By Joshua Finley
Boeing’s recent layoffs of nearly 900 employees in Washington and California have reignited debates about the evolving tactics corporations are using to downsize their workforces. While the aerospace giant maintains that the cuts are part of previously announced workforce reductions, industry experts suggest a more subtle approach to workforce reduction may be gaining traction across corporate America: silent firing.
Silent firing, also known as “constructive dismissal,” is a strategy where companies make working conditions so unbearable that employees quit independently. This trend is linked to major companies like Amazon, which has mandated a controversial five-day in-office policy despite reports that 90% of employees are dissatisfied with it.
George Kailas, CEO of Prospero.ai, calls silent firing a deliberate strategy tied to the broader rise of AI automation. “Quiet quitting gained momentum during the pandemic as employees did the bare minimum, but now companies are flipping the script,” says Kailas. “Rather than issuing mass layoffs that require severance, companies are pushing employees to quit by making jobs less desirable — with the ultimate goal of automating those roles.”
Boeing’s layoffs were more traditional, at least on paper. The company announced in October that it would reduce its workforce by about 10%, impacting roughly 17,000 jobs nationwide. This week, an additional 400 workers in Washington state and more than 500 in California were let go, impacting engineers, recruiters, and analysts across Boeing’s commercial, defense, and global services divisions.
According to Boeing, the layoffs are not connected to the two-month machinists’ strike that ended earlier this year. CEO Kelly Ortberg cited “overstaffing” as the primary cause, a familiar rationale in corporate downsizing. However, Boeing’s financial troubles stretch back further, notably linked to the 2018 and 2019 crashes of its 737 Max jetliner, which killed 346 people and led to regulatory scrutiny.
For those affected by Boeing’s layoffs, the company has offered a two-month runway on payroll, severance pay, and subsidized health benefits for up to three months. While this may soften the blow for affected workers, it also starkly contrasts the quiet changes happening at companies like Amazon.
Unlike Boeing’s direct approach, silent firing is more subtle, gradual, and deliberate. The practice centers around making roles so uncomfortable or unappealing that employees quit independently, allowing companies to dodge severance payouts and avoid negative headlines tied to mass layoffs.
Companies may do this by introducing return-to-office mandates, eliminating flexible work schedules, or reassigning employees to undesirable roles. The strategy can be challenging to detect because it leaves no paper trail. Unlike layoffs, there are no WARN Act notices or employment filings to track, which has led to growing criticism of the practice.
“It’s not just a theory,” says Kailas. “If you think of companies preparing for automation more than any other, Amazon and Tesla top the list. So when Amazon enforces a five-day in-office work week despite 73% of employees considering quitting, it’s clear they’re not simply chasing ‘collaboration’ — they’re chasing attrition.”
Data from Global Workplace Analytics shows that 65% of employers report that remote work has increased employee retention by 95%. If remote work increases retention, logic suggests that companies looking to reduce headcount might do the opposite.
“Silent firing is an employer’s way of creating a workforce reduction on their terms,” Kailas says. “It’s a sneaky form of cost-cutting that relies on workers to decide to leave. And with AI advancements, companies know that many of those roles can be automated.”
Boeing’s layoffs may have been attributed to “overstaffing,” but that term is becoming synonymous with “automation-ready.” With the rise of AI tools capable of handling complex tasks like customer service, marketing analysis, and supply chain optimization, companies can reduce headcount without sacrificing productivity.
The most public example of this is Amazon. Despite fierce internal opposition, the e-commerce and cloud computing giant has implemented stricter return-to-office mandates. While Amazon’s public explanation for the policy is to foster better collaboration, critics argue that it’s a calculated move to drive resignations.
“Amazon didn’t forget how to use data,” says Kailas. “They’re one of the most data-driven companies on the planet. If remote work increases retention, why would they push employees to return to the office? It’s a playbook move from the corporate cost-cutting manual.”
The combination of direct layoffs, like those at Boeing, and indirect, silent firings, like those theorized at Amazon, represents a shift in corporate strategy. Companies are no longer content with issuing press releases about workforce reductions but are quietly finding ways to reduce headcount without the optics of mass layoffs.
For affected employees, this shift raises new questions about job security. Workers may now face more subtle pressure to leave, such as unbearable work conditions, undesirable assignments, or abrupt changes in remote work policies.
The difference between being “laid off” and being “quietly fired” is more than semantics. Laid-off employees often receive severance pay, health benefits, and transition support. However, employees who resign under pressure leave with none of these protections.
Boeing’s layoffs follow the traditional path of large-scale workforce reductions, complete with formal WARN Act filings and publicly announced severance packages. However, industry insiders suggest Boeing’s approach may soon be an outlier. More companies are looking to avoid bad press and severance payouts by letting AI manage attrition.
“The way I see it,” says Kailas, “there’s a corporate shift from pink slips to quiet exits. The future of downsizing is quiet, calculated, and data-driven.”
Boeing’s layoffs show that traditional job cuts are still part of the playbook. However, silent firing may become the preferred strategy for companies like Amazon, where AI and automation are more advanced.
For employees, this means staying vigilant for signs of workplace shifts that could signal a silent firing campaign. Is your company making it harder to work remotely? Are roles being restructured? Is your workload increasing without additional support? If so, you might be the target of an attrition strategy.
For companies, this shift raises questions of ethics. While layoffs are often seen as a necessary business decision, silent firings feel more like a betrayal of trust. As AI and automation become more prominent, it remains to be seen how far corporations will go to reduce headcount — and how much the public will tolerate.
Whether it’s a pink slip or a silent exit, one thing is sure: the days of stable, long-term employment are looking more and more like a relic of the past.
Disclaimer: This article presents analysis and opinions about workplace trends and corporate practices. The views expressed, including interpretations of company policies and their potential motivations, are the author’s own perspectives based on available information. Quotes from George Kailas and other statements about company strategies represent individual opinions rather than verified facts. Readers should consider this content as analysis rather than definitive reporting.
Published by: Erin M.
