Indonesia’s big tech dream among broken systems

Bloomberg has a piece criticizing the way the Indonesian government has forced Apple to invest a billion dollars and make a commitment to build a factory or two in the country.

Using a protectionist playbook to get companies to build factories could end up sidelining Southeast Asia’s largest economy when neighbors are rolling out the red carpet for investors who are relocating from China ahead of Donald Trump’s potential tariffs, analysts said.

What Indonesian policymakers, officials, and ultranationalists refuse to acknowledge isn’t just the shortsightedness of protectionist policies, but the recklessness of enforcing them without the infrastructure to support a modern tech manufacturing ecosystem.

They cling to the illusion that forcing tech giants to build products locally is enough, ignoring the fact that manufacturing doesn’t happen in isolation, it’s an interconnected ecosystem dependent on robust infrastructure, not just financial sticks and carrots.

The Indonesian government isn’t just using the wrong policy, they’re operating with the wrong mindset entirely. They also haven’t squared the collapsing textile industry and the falling demand in the auto industry with their tech ambitions. Apple manufacture devices for the global market regardless of their origin while Indonesia’s manufacturing industries tend to be dominated by domestic sales.

Local content requirements cover a range of industries, from cars to medical devices. Together with decades-old problems such as red tape, high taxes and a less productive workforce, Indonesia’s manufacturing growth has slowed to a crawl.

In contrast, neighbors like Vietnam and India are offering tax incentives, swift approvals and the freedom to source their components from across their global supply chains, Gupta of the Center for Indonesian Policy Studies said.

That makes them attractive for companies looking to produce for export and explains why Apple can invest a much larger $15 billion in Vietnam despite the nation having a smaller domestic market than Indonesia, he said.

How platforms like TikTok and Twitter are like life itself

Social platforms reflect people’s behaviors but unlike life, you can uninstall and stop visiting them.

TikTok and Twitter are often described as mirrors of life; chaotic, messy, sometimes brilliant, sometimes horrifying. But here’s the thing: life didn’t come with an “uninstall” button. These platforms do, sort of (you can remove the apps or stop visiting them altogether). And that makes it a lot harder to accept their messiness as something we just have to live with.

The harm they cause is undeniable. The misinformation, the rabbit holes, the amplification of violence and hate, it’s all right there, front and center. And because these aren’t immutable forces of nature but products of human design, it feels logical to think: Why not just turn them off? If a bridge kept collapsing under people’s feet, we’d stop letting people walk on it. If a factory was spewing toxins into the air, we wouldn’t celebrate the occasional mural painted on its walls, we’d shut the thing down.

But TikTok and Twitter aren’t just digital bridges or toxic factories, they’re also marketplaces, stages, classrooms, protest grounds, and cultural archives. They’ve been instrumental in amplifying marginalized voices, organizing grassroots movements, and spreading ideas that would’ve otherwise been silenced. Shutting them down wouldn’t just erase the harm, it would also erase the joy, the connection, the organizing power, and the little moments of humanity they enable.

That’s the tension we’re stuck with: the pull between “this is causing so much damage” and “this is doing so much good.” And it’s not a tension we can resolve cleanly, because both are true. These platforms are not neutral, they’re shaped by design choices, incentives, and algorithms that reward outrage, escalate conflict, and keep users scrolling no matter the emotional cost. But they’re also spaces where real, meaningful things happen, sometimes in spite of those same algorithms.

It’s easier to point fingers at the platforms themselves than to reckon with the fact that their messiness isn’t an anomaly, it’s a reflection. They thrive on the same things we do: conflict, validation, novelty, and the occasional hit of collective catharsis. The darkness they expose isn’t artificially generated, it’s drawn out from people who were always capable of it. TikTok and Twitter didn’t invent bad faith arguments, moral panic cycles, or performative empathy, they just turned them into highly optimized content formats.

