Hacker News Reader

This is my main point from personal experience. I worked at a company that had almost yearly layoffs (caused by a late transition to the online world and competition). I knew whole teams that were reduced to a single person. Now that person has to do support 24x7, new feature requests, general information requests etc. Thank god I did not have to deal with that. Also it's very difficult to hire when people know the company is/has been doing layoffs.

View on HN

I always assumed the rationale was this:

That employee now doing extra work accepts it because they are either scared of being laid off themselves, know they can't find a better job elsewhere, have irrational loyalty to the company, whatever. In any case the company benefits by exploiting the person.

If instead the person leaves, then the process fails and the issue rolls up the org hierarchy. Now the leadership evaluates if this process was actually necessary anyway. If not, let it die or let the shit roll downhill elsewhere. If it was important, invest in the refactor that everyone knew was probably necessary anyway.

For corporate leadership it's an easy way to either squeeze more out of the peasants, or force a reevaluation of priorities.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com