I’m sorry but saying being laid off via an online meeting with a generous severance package is equivalent to not being “treated as a human being” is a bit rich.
Yeah I was torn about responding to this comment. By the employee's own admission, the severance was generous. There is no other option but to use online meetings for this now. So maybe a 1:1 could have been done, but a) that would have taken significantly longer to complete and b) would have resulted in people spreading rumors and employees who were not impacted would have feared for their jobs thus impacting productivity and morale.
We can talk for hours about all the things Uber could certainly could have done differently throughout their history that - maybe, possibly, in a parallel universe - could have prevented this from happening. But they are where they are now, and there's no "good way" to lay off 3,500 people in a situation like this.
Also, to the sibling here - there's simply not enough information to suggest that these employees could not ask questions at all. At least by my read, that's not stated anywhere, and unless explicitly stated otherwise my assumption is that they were provided with the contact information for someone if they had questions - as this is typically how most companies would handle this, particularly at Uber's size.
You're making some assumptions here and taking third-hand information as gospel. It depends on what "generous" means in fact, how much notice they were given, and their prospects or help to get other jobs in a job climate that is worse than the Great Depression. What if it were you?
What makes it feel inhumane is when you're laid off with 3700 other employees in a three minute meeting. It means you don't get to talk directly with your manager nor are you potentially given a chance to speak with your team.
> What makes it feel inhumane is when you're laid off with 3700 other employees in a three minute meeting.
At least they spared them one more long meeting where they yap on about how important people are, how this a hard choice, how the company will emerge stronger (like I care), this doesn't reflect upon you personally, etc. They weren't cowards hiding behind nice words while the "liberated" people from their jobs. That's more humane than most companies.
> It means you don't get to talk directly with your manager nor are you potentially given a chance to speak with your team.
This very often happens during in person layoffs already, "we're sorry to let you go, security has a box with all your crap at the door".
> This very often happens during in person layoffs already, "we're sorry to let you go, security has a box with all your crap at the door".
Yes...and? That's also an inhumane way of laying off employees and frankly, any company that treats their workers like that deserves to be heavily criticized.
Calling this more humane is a bold take, but a wrong one. It's akin to getting laid off in a single mass email across the company. What happens if someone missed the meeting, or if they were otherwise working on stuff with their team? It's flagrant disrespect for their time and the work they've put in for the company. Calling them not cowards when they made the most cowardly way of laying people off isn't right. It's one step away from getting a text from your boss telling you to stop coming in and that they'll mail you your stuff.
For-profit corporations without employee ownership and regular employees on the board of directors will inevitably treat employees like disposable cogs or dirt. The mistake many people repeatedly make is the line-up to be abused when they should form their own business ventures with civilized, humane, and Golden Rule treatment of others rather than rent-seeking investors to squeeze blood money out of them and cheat them out of livable wages.
