A few people already said right on this board they wouldn't mind volunteering. So why not give them that option?
4 replies (most recent on top)
@b0 Oh I know. It would have been better to just let us go and give us severance right away. But since we had to stick around for 30 days and "interview" and "transition our roles", I made sure it was the laziest 30 days of my career. That was during lockdown, where we had been working 7 day weeks/12 hours per day for 7 months straight, up to that point. So I got a lot done around the house that month. I just looked at it as an extra month of severance. Or, payback for working 80 hour weeks, just to find we didn't have a job.
@ar Those interviews are a farce anyway. The people that were going to survive the cuts were pre-determined by leadership before they even started scheduling those interviews. This is coming directly from leadership that made decisions and individual contributors that were told the reality.
They didn't give that option during "transformation" either. You had to go to a humiliating interview from your peers, botch it on purpose, and then find out on the week of Thanksgiving that you didn't have a job and "if" you qualified for severance.
And then leave and never step foot in a Kroger again (there are much better grocers anyway, trust me.)
Did I mention Yael is a class act?
Because giving them that option costs money.
Them leaving on their own costs nothing. <<< Purpose of the early announcement.