That’s why it’s so tempting to reach for the “off” switch. Because these platforms don’t just show us other people’s mess, they show us our own. They force us to confront the uncomfortable reality that the world doesn’t just have ugliness, it produces it. And no matter how advanced our moderation tools get, or how many advisory panels are assembled, there’s no elegant way to algorithm our way out of human nature.

But accepting that doesn’t mean we stop holding these platforms accountable. They’re still products of human design, and every design choice, from the algorithm’s preferences to the placement of a “like” button, shapes behavior and incentives. The companies behind them can and should do better. But even if they do, the fundamental tension remains: these spaces are built on human behavior, and human behavior will always be messy.

Maybe the real discomfort isn’t just about what TikTok and Twitter are. It’s about what they reveal about us. The chaos, the harm, the brilliance, the joy, it’s all a reflection. And if we can’t figure out how to look at that reflection without flinching, no amount of platform reform is going to save us from ourselves.

P.S: Let me just add that I’m talking about the old Twitter, not the cesspool of unhinged miseducated misinformed mass of misguided white supremacists that it has increasingly become, a.k.a discount 4Chan. On top of that, outside of the English speaking sphere of the platform, the old Twitter still exists unbothered or unaffected by what’s happening outside of their spheres partly due to cultural differences, partly due to lack of relevance, partly due to language, and perhaps a handful of other reasons.

Facts aren’t enough: Why journalism needs to find a new way to reach the public

Journalism is in a crisis of accountability. Too many reporters are taking the easy route: regurgitating statements from politicians and officials without pushing back, questioning, or even glancing beneath the surface. It’s like they’ve decided that the press briefing is the new gospel, letting the people in power control the narrative and dodging any real scrutiny. This isn’t just lazy; it’s dangerous. When journalists stop asking the hard questions, they become complicit in misleading the public, and they fail democracy.

But here’s the other side of the crisis. Even when journalists are on their game, digging deep, presenting hard facts, and keeping things objective, a big chunk of the public isn’t even listening. Instead, they’re tuned into their own personal version of reality, patched together from social media rumors, conspiracy theories, and “alternative facts” that suit their biases.

A growing number of the public are increasingly immune to traditional reporting, whether it’s coming from newspapers, digital publications, or the nightly news. We’ve reached a point where the truth itself is somehow up for debate, no matter how well it’s documented because the other side have been presenting their versions more convincingly.

So what’s the answer? For starters, journalists need to get back to actually holding people accountable. Enough with the rehashed sound bites. Journalists must turn up the heat, pull apart the claims made by those in power, and lay bare the inconvenient truths, even if they’re messy or complicated.

But let’s be honest: reporting the facts clearly and objectively isn’t enough if they’re just going to be ignored. The media can’t afford to keep shouting into the void. To get through to people, journalists need to shake up the way they’re telling these stories.

Conventional formats aren’t cutting it anymore, readerships are down across the board and publications have been shutting down all around the world. Maybe it’s time to lean into platforms and techniques that disrupt echo chambers rather than reinforcing them.

This could mean turning to data visualizations that make complex issues impossible to ignore or creating interactive stories that don’t just tell people what’s true but show them, letting them see the process and judge for themselves. We need formats that combine the immediacy of social media with the depth of investigative reporting, something more visceral, less dismissible.

And this is where the press need to admit: current methods of engaging with audiences aren’t working for everyone. If journalists want people to trust the media again, they’re going to have to earn it in new ways. That might mean getting closer to the communities they cover and the audience they serve, being more transparent about the reporting process, or even tackling popular myths and misinformation head-on instead of just waving them off as fringe ideas.

Journalism’s mission isn’t just to report facts, it’s to make those facts matter. They can’t give up on that mission just because some people would rather live in a reality of their own design. It’s time for the media to level up, to be tougher, sharper, and more innovative in how to tell the truth. Because the stakes are too high for the facts to keep getting ignored.

Indonesia, the waking giant, is still scrolling through TikTok in bed

In 2016, Elizabeth Pisani described Indonesia as a “the biggest invisible thing on the planet,” in The Guardian. She signaled that the country is transitioning from decades of quiet development to a new phase of urban and economic ambition. However, looking back now, it seems Indonesia might still be stretching in bed, scrolling through TikTok rather than fully “awake.” While some progress has been made, many of the issues Pisani raised, fragmented development, infrastructure gaps, and uneven growth, still linger, preventing Indonesia from realizing its full potential as a global player.

Indonesia has seen improvements since 2016, especially in urban centers like Jakarta, where expanded transit systems and toll roads have alleviated some congestion (not enough but it’s getting there) and spurred economic activity. Additionally, the digital economy has grown rapidly, with Indonesia becoming one of the world’s most active social media markets.

Yet much of this digital growth reflects consumer habits rather than productive innovation, as Indonesia’s youth engage heavily on platforms like TikTok, which showcase Indonesia’s digital enthusiasm but don’t necessarily build the high-value tech sector Indonesia needs for long-term prosperity.

With a young, dynamic population, the country could be investing in a more diverse digital economy, one that includes tech innovation, sustainable energy, and high-value exports.

However, the once thriving ride hailing and food delivery tech giant Gojek, which was just launched at the time of Pisani’s article, is now struggling to keep up with competition as it wound down operations in Vietnam and Thailand, and sold ecommerce giant Tokopedia to ByteDance, barely two years after their celebrated merger and IPO. Layoffs in the larger tech sector have reached thousands in two years.

Another significant change since Pisani’s article is the rise of controversial former general and Defense Minister Prabowo Subianto to the presidency. His election represents a pivot in leadership style and direction. Prabowo’s popularity has been partly fueled by his endearing public persona, and he has promised continuity with former President Joko Widodo’s infrastructure agenda while adding a new layer of military discipline and assertiveness.

Prabowo has committed to ambitious goals, including an 8% annual economic growth rate, free school meals, and a more proactive foreign policy stance to increase Indonesia’s global influence. In fact, he sent Foreign Minister Sugiono to the BRICS Conference in Russia, within days of his appointment, to express intention to fully join the economic bloc. But the challenges Pisani highlighted, geographic disparities, underdeveloped human capital, and regulatory inconsistencies, still constrain Indonesia’s aspirations. President Prabowo has ordered a full review of the laws to align them with his grand plan to accelerate Indonesia’s development.

Prabowo’s pledges are bold, but achieving them may require more than infrastructure and social programs. The economy remains heavily reliant on resource extraction and low-cost labor, making it vulnerable to global market fluctuations and competition from faster-moving neighbors like Vietnam. Educational and labor inequalities persist, and while Prabowo’s initiatives may address immediate needs, sustainable growth will require deeper investment in human capital and technology-driven industries, something that the previous government was already working on.

In short, Indonesia’s journey from “invisible giant” to a true economic powerhouse appears far from complete. Pisani’s vision of a “waking” Indonesia might still be accurate, but without substantial shifts in human development and innovation, the nation risks staying in a kind of semi-conscious state. If Prabowo’s administration hopes to fulfill the dream of a “Golden Indonesia 2045,” which envisions the country as a high-income, self-sustaining economic powerhouse, now is the time to get up and go to work.

The America I knew

The America I grew up with was not a perfect nation by any measure, and it’s certainly terrible in many parts, but it also allowed people of different origins, of different cultures, of different beliefs, to come together and belong to one another. It allowed people to thrive, to find mutual connection, and create something great.

These excerpts of Presidential speeches carry the promises of a nation, the values I believe in, the values that I hold close. Promises that I hope they can still deliver in the face of seemingly insurmountable adversary and great challenges.

Kennedy, Peace Speech, 1963

Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet, we all cherish our children’s futures, and we are all mortal. Today we seek to move beyond the accomplishments of the past to establish the principle that all people are entitled to a decent way of life.

