Beyond Numbers: The Human Cost of Infosys’ Layoffs and the Global Normalization of Workforce Reduction

A Familiar Script: Infosys and the Corporate Playbook of Disposable Labor:

On February 7, 2025, India’s second-largest IT firm, Infosys, made headlines by retrenching hundreds of trainees at its Mysuru campus. The exact number of people who were retrenched is described differently, some reporting that nearly 350 trainees were retrenched, and others putting figures at between 400 and up to 700. This inconsistency in reporting has only fueled the outrage over the terminations. Infosys rationalized its move by referring to the trainees’ failure to clear internal tests on three attempts—a practice that the company asserts has been a part of its standard operating procedure for more than two decades. The move has, however, attracted sharp criticism from labor unions and laid-off workers, who accuse Infosys of unethical behavior and biased performance appraisals. For the majority of trainees affected, this abrupt dismissal was the shattering of a cherished career dream. Most of them had received offer letters in 2022 but were inducted only in late 2024 due to company-wide delays caused by global economic uncertainty. Their nightmares began within months of induction when they were told to leave the facility immediately after hearing about the termination. This has caused outrage among the concerned employees and labor unions, with more than 100 complaints to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and intervention by the Union Ministry of Labour and Employment.

The Infosys Layoffs: Context and Controversy

Infosys made clear that it fired just more than 300 trainees, not 400 or 700, as initially reported after they performed poorly in three rounds of internal tests. The company underscored that the procedure is stipulated in employee agreements and is aimed at making top-quality talent available to clients. In a justification statement for its actions, Infosys stated:

“All freshers get three attempts to clear the assessment; failing which they will not be able to continue with the organization, as is also mentioned in their contract. This process has been in existence for over two decades and ensures a high quality of talent availability for our clients.“

But critics opine that the examinations were much tougher than anticipated. Claims emerged that testing conditions were being changed without informing trainees, making it more challenging for them to pass. Most of the former trainees opined that the syllabus was drastically increased, forcing them to study approximately 200 hours besides daily self-study. These amendments allegedly increased the passing standard from 50% to 65%, making the assessment process even more complex.

The controversy was fueled by reports of sudden termination under strict conditions. One trainee tearfully begged officials for an overnight stay on campus after being fired but was refused. Company officials allegedly answered, “We don’t know. You are no longer part of the company. Leave the grounds by 6 pm.” Most of the trainees were left scrambling for a ride home, worried about how they would break the news to their families that they had just been fired.

The Nascent Information Technology Employees Senate (NITES) denounced the layoffs as unethical and lodged complaints with labor ministries calling for intervention. NITES President Harpreet Singh Saluja expressed, “This blatant corporate exploitation cannot be allowed to continue, and we urge the government to take swift action to uphold the rights and dignity of Indian IT workers.“

Drawing Parallels: The Global Layoff Epidemic

The Infosys experience is not in isolation; it is a continuation of a reprehensible global phenomenon where large-scale layoffs have become the norm across industries. Alone in early 2025, over 26,215 jobs were cut across the technology sector worldwide, spearheaded by prominent players such as Meta, Amazon, and Google. Meta’s move to let go of 4,000 staff in early 2025 came after a prior round of layoffs in 2023 where 11,000 positions were cut as part of what Zuckerberg referred to as “a year of efficiency.” Likewise, Amazon said it would reduce as many as 14,000 positions due to role redundancy as a result of automation even as it reported record profits. Business executives in various sectors also use the same rhetoric while explaining downsizing. In Infosys, the Group Head of HR, Shaji Mathew, justified the company’s move by claiming that high standards of performance require eliminating lower-performing applicants. He said, “Every trainee joins with the clear understanding that performance evaluations are an integral part of their development and progress.” This perspective fails to acknowledge the human cost involved—individuals who invested time and effort into their roles only to be discarded without adequate support.

This table highlights how firms from all industries use the same rationales for cuts—usually framed in language such as “performance management” or “restructuring”—to conceal the true fact that they care more about profits than people.

The Human Toll: Data-Backed Tales

The human cost of these layoffs is high due to the scale and severity of the termination. For countless workers who have been long-time Infosys trainees, years of dedication and anticipation of joining have proven to be for nothing. There are many accounts that show how removed workers were from campus by security without proper reasons being stated or support systems in place.

A LinkedIn survey of employees laid off in early 2025 showed that 72% of them felt extreme anxiety following their layoff. They were unable to secure similar jobs in a job market that was increasingly competitive—where job security is quickly evaporating. What happened at Infosys is a microcosm of this larger crisis—a sobering reminder that each statistic is a story of dreams put on hold and lives interrupted.

Normalizing Insecurity: A Dangerous Precedent:

Layoff normalization also carries heavy risks for business culture and employee commitment. As businesses increasingly embrace aggressive cost-cutting as a disguise for restructuring or process enhancements, they build a culture where employees live in fear of losing their jobs. This loss of job security works against trust between employers and workers—a foundation of sound workplace culture.

Also, regulatory bodies do not blame corporations for immoral actions in carrying out layoffs. In India, although NITES mounted complaints about Infosys’ actions to top authorities—such as more than 100 directed at the PMO—companies still operate with little regulation about how they treat employees during layoffs. As labor activist Sarah Jaffe so aptly puts it, “Layoffs aren’t inevitable—they’re a choice.” Until we have stakeholders push back against this normalization and make corporations account for how they treat workers in bad times, we are going to keep seeing cycles of insecurity and disposability in the global workplace.

Conclusion: Infosys Is a Warning Sign for All Industries:

The recent round of layoffs at Infosys is a stern reminder that these are not incidental occurrences but part of an overall trend that touches workers across the world. From Shaji Mathew’s denials regarding intimidation in firings to Mark Zuckerberg’s insistence on “tough decisions,” corporate PR tends to cover up the grim realities for those who are affected by such decisions. As we look back at what happened at Infosys—where new blood was let go because of inflexible evaluation standards—it is evident that this problem runs much deeper than one company or sector. The institutionalization of layoffs jeopardizes not just personal incomes but also erodes faith in institutions that are supposed to safeguard employees’ rights.

Finally, to solve these problems, it will take collective efforts from employees, unions, and regulatory agencies alike—calling for transparency and justice in corporate practices and fighting for policies that serve human dignity above profits. It is only then that we might be able to build workplaces where people are treated not merely as figures on a balance sheet but as critical drivers of organizational success.

Sources: