking. I fail to see how "Stealth Layoff" applies. Layoff is a pretty specific term, both in colloquial usage and in legal terms. Prefixing it with "stealth" might as well nullify the term.

      Did you read the summary where it said"4) remote status will be considered when planning or organization changes -- AKA workforce reductions". From the employee's interpretation, going remote is telling HR that they are priority for layoffs. But generally if you are in a job that tells you that you cannot advance OR move, that means you have to quit to get a better job. Remote == dead-end job at Dell. Dell may not need to layoff workers per say; they just need to make the situation unacceptable to workers

      • I did read the summary. I even read the article. I don't even like what they're doing. I only dislike the phrase "Stealth Layoff". And it's not the word "stealth", it's the word "layoff". A layoff generally isn't voluntary, and usually comes with a package. You certainly don't get to ignore a layoff and continue working in the same role with the same responsibilities as you had all along.

        You can assign a lot of labels to this situation, but I just think "layoff" is a mistake.

        • . I only dislike the phrase "Stealth Layoff". And it's not the word "stealth", it's the word "layoff". A layoff generally isn't voluntary, and usually comes with a package. You certainly don't get to ignore a layoff and continue working in the same role with the same responsibilities as you had all along.

          You don't work for Dell. Staff at Dell consider this a "stealth layoff" due to the conditions imposed. In their minds, they either have to quit or accept conditions that may not be tenable. I know people at Dell and the one thing that is not being reported is many of them were physically remote long before the pandemic. Being forced back into the office when they live a long way from any office and given no budget to travel to an office becomes an issue. That couple with the fact that though Dell mandate t

      • 4) remote status will be considered when planning or organization changes

        Right, which is why it's not "stealth". It's right there for the public, and investors to read.

        Employers don't owe you severance because you disagree. It'd be perfectly legal to just terminate the people that refused to come into the office. Plenty of tech companies did this. They didn't announce the details, but when your employer requires you to come into the office 3 days a week, and you refuse, you'd better believe it's not going to be "that's okay we were just asking nicely".

        By allowing them to remain

        • Right, which is why it's not "stealth". It's right there for the public, and investors to read.

          It's considered "stealth" as Dell is trying to reduce their personnel without alerting anyone of what they are doing.

          Employers don't owe you severance because you disagree. It'd be perfectly legal to just terminate the people that refused to come into the office. Plenty of tech companies did this. They didn't announce the details, but when your employer requires you to come into the office 3 days a week, and you refuse, you'd better believe it's not going to be "that's okay we were just asking nicely".

          Termination of large number of employees because they disagree with a change in work policy would probably be news. I would think Dell would like to keep this quiet.

          By allowing them to remain on, for some time, it's giving them the opportunity to look for work locally while keeping their job at Dell. Or decide to move, their choice. Why is this bad?

          The article says this affect 65% of their work force. I think this is a way for Dell to pressure employees to quietly quit without having to pay them severance. Again, "stealth"

          • It's considered "stealth" as Dell is trying to reduce their personnel without alerting anyone of what they are doing.

            Well no, it's the opposite of that. This is their public statement to employees:

            The implications of choosing to work remotely, we're told, are ... 4) remote status will be considered when planning or organization changes -- AKA workforce reductions

            I would think Dell would like to keep this quiet.

            But they didn't.

            The article says this affect 65% of their work force. I think this is a way for Dell to pressure employees to quietly quit without having to pay them severance.

            Maybe they just want people to be in the office. Most companies require employees to be in the office a regularly (not necessarily ever day). Sounds like they let things get out of hand during covid and they are trying to make a correction.

    • By denying advancement rather than threatening termination they're firmly in the clear, legally speaking.

      They are legally in the clear regardless.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

  • by YetAnotherDrew ( 664604 ) on Friday February 23, 2024 @03:26PM (#64263456)

    It will only get rid of the people that actually get things done and don't spend all of their time/effort on office politics.

  • Start A Company (Score:5, Insightful)

    by StormReaver ( 59959 ) on Friday February 23, 2024 @03:37PM (#64263496)

    Everyone who wants to continue working remotely needs to come together and form small companies. Yes, this is a wand-waving proclamation, but acknowledging the need (and being able to say it out loud) is a necessary step. No employer is going to treat you right unless that employer is you.

    • Where it is a practical option, this will happen and ultimately displace the companies that refuse to adapt.

      After all, the new companies will have similar IT costs and drastically lower infrastructure costs. That's a significant competitive advantage.

    • You do realize that people who are laid off or often busy trying to survive. Also in modern it your skill set is expected to be astonishing or they just replace you with a cheap H-1B so they're going to be busting their asses getting ready for job interviews. You don't get down time in between jobs like the baby boomer is did...

      It's like that comment somebody made where somebody said Jeff bezos started Amazon out of his garage and what's your excuse and somebody replied, I don't have a garage.

      When yo
    • Sure let me go out to the money tree to start my business.

  • When someone leaves voluntarily: 1. No severance pay. 2. 2 weeks (usually) to spin up replacement, or at least document any special sauce that employee used for their job. So less risk for the company losing key competencies. 3. No need to worry about retention bonuses for those who stay (in the case of large layoffs).
    • by schwit1 ( 797399 )

      Just the opposite in the long run.

      Those that leave voluntarily are the ones that have sellable skills and are motivated. Those that stay are the Wally's(see Dilbert) of the world. They want to get by. What are you left with?

  • Dell has tons of remote workers from before the pandemic, so are they telling those people they also have to move and go back to the office? My guess is this was a company wide announcement that also included some statement about "any exceptions will be sent in a separate communication." They have field engineers and customer engineers that are in all sorts of locations, are those people going to move to Round Rock? My guess is there's so many exceptions to this that there's probably some actual document
    • We sent out surveys about who wanted to come back to the office and determined if we needed to keep all of our buildings and stuff like that and mostly we got rid of the buildings (or trying to.)

      I get the feeling that a lot of tech businesses are on such shaky financial ground that letting go of real estate holdings is a serious risk to stability. Though I imagine a commercial real estate crash happening anyway sooner or later. Probably not Dell's reasoning - but they also wouldn't want to sell off buildings and re-buy years down the road.

  • I feel like you can now identify a shady company by their work/employment practices.

    Bad companies would prefer to retain idiots who will sit in offices and do no work and take promotions, than workers who get their jobs done.

    Good companies will give you the tools you need to succeed, let you work in the way that's best for you, then get the hell out of your way.

  • Non-Stealth Layoff (Score:4, Informative)

    by crow ( 16139 ) on Friday February 23, 2024 @04:06PM (#64263618) Homepage Journal

    I'll note that this came out at the same time as Dell was doing a round of non-stealth layoffs. A friend of mine was just laid off this week (I think today was his last day). I'm not sure how many are impacted, but I was laid off three weeks ago. I expect they'll do an internal announcement in a few weeks saying that they're done.

    So it's only natural that employees would look at other actions at the same time as further cost-cutting attempts.

    That said, it's been company policy for the last year that everyone who lives within an hour's commute (one-way) of a Dell office is expected to work in the office three days a week. (The policy was widely ignored, and at least in my area, there simply weren't enough cubes available if everyone really followed the policy. And the cafeteria wasn't even open on Fridays.) But in any case, everyone had been expecting them to get more serious about being on site, so it wasn't a surprise.

    As to my particular case, I can't comment on severance or my thoughts as to the business wisdom of the layoffs or the new policy, other than to say that I was treated fairly, and I wish my remaining (former) coworkers the best of luck.

  • ... with this sort of coercion. It's the employees with the most marketable skill sets that will jump ship first. Leaving the company with the dregs who are willing to come back to the office.

  • I wouldn't call this very stealth. Dell has basically said, "come into the office or don't expect career advancement for remote work". I'm sure there are some exceptions to that (such as outside sales). Regardless, it's clear that the pendulum has swung in favor of the employer. As much as that annoys me, it's been a good run for tech sector employees. A solid decade of employers wooing talent with perks, flexible schedules and high pay. But that was never sustainable long-term. There has to be an equalizin

  • Seems simple to me.

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.

Working...