I'm curious why you think CS is trying to reduce headcount without cuts? What are the arguments?
I really don't have that impression, but maybe I'm wrong.
5 replies (most recent on top)
You just got your answer
Yeah they had “lower employee attrition” listed as a risk on slides I saw recently… so people NOT quitting is bad for them.
Attrition is cheaper than layoffs. But depending on economic conditions over the next 4-6 quarters I’d say there’s a good chance of layoffs and/or buyouts. The RTO mandate is a cheap way to force attrition. Bet that’s coming in the fall.
Try closer to $250K+.
Simple - anyone that quits on their own is ineligible for severance benefits. If you average $100,000 per head for long term employees (could easily be closer to $150,000 or $200,000), forcing them out with intolerable mandates such as return to office, benefit reductions, or salary freezes is an easy way to cut costs. Assuming a repeat of 2002 with 35% layoffs, on 36,000 employees that would total around 12,000 employees, and at $100K a head, it would total $1.2B.
Now that’s the idea in theory. In practice, getting a large number of people to quit is going to be easier said than done. You’ll have some number quit for Schwab reneging on past arrangements. Others, particularly those with very lucrative pay packages, would be far more likely to hold out for a severance. Another option, often employed by competitors, is an early retirement buyout. This would help avoid the risk of an age discrimination lawsuit. All that said, getting rid of employees is not cheap.