The workplace is no stranger to buzzwords, and over the past few years, “quiet quitting” captured headlines. Employees doing just enough to meet expectations, often as a reaction to burnout or dissatisfaction, was framed as a sign of disengagement. But today, we are witnessing an even more insidious phenomenon: silent firing. While workers may have pulled back during the pandemic, some employers are now quietly making jobs unbearable in hopes employees will quit, making way for automation.
This shift isn’t theoretical. George Kailas, CEO of Prospero.ai, puts it bluntly: “Quiet quitting gained momentum during the pandemic. People would do the bare minimum or below in an effort to collect an easy paycheck and be fired with severance. But the inverse might be gaining momentum soon—silent firing. Companies are making jobs more difficult in the hopes that employees quit so their jobs can be automated.”
Silent firing reflects a harsh reality: companies are prioritizing profits over people, using AI as the justification. And workers, already under pressure, are bearing the brunt.
It’s no secret that advancements in artificial intelligence have transformed industries. For businesses, AI offers efficiency and cost-cutting opportunities previously unimaginable. But what happens when corporations go beyond integrating technology to actively sabotaging the work environment for their employees? Silent firing isn’t just a management trend—it’s a calculated strategy.
Kailas highlights the example of Amazon, a company known for its rigorous efficiency. “If you think of a large company that has been preparing for automation more than any other, you would put Amazon or perhaps Tesla at the top. So when Amazon is pushing a five-day in-office workweek despite the fact that 90% of their employees are ‘dissatisfied’ and 73% are considering quitting, it doesn’t really fit with the ‘cool tech office’ vibes of the past,” Kailas says. “Did one of the smartest data-driven companies forget how to use data?”
Hardly. Data from Global Workplace Analytics shows that remote work boosts employee retention by 95%, increases productivity, and saves companies money. Yet Amazon’s hardline return-to-office stance suggests a more cynical motive: creating inhospitable conditions to drive employees out voluntarily, reducing severance costs and paving the way for automation.
At its core, silent firing raises uncomfortable questions about corporate ethics. Should companies prioritize maximizing shareholder returns or protecting their workforce? This debate isn’t new, but AI has amplified the stakes. Automating jobs like HR, administrative roles, and even customer service positions might save money in the short term, but at what long-term cost?
The impacts are already visible. Mass layoffs in tech are becoming routine. Entire departments are being replaced by AI tools under the guise of efficiency, leaving displaced workers scrambling for stability in an increasingly precarious job market. Worse still, silent firing erodes trust in institutions, creating a workforce that feels expendable and undervalued.
The push for automation through silent firing also ignores the opportunities remote work provides. Once dismissed as a pandemic-era necessity, remote work has proven to be a game-changer for both employees and employers. Studies consistently show remote workers are more productive, take fewer sick days, and are less likely to leave their jobs, saving companies thousands in hiring and training costs.
The state of Utah’s two-year remote work pilot program, for instance, boosted productivity by 23% while saving $220,000 annually in operational costs. Companies like Sun Microsystems report that remote workers spend 60% of their saved commuting time doing additional work for the company. Yet many businesses, instead of embracing these advantages, are reverting to rigid structures that stifle innovation and morale.
Kailas’s insights cut to the heart of the issue: “Public companies have spent so much on AI, they will increasingly have to show their shareholders an ROI on that spend. Automating jobs would allow companies to pocket salaries while their technology does the work. While that sounds exciting to companies hoping to save a couple of dollars, it isn’t a great deal for the employees who are now without work.”
The ripple effects are far-reaching. Silent firing doesn’t just impact individual workers; it destabilizes communities, widens income inequality, and accelerates economic divides. And for all the rhetoric about innovation, the relentless march toward automation often prioritizes immediate gains over sustainable progress.
Silent firing isn’t just a management tactic; it’s a warning sign. The pursuit of profits at the expense of employees isn’t sustainable, and AI’s potential should be harnessed to complement human ingenuity, not replace it.
Corporations must recognize that a loyal, skilled workforce is an asset, not a liability. Similarly, policymakers and labor advocates need to address the growing ethical concerns surrounding automation and silent firing. Without action, we risk creating a world where work is dehumanized, trust is eroded, and opportunities are reserved for the few.
As Kailas notes, “This isn’t just about jobs—it’s about the kind of society we want to build. If companies continue down this path, they’ll be sacrificing long-term value for short-term gains. And the cost will be borne by all of us.”