Holaluz loses 25% of staff after ending remote work in Spain

Holaluz loses 25% of its workforce after abolishing remote work: hidden headcount reduction?

In September 2024, Holaluz, the green energy supplier, notified its employees of a Substantial Modification of Working Conditions (MSCT) that eliminated remote work across the board. The reaction was immediate: according to internal sources, 25% of employees expressed their intention to leave the company. This unusually high figure has fueled suspicions that the firm might be using the return to the office as a way to cut staff without paying severance.

A strategy to save on severance pay

Analyzing the move, the first thing that stands out is the timing: Holaluz was facing financial difficulties, and its stock price (ticker HLZ) had been plummeting. The company presented the MSCT under the argument of improving productivity and cohesion, but the timeline and the scale of the departure make it hard to believe this was coincidental. By forcing attendance with no room for negotiation, the company knew that a significant percentage of employees—especially those who had moved away from headquarters—would opt for voluntary resignation. And that is exactly what peine.

Article 41 of the Spanish Workers' Statute allows an employee to terminate their contract with a right to severance of 20 days per year when the modification is substantial and causes them harm. But here lies the trap: the company counted on many workers, faced with the prospect of litigation or finding another job elsewhere, simply leaving without fighting for compensation. The 25% figure suggests that the plan worked, at least in part.

The housing factor: the invisible trigger

Holaluz is headquartered in Ciutat Vella, Barcelona, an area where average monthly rents exceed €1,700 and approach €3,000 for many nearby apartments. An employee who worked remotely for years from a town 100 km away or from another province now faces the dilemma of moving to the city—with the consequent extra cost—or quitting the job. For many, the decision is obvious.

"The company knows that housing is unaffordable in Barcelona and exploits this to get people to leave," summarized one analysis in the discussion about the case. The impossibility of affording an apartment near the office on an average salary becomes a hiring filter.

Productivity: the age-old debate, but with data

Holaluz's official argument for eliminating remote work is that being in the office improves productivity and collaboration. However, the debate presents a paradox: "If the work can be perfectly done at home in two hours, the problem isn't where it's done, but how it's measured," notes one perspective. Time is also lost in the office due to commuting, coffee breaks, chats, and unnecessarily long meetings. Evidence of comparable or even superior productivity in remote settings is abundant, but companies with an in-person culture prefer to ignore it.

Some critics go further: "The return to the office is about control, not efficiency. The boss wants to see your face, because otherwise they feel they aren't in charge."

What peine next?

As of this discussion, the MSCT remained in effect, and the 25% of departures had not fully materialized. The company maintained its stance, but internal strain was evident. The open question is whether Holaluz will manage to replace that quarter of its workforce with talent willing to work in person in Barcelona at market salaries, or if the talent hemorrhage will accelerate the decline of a company already struggling with stock market issues.

What is clear is that gambling with 25% of the workforce as a poker chip to save on severance is a risky game. And so far, the outcome does not look good for Holaluz.