Clinton, Inauguration, 1993

Let us not forget that each child saved, each refugee housed, each disease prevented, each barrier to justice brought down, each sword turned into a plow share brings us closer to peace, closer to freedom, closer to dignity.

Obama, State of the Union, 2013

We also know that progress in the most impoverished parts of our world enriches us all. So the United States will join with our allies to eradicate such extreme poverty in the next two decades by connecting more people to the global economy, by empowering women, by giving our young and brightest minds new opportunities to serve, and helping communities to feed, empower, and educate themselves, by saving the world’s children from preventable deaths.

That’s how we’ll confront the challenges of our time. This is how we will seize the promise of this moment in history.

Who are we to believe that today’s challenges cannot be overcome? We’ve seen what changes the human spirit can bring. That’s why we look to the future not with fear but with hope.

Study shows AI overwhelmingly favors white male in hiring job seekers

Just read an article at Ars Technica that highlights something we should all be paying more attention to: AI-driven hiring tools still have a long way to go in terms of fairness. Tests show these systems tend to favor white and male candidates, confirming that even with all our tech advances, biases persist in ways we can’t ignore. And this isn’t the only article discussing this, it’s only the latest, which means it’s a long known problem that hasn’t been rectified.

For all the hype around AI’s potential to revolutionize hiring, if it’s just reinforcing biases, what’s the point? How are these algorithms trained and why are they showing a such a strong bias towards white male candidates?

If you’re a recruiter or decision-maker, it might be time to rethink the role of AI in hiring. We all understand the basic tenet of data processing, garbage in, garbage out. Until there’s a proper process in the middle that takes away such biases, people shouldn’t be fully reliant on technology for such purposes because it’ll only reinforce them.

These high end filters make “decisions” based on their training data and will reflect biases that are already incorporated. I’m sure you’ve heard about facial identification or hand sensors that don’t work properly or have high error rates when the skin color is darker.

Not saying human-led processes aren’t prone to bias, I mean these tech “solutions” were after all built to minimize the impact of biases from human judgements, but when the outcome is no different or maybe even worse, that’s no solution at all.

When Reporters Become Collateral in an Unpopular Executive Decision

So here we are: The Washington Post announced it won’t endorse a candidate this US election, and the fallout is immediate. Readers are canceling subscriptions in droves, about 200,000 and counting according to NPR, and reporters are left scrambling on social media, pleading for them to stay. As a former journalist, I feel for the reporters caught in this mess. This isn’t just an editorial call they can shrug off. It’s a hit to their credibility, their income, and their professional mission.

To me what’s important isn’t whether a media makes a political endorsement because we live in a time when these decisions don’t matter like they used to. Media endorsements don’t carry the same weight as in previous decades. What matters to me is when they did it. I said on Threads the other day,

The issue isn’t that they will not endorse but that there’s a decades long tradition to endorse one candidate over another and not just for the presidential candidates, it’s often local candidates too. That the boards of two major US papers already drafted the endorsements only to be spiked by their billionaire owners is what matters because it’s too close to Election Day. They could have announced the stance weeks or months ago but they didn’t and now they’re causing a scene.

The timing is everything here. Only 11 days before the election, the paper killed a planned endorsement of Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate, saying it’s a return to their “roots” of neutrality, as they did until about 50 years ago. But the newsroom is in uproar. Famed reporters like Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein have called the move cowardly. Others, like former editor Marty Baron, went further, saying it’s a betrayal of democracy itself. Many readers opined in light of the decision that the Post’s slogan, “Democracy dies in darkness”, wasn’t a slogan but a mission statement as the newspaper has decided to tun the lights off to let democracy stumble in darkness.

