You must log in or # to comment.
The site/app barely even works as it is…
It’d be funny if “because of AI” meant their AI gimmick wasn’t panning out and they were just cutting the teams that worked on it.
Fucking Workday. I hate them so much. I’m applying for jobs right and left right now and half of them use Workday as a job application system and Workday is so shitty that you have to register individual accounts for half of the job applications but can re-use one you created elsewhere for the other half. And it’s not even clear when that is necessary to do until after you try to log in and are rejected.
That is some supremely shitty coding. Either that or some sort of intentional thing that I cannot fathom.
Probably single sign-on can be configured per customer or it uses workday as the default.
Either way, prospects should be able to use one login for applications, they haven’t been hired by the company so the company doesn’t need to manage that user.
I second your disdain. It’s no better from the inside either. A major company i used to work for took their old but functional system and replaced it with workday/worklife. It broke everything for months and was implemented 6 years later than scheduled.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity
This is a very outdated idea in our present political and economic climate. The driving principle behind all our problems is very definitely malice, even if it’s couched by several layers of obfuscation. The economic and political system is designed to extract wealth for the ultra rich at the expense of everybody else. That leads to behaviours that will be toxic and damaging, even if the given individual didn’t have any malicious intent.
“The burecracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureacracy.”
I don’t think there was malice. I’m thinking it’s stupidity either way. If it was intentional, the intent is almost certainly stupid.
“Because of AI” sounds like the new excuse to shareholders to avoid saying “layoffs”.
It’s telling the wording - continue to work on AI while rigorously reviewing ROI of other initiatives. Shouldn’t AI be rigorously evaluated? Too much money in slopping out poor quality shit while laying people off in any company, that’s why companies are putting NOS on the AI bandwagon. You don’t even have to calculate it, you just know LLM slop will be cheaper than humans.
Until, of course it isn’t. When you break trust, and there are impactful catastrophes, or just regular incompetence…suddenly AI will lose its star status of “this will get me my annual bonus or stock options” status and be relegated to its actually helpful use cases like parsing medical insurance claim denial statements. Then they’ll be hiring humans back–and that cycle may not take long. Once AI is demoted, people who actually want to make it work instead of getting paid will likely improve it a good deal, but the charlatans will have made theirs by that point. And that’s always the point in the cycle to get big spend from gullible decision-makers.
When the US govt and heads of most companies are old, white men who do not understand the tech implications for their product, and won’t be around in 30 years to care if it’s still marketable and sustainable, I guess it makes sense for them economically to just get paid this quarter.
But if AI takes jobs, wouldn’t in the end make most of the services they offer obsolete?
Shut up, you’ll spook the shareholders.
Short-term profits are the only profits.
This will “result in the elimination of approximately 1,750 positions"
So, workforce has some 20 thousand employees who, seemingly do nothing? Is there some need to keep so many people around when they clearly don’t improve anything? Are they like, an army? Lawyers because so many of their executives are predators?
Okay I’ll stop.
So their products become even worse now? Great!
