<!–
<!–
<!– <!–
<!–
<!–
<!–
Sue Ellson (pictured) shares her thoughts on the ‘silent cut’
“Silent downsizing” is the latest worrying trend sweeping the workplace that could lead to more employees leaving their jobs.
The phrase follows a number of “silent” practices – including “silent resignation”, “silent hiring” and “silent firing” – but this time it’s employers who are slowly trimming an employee’s responsibilities in the hope that they will eventually quit.
Melbourne author and LinkedIn specialist Sue Ellson believes the controversial corporate trend is an “old practice with a new name” that could breed distrust within a company if employers quietly cut back.
“The modern workplace is changing very rapidly and silent cutting appears to be another symptom associated with this change,” Ms Ellson told FEMAIL.
‘Employees must be aware that a job is much more than simply “completing tasks under direction.” There is an exchange of remuneration for tasks and a relationship that requires careful management by both parties.’
‘Silent retrenchment’ occurs when employers reduce an employee’s duties and responsibilities in the hope that they will quit (file image)
There are several reasons why employers are turning to downsizing or downgrading tasks, particularly as AI tools like ChatGPT are on the rise.
Ms. Ellson said these tools are “changing some functions quite significantly,” especially because the technology can complete standard tasks faster than a person doing them manually.
During the year ending February 2023, the Australian Bureau of Statistics Job mobility remained at 9.5 percent for the second year in a row, the highest rate in a decade.
A staggering 2.3 million people left or lost their jobs and the proportion of job mobility remained highest for professionals, with 24 per cent of those changing jobs.
Ms Ellson said: “Unfortunately this means that many employees are changing jobs.” At the same time, the staff reduction rate is at its lowest level: 1.4 percent since records began in 1972.
Melbourne author and LinkedIn specialist Sue Ellson believes the controversial corporate trend is an “old practice with a new name” that could create distrust within a company if employers quietly cut back (file image)
“So this is clearly one of several strategies that employers could use to try to avoid paying additional downsizing or layoff costs or to avoid difficult conversations about performance or productivity,” he continued.
‘That said, the Fair Work Act makes it very clear that “changing an employee’s job to their disadvantage” is considered “adverse action.”
“This would mean that the employee could make a claim to the Fair Work Commission for workplace discrimination or if the reason for changing employment is considered harsh, unfair or unreasonable, unfair dismissal.”
Ellson recommends having a conversation with the employer before you leave and documenting the details.
Overall, it seems that communication on both ends is key when it comes to the workplace: management must express their reactions to actions and the employee must maintain performance.