Meanwhile, there’s Jeff Bezos, the billionaire owner, defending the decision as “principled.” He argues it’s about restoring trust in journalism. But here’s where things get complicated. The same day the Post cancels its endorsement, Bezos’s space company, Blue Origin, had a meeting with none other than Donald Trump. Even if it’s a coincidence, it’s an unfortunate look, especially considering that endorsements were a standard practice at the Post until… well, about five minutes ago. When Woodward and Bernstein broke the Watergate scandal at the Post in the ‘70s, then owner Katherine Graham stood tall defending their decision to run the story and expose the illegal actions of President Nixon which led to his resignation. Bezos on the other hand, has no such conviction, fearing retribution by Trump in case the 34x convicted felon ended up winning re-election, and jeopardizing his government contracts and other opportunities for his companies.

And it’s not just the Post. Earlier this month, the Los Angeles Times made a similar choice, dropping its own endorsement after its billionaire owner, Patrick Soon-Shiong intervened. His daughter, who supposedly has no influence at the company, defended it as a “family decision” tied to frustration over Harris’s stance on the genocide happening in Palestine. Curiously, a feature series titled, “Case Against Trump” was canceled by the newspaper at his behest. Yet again, we’ve got a big decision, tied to editorial independence, happening at the last minute with little transparency.

USA Today has joined the ranks of papers sitting this one out. However with outlets like The New York Times, Rolling Stone, and the Philadelphia Inquirer still endorsing candidates, it seems the media landscape is splitting down the middle on this issue.

Readers, for their part, feel they’ve been sidelined. Canceling subscriptions is one of the few ways they can register their frustration with decisions made behind closed doors. But the fallout isn’t falling on Bezos, it’s falling on reporters who had no part in the decision. Now, they’re essentially forced into being spokespersons for an editorial shift they didn’t ask for, defending a stance that most of them probably would have argued against.

So, what’s the way out? Instead of reporters bearing the brunt of management’s hasty decision, maybe they could actually join with the readers on this one. Push back internally. Make it clear that if big decisions like this one are going to reshape their relationships with readers, they need to be more than last-minute top-down calls. They could demand a seat at the table, a voice in decisions that impact their integrity and the trust of their audience. Some members of the editorial boards and newsrooms at both the Post and the LA Times have made their strong opinions known even to the point of resigning.

In the end, the future of journalism doesn’t just depend on what’s reported, it depends on how these decisions are made. If the Post, the LA Times, and other major outlets want to regain trust, they need to do more than make calls from the top. Credibility is built on transparency, respect for journalists, and a genuine acknowledgment of the readers who make their work possible.

The threats facing press freedom in Indonesia are only increasing

The decline in press freedom under President Joko Widodo’s administration and the growing concerns about President Prabowo Subianto’s approach to the media are alarming.

As Sofie Syarief’s article in Fulcrum highlights, Jokowi’s government set a troubling precedent, particularly with Ministerial Regulation 5 (MR5) and other policies that gave the state more control over what could be published online. These regulations, under the guise of content moderation, opened the door to censorship, weakening Indonesia’s democracy. The move to fine digital platforms for failing to remove “prohibited” content further undermines the press’s ability to hold power accountable. She recalled her own experience being censored:

MR5 has numerously been used to force social media sites to take down content deemed as “breaking” the law. While journalistic products are protected by the Press Law, social media posts from individuals are not. In early October 2023, for instance, X/Twitter informed the author in an email that it received a request from Kominfo to take down one of the author’s tweets. The tweet cited an article from Indonesia’s largest daily, Kompas, criticising Widodo’s alleged misuse of intelligence to spy on political parties. After the author appealed to X and protested to the ministry, the then deputy minister claimed that their report against the tweet was due to “human error”.

Prabowo’s track record does little to inspire hope for improvement. His past threats against the media, particularly during his 2019 Labor Day speech, show a worrying disregard for press freedom. If the proposed revisions to the Broadcasting Law and Police Law that she mentioned in the article are passed, the situation could worsen, empowering authorities to silence dissent under the guise of maintaining security. The potential for abuse is clear, especially with a compliant Parliament likely to rubber-stamp these changes.

