Young people love to be paid to switch jobs too - who would refuse 20 weeks of doubled income? From Squares perspective, this would lead to an adverse selection, because Square would lose the people who can easily get jobs elsewhere.
That is working on the assumption that those employees are meaningfully better than the ones who remain. If you have people you feel are under performers then yes, ideally you would lose those specifically but then it’s not a reorganization it’s a performance based layoff where you’re outright saying “you’re not good at your job”
> That is working on the assumption that those employees are meaningfully better
The assumption that people who get hired after interviewing are "better" than those who are fall off the hiring funnel underpins the entire hiring process that even Square relies on. Does the assumption seem outlandish to you?
ezfe|1 day ago
overfeed|1 day ago
The assumption that people who get hired after interviewing are "better" than those who are fall off the hiring funnel underpins the entire hiring process that even Square relies on. Does the assumption seem outlandish to you?