[selfportrait]

I wouldn't even squarely place the blame on HR. HR is simply a (soulless) messenger. This is an executive level decision that likely has no basis in longterm strategy but rather financial pressures.

I saw it at the enterprise level during the last layoff hell when thousands were let go at my company. On the ground, there was almost little to no logic to the layoffs because the decisions were made by disconnected execs who sit in bullshit meetings all day.

In fact, it goes both ways. Even when teams are expanded out - a decision made in partnership some absurd headcount planning 3rd party consultants - it's almost as if they never talked to the team, but some exec who is 3-4 layers removed from the actual valuable individual contributors who understand the work, have frustrations and desires and should theoretically have a part in influencing planning decisions.

[dghlsakjg]

HR is in charge of minimizing risk to the company. One thing that is very risky is claiming performance reasons are a reason for firing when it’s really a layoff. Depending on where they are the state will not be happy that they are trying to game the unemployment system, and federally they may be in violation of the WARN act.

HR is the department responsible for knowing this and not allowing this sort of bs.

[selfportrait]

Having worked for years in the HR space and at the intersection of compliance, recruiting, legal, and business tech, it's not a complete argument to say that HR is to blame here. Executive leadership, shareholders (and likely consultants) are responsible for these "layoffs". They are the root cause. It most likely still holds true that their decision making is "bigger picture" nonsense based on budgets and short term gains. It also might hold true that they targeted the "low performers" even if that's an incredibly unfair judgment. Anyone who has worked with or knows Sales/AEs understand that 3 months over holidays is not a fair timeframe.

How HR decided to use the reason "low performance" doesn't look great at all, but from my collaboration with HR compliance folks in the past I don't think it's a violation because it's technically the "truth".