Indonesia’s press and civil society must rally together to defend their freedoms. As she points out, a free press is crucial in a functioning democracy, and with the current trajectory, Indonesia risks losing that. The need for solidarity and a strategic response has never been more urgent.

Digital media repression is an emerging global trend and an imminent threat to Indonesia’s declining democracy. Indonesian media have been criticised for their overall failure to adequately function as a political watchdog, especially given the campaign to restore Widodo’s dented public image. At present, Indonesia’s civil society is far from consolidated and cannot meaningfully challenge the government. If democracy is to stand a chance under the new administration, Indonesia’s press and civil society need to stand together to strategise their fight against autocratic legalism and to hold power accountable.

Pay-to-Play Media: A Crisis for PR, Journalism, and Credibility

I’m coming into this rather late as I only just now read the post by the founder of Maverick Indonesia PR agency, Ong Hock Chuan, on what’s happening in the media and public relations space as well as his follow up.

As a former media person who also spent time among public relations professionals, I find what’s apparently happening quite concerning and is symptomatic of an existential crisis rooted in an unsustainable business practice brought on by a drastic change in the industry landscape. Unfortunately the effect of this is a clash of two intertwined and interdependent industries that used to be in a much more congenial relationship.

As a result, the once clear distinction between earned and paid media is blurring, as media companies apparently increasingly demand payment for coverage. This phenomenon, driven by declining traditional advertising revenue, poses serious challenges for PR professionals, media outlets, and the public. What was once ethically questionable is becoming commonplace, forcing PR practitioners to navigate an environment where credibility and integrity are under constant threat.

From the perspective of PR professionals, this shift threatens the core of public relations: earned media. Earned media, by its very nature, has always been a hallmark of credibility because it reflects the independent judgment of the media outlet. However, when media companies start asking for payment in exchange for coverage, that credibility crumbles. PR professionals now face a difficult choice: play into this pay-to-play system and sacrifice ethical standards, or risk losing valuable visibility for clients.

This dilemma is exacerbated by media companies’s financial struggles. As digital platforms siphon away advertising dollars and consumer attention, traditional outlets scramble for new revenue streams. Asking brands for payment in return for coverage has unfortunately become one of those strategies, reflecting an existential crisis for the media industry.

The consequences are profound and far-reaching. When media companies accept payment for editorial content, their role as impartial gatekeepers of information is compromised. Audiences today are more savvy and skeptical than ever before. They can often detect paid content, and once trust is broken, it’s difficult to repair. For media outlets, short-term financial gains come at the cost of long-term credibility and relevance.

For PR practitioners, the erosion of earned media puts the entire profession at risk of losing its ethical foundation. The job has always been to present clients strategically without crossing into paid promotions. When media companies demand payment for coverage, PR professionals are backed into a corner: abandon ethical guidelines or stand firm on principles, potentially losing valuable placements.

This practice raises significant questions about journalistic integrity. If coverage is determined by who can pay, what does that mean for the future of news? Will underfunded yet important initiatives be left out of the media narrative? Will the media’s watchdog function be diluted if reporting can be bought?

At the core of this issue is a crisis of trust. Both PR and journalism are built on credibility, now undermined by financial desperation. PR practitioners must secure coverage without compromising ethical standards, while media companies must remain financially viable without sacrificing journalistic integrity. The question isn’t just about funding sources, but whether audiences will continue to trust either the media or the brands paying for placement.

This trend is dangerous for all involved. Media companies may find short-term relief in paid content but will lose audience trust. PR professionals may secure more coverage by paying, but risk their own credibility and that of their clients. Most importantly, the public loses when news becomes a commodity rather than a public service.

This crisis demands a reevaluation of priorities. Media companies must innovate to find sustainable revenue models that don’t compromise their core mission. Perhaps media companies need a complete overhaul in how they are structured and how they approach the business. 

