Mass layoffs at Itaú: the spark of controversy
In recent days, Itaú announced a wave of layoffs affecting thousands of workers across Brazil. The official justification given by the bank was the alleged low productivity in remote work. The explanation quickly gained traction in the news and on social media, both because of the scale of the cuts and the reasoning chosen by the institution.
This justification, however, sounds fragile and unconvincing. Itaú claimed to use computer monitoring metrics to track employee activity but never detailed which criteria were adopted or how these parameters could justify something as drastic as mass layoffs. To many, this felt more like a convenient narrative than a real cause.
Why the case sparked such buzz
Itaú’s layoffs are not an isolated case. Banks and big tech companies have been pushing the discussion of returning to the office, often with the same justification: declining productivity in home office setups. What makes Itaú’s case resonate is that it revived this debate in 2025, at a time when research and market leaders point in the opposite direction.
The bank’s official justification
The bank’s stance was clear: the cuts were due to “low productivity” in remote work, measured by monitoring software.
“Productivity indicators showed a drop in the performance of employees working remotely.”
The problem is that Itaú never specified which metrics were analyzed nor presented solid comparative data. In practice, measuring mouse movement or logged-in time is not the same as evaluating real work outcomes.
This lack of transparency further fueled the perception that the reasoning had less to do with genuine performance and more with a discourse strategy.
What laid-off employees say
The “low productivity” narrative clashes with the testimonies of ex-employees. In interviews and LinkedIn posts, many said they had received positive feedback, performance bonuses, and even recognition awards shortly before being dismissed. Suddenly, they were publicly labeled as “unproductive.”
A testimony published by G1 illustrates the contradiction:
“I worked seven days in a row, even overnight. And now they say I was fired for low productivity.”
Beyond humiliation, there’s a human cost: careers interrupted, families affected, and professionals unfairly stigmatized in the market.
Another relevant point is that in corporations of this size, strategies defined by top management often outweigh the real context of teams. This means that even if direct managers positively evaluated employees, such recognition carried little weight once the board decided on mass layoffs. This gap between discourse and practice makes the productivity justification even weaker.
And according to accounts, even direct managers themselves were surprised by the decision. Many had no voice in the process and could not convincingly explain the layoffs to their teams. In other words: human assessments had no weight compared to automated metrics and top-down orders.
Experts, research, and now… the courts
The case also reignited the legal and academic debate on remote work monitoring. Labor law specialists stressed that excessive monitoring can amount to harassment and that Brazilian law requires proportionality and transparency when using such tools.
Recent research also undermines Itaú’s argument. Studies such as Stanford’s Nicholas Bloom (2024) have shown that hybrid models maintain productivity while improving retention. Another survey, the “Robert Half Confidence Index”, revealed that 77% of workers prefer at least some remote work, and companies with flexible policies report higher satisfaction and growth.
In other words: there’s no shortage of numbers disproving the idea that remote work is inherently unproductive.
And now the issue has also reached the courts. The Bank Workers’ Union announced that it will file a lawsuit against Itaú, challenging the legality of the mass layoffs and demanding transparency in the criteria used. The union argues that “low productivity” is an insufficient reason and that collective dismissals carried out this way violate legal and labor principles.
This move shows that the case goes beyond the productivity debate, opening an important legal front that could have ripple effects throughout the banking sector.
Market narrative or real problem?
Some point to coincidences between Itaú’s stance and market interests. The bank has ties to Kinea, one of the largest real estate fund managers in Brazil, investing heavily in office buildings. The emptier these offices get, the greater the challenge for such assets.
It’s impossible to state this directly motivated the layoffs, but the context helps explain why the “unproductive remote work” narrative may have been convenient.
Also, as a publicly traded company, Itaú has incentives to cut short-term costs and positively impact its stock price — a common practice among large corporations.
The iFood contrast
The contrast becomes evident when compared to other leaders. The CEO of iFood, for instance, recently said there’s no evidence that home office hurts productivity, noting that the company has never grown as much as it did in the last three years — precisely while working remotely.
“Where’s the number that shows on-site work is more productive?” — Diego Barreto, CEO of iFood
While Itaú blames alleged unproductivity for its layoffs, iFood credits part of its growth to flexibility. Two opposing views on the same work model.
My take
Looking at the case, it’s clear that the low-productivity argument doesn’t hold up. The problem isn’t remote work itself, but how companies design their processes and culture. When metrics, rituals, and trust are lacking, remote work becomes a scapegoat.
In practice, Itaú’s layoff looks far more like a strategic market decision than a genuine productivity issue.
Real productivity: what should be debated
The Itaú case shows how discourse and practice can diverge, turning remote work into a convenient scapegoat. But if the market truly wants to debate productivity, there are more serious paths than blaming home office. Among them:
- Solid results-based metrics: measure deliverables, not mouse movement.
- Transparency in decisions: clear evaluation and layoff criteria.
- Culture of trust: autonomy with accountability.
- Well-designed processes: structured onboarding, connection rituals, and async communication.
And you, what do you think?
The Itaú case exposes how corporate narratives can distort reality to justify unpopular decisions. Layoffs are part of big business dynamics, but blaming remote work without solid data is an attack on a model that has transformed careers, families, and markets.
Do you believe low productivity justifies a mass layoff — or was it just market rhetoric?