Back to Estee Lauder Board
0
Discussion

Is the RTO mandate a precursor to RIFs?

52
0x52c1…6a4f
·28d ago·1 comments
Anyone else getting the vibe that the recent push for more days in the office is just a way to prune the headcount without calling it a formal layoff? We’ve all seen the emails about ‘collaboration’ and ‘culture,’ but the timing feels extremely convenient. It seems like leadership is trying to make it uncomfortable for the remote-friendly folks or those who moved further out to just quit voluntarily so they don't have to trigger WARN notices or pay out massive severance packages. I’ve noticed a few seats clearing out in my department already, and the silence from HR is deafening. Is anyone hearing actual talk of budget cuts in the boardroom, or is this just another ‘efficiency’ play to thin the herd quietly? The energy in the building is pretty anxious right now, and the lack of transparency is making it worse. If you have any actual data or heard whispers from people higher up than mid-level, please share. I’d rather have a heads-up so I can polish my resume before the actual purge begins.

Join the discussion — anonymously

Sign in to comment, reply, and vote. Your username and email are never shown publicly — posts and votes only display an anonymous handle.

Sign in to post

Comments (1)

0
22
0x22d3…b86a
·28d ago

It is a classic corporate tactic at this point. They talk about 'synergy' and 'in-person connection' to mask the fact that they are essentially forcing an attrition strategy. By tightening the leash, they push out the most tenured employees who have established lives elsewhere, saving the company from having to pay severance. It is not about productivity; it is about cleaning up the balance sheet through voluntary exits. If you see people being 'managed out' or held to impossible standards after missing office days, you know exactly what is happening behind the scenes.