PR professionals must reaffirm their commitment to ethical practices, even in the face of pressure to secure coverage at any cost. Both industries must recognize that their value proposition lies not in short-term gains, but in maintaining the trust and respect of their audiences and clients.

Public relations and media companies are not adversaries and they should never be. The challenge is finding a mutually sustainable and beneficial business model in the face of an advertising revenue drain by global tech platforms. The same platforms that are increasingly abandoning their need of media companies as content producers because the audience have been conditioned to read only what’s published on the platforms.

Ultimately, demanding payment for media coverage is a symptom of deeper problems. Left unchecked, it will erode the foundations of both professions creating a world where all media coverage is suspect and public relations is synonymous with paid advertising.

Post Pandemic Layoffs

Business Insider published an article earlier this week about how difficult it’s been for so many people to find work after the massive layoffs that happened since 2022. It’s paywalled so you’ll need a subscription but I’ll post some excerpts.

One reason it’s become harder is that even though layoffs remain tepid and the unemployment rate is low, the number of job openings in the US has fallen back to levels not seen since early 2021.

“If you’re looking to find a job right now, it’s much tougher than it was two years ago,” Nick Bunker, the director of North American economic research at Indeed, told BI.

Sometimes companies post job vacancies but don’t really mean to hire people because they don’t have the budget or can’t allocate headcounts. So why the hell are they posting them?

“We’re in a market right now that’s very cautious and conservative,” he said. “That company may have a need, and they’re posting to see what they can get, but they maybe don’t have the budget or the final approval to actually hire that person until maybe next year.”

That’s Jason Henninger, managing director at Heller Search, a recruiting firm focused on the tech industry. Basically some companies are looking to see what talents are available and try to figure out what sort of hiring strategies they can come up with given their own constraints.

I posted the following on Mastodon a couple of days ago,

Getting a new job in this economy is tough. There are people who have been unemployed for more than a year, sometimes longer than two, who can’t make their way back to regular employment anymore regardless of the additional training or certifications that they took because of job cuts and redundancies.

During the pandemic companies overhired and created new divisions and goals that no longer exist anymore because, “hey, we’re back to normal now!” And so many companies refuse to take the lessons of the pandemic while workers were counting on them.

The disconnect is real and maybe the only remedy is industry swap. Go into a whole new different thing. That’s what I’m having to do. I can’t do journalism or professional blogging anymore.

The main point there is the disconnect between corporate behavior and workers’s expectations. The old corpo heads are pushing to a full return to pre-pandemic work environment but workers have had a taste of freedom of choice and being able to work according to their needs. Unfortunately while it seemed like it was a worker’s market during the pandemic because they were in high demand, it quickly reversed once the pandemic was ending and companies started shedding those hires.

What’s more nefarious is the way they let go of their workers. This infamous one from end of 2021 was especially cruel. Better.com CEO called a meeting with 900 employees over Zoom and everyone on that call got told they were fired effective immediately. Any sense of empathy that the CEO might have communicated was immediately extinguished with the way he told everyone in the call that they were suddenly unemployed.

“This isn’t news that you’re going to want to hear but ultimately it was my decision and I wanted you to hear it from me. It’s been a really, really challenging decision to make. This is the second time in my career that I’m doing this and I do not want to do this. The last time I did it I cried. This time I hope to be stronger. But we are laying off about 15% of the company for [a number of] reasons: the market, efficiency and performances and productivity.

“If you’re on this call you are part of the unlucky group that is being laid off. Your employment here is terminated. Effective immediately.”

Consciously or not he made it all about him and how difficult it was for him to do it but letting employees go is never about the leader or how they feel, nobody gives a shit about management and especially not about the CEO. It’s about the employees and how it affects them.

The only thing that might make retrenched employees feel better would be the severance package and how they’re treated post employment. Some companies let former employees keep their insurance for a period of time, sometimes office facilities and amenities are still available in some capacity to help give them a softer landing. How the layoff is conveyed is important but post employment rights are far more meaningful.