• The Dark Lord ☑️@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’ve been laid off both ways. It’s definitely less humane to layoff someone via email. It’s just easier for the employer, and they don’t care about you.

    • baconisaveg@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yes but to be fair, I don’t care about my employer either. I think I’d prefer a simple e-mail rather than listen to someone face-to-face or over the phone blow smoke up my ass about how much they regret having to do this.

    • Nik282000@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      No employer cares about it’s employees, only that they produce more than they consume. Health benefits are to make sure your body remains useful for longer, vacation days make sure you don’t snap and quit after 2 or 3 years.

  • herrcaptain@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 months ago

    I definitely get the point, and would never do that to someone. Buuuuut … I think I’d personally prefer to be laid off by email simply because if it’s happening they’ve already made up their mind and it’s not like I can talk them out of it. Plus, I wouldn’t have an audience and thus wouldn’t feel the need to pretend not to be super bummed out (or relieved if I hated the job).

    Obviously you never know how someone would like to be laid off though, so it’s best to err on following the traditional path. Or if you wanna be insane you could start dropping hints. “Say, Fred, how would you prefer to be laid off? Hypothetically speaking.”

    • Kichae@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Email’s a really awful way of doing it just because how dehumanizing it is. An employer should be forced to look at the person whose livelihood they’re taking away - forced to feel uncomfortable. Doing it by email is easier for them, and so shouldn’t be acceptable.

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        2 months ago

        An employer should be forced to look at the person whose livelihood they’re taking away

        In my experience, the decision is made several levels above the person who is tasked with actually meeting the about-to be-laid-off employees.

        The people making those decisions never have to face the people impacted.

        • sbv@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          Exactly this. The layoff decision comes from upper management or finance. Immediate managers may get to decide who goes, but it’s more likely that HR made a choice based on previous performance reviews.

      • Auli@lemmy.ca
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        Why though, it wasn’t the person firing that made the choice, but people above them. The person who made the decision never has to deal with it.

      • Jimmycakes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        You act like the employer would give a fuck about looking people in the face. They might even take joy watching the life leave your face as you get the news.

    • blakcod@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Strange how leading up to our intro to the 20’s there were a lot of articles about how if you don’t enjoy your job to ask management to put you on the layoff list. To be easier for management to reduce without the awkward moment of calling you in.

      • Auli@lemmy.ca
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Where I work they lay you off on Thursday, supposedly if they lay you off on a Friday your more likely to do something. It makes no sense but this is what they say.