[bayraktar]

It could also mean creating an inhospitable environment for work, like demotion, allocating drudge work, removing responsibilities, etc.

Right - it's actually far worse than outright firing or laying off people. As in, genuinely harmful to people from a psychological (and hence physical) point of view. All so the company can save a few dollars, and hit certain quarterly targets a bit sooner.

That's why there's a name for it (since long before the "quiet" meme), and legal precedents that are supposed to prevent companies from doing this (if any of them would take heed, which of course they won't):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal

So the question to our friend thrwawayacc up above is -- OK, so this is what the director told you to do (and thanks for for sharing, BTW). But are you actually going to -- go through with what you were told to do? Are are you going to tell these people at the director level some version of:

I understand your concerns, and the financial position that the company in. But at the end of the day, this isn't the right way to go about conducting what everyone can plainly see it as -- a layoff. Ultimately, if we go this route, it will be harmful to the company's reputation and long-term growth -- but more importantly, it will cause genuine harm to people who, until now, have been considered part of the Amazon Family.

If Corporate insists on going this route, there's no way I can stop them of course. However, for my part, in my role, I will not be be able to participate in this extremely ill-advised course of action.

This is your moment. So what's it going to be?

[gamjQZnHT53AMa]

Sounds like you're suggesting to him that he gets himself put on the "managed out" list. I get your point completely, and agree with it to an extent. But if I put myself in that position, what would I do? I'd like to think I'd take the honorable approach you suggested, but I've also got bills to pay, kids to support, plans I want to achieve. Getting myself "managed out" at the expense of all of those things would be hugely problematic.

[bayraktar]

Getting myself "managed out" at the expense of all of those things would be hugely problematic.

Agreed - and corporate life often gets that way.

But another way of looking at the payoff matrix might be: "I've got kids to support - and that means having parents they can trust, and look up to in this chaotic and morally ambivalent world. Even if it means we might have to work a year or two more before being able to retire more comfortably, or we might not get to take that vacation to Tulum this year."

[ohgodplsno]

If you're a manager at Amazon (which is already known for being barely a level above sweat shops in terms of employee treatment), and even more if you're part of their tech (which, if you're posting on HN, you most likely are), you're making so much money that if you can't afford to spend 6 months without a job, you're frankly irresponsible with your cash.

[itronitron]

Consider that many other employees also have bills to pay, kids to support, plans they want to achieve...

[lr4444lr]

Being psychologically stressed out at work is not in and of itself hostile work environment. Read the US law section in the link you posted. The employee actions have to violate preestablished rights or part of thr employee's contract. Not merely ramping up work expectations and duties to keep your job.

[peteradio]

What if you are asked to do superhuman efforts, surely there is some limit no? Read this absolutely massive document and architect an implementation by tomorrow. Get it right! DOE doesn't accept mistakes!

[bayraktar]

There's a difference between "being" stressed out -- and your employer taking specific actions to make you stressed out so that you quit.

Ramping up work expectations

With the specific intent of causing the employee to quit, you meant to say. This in fact fits precisely with the language of the California Supreme Court in the section you referred to.