Twitter announces layoffs • Hacker News Board

Re: Twitter announces layoffs

#221

Post by ghshephard » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 4:19 PM UTC

corin_ wrote: post #133

ghshephard wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's slightly different than layoffs though. If they were focussing on Periscope / Vine / Moments instead of some other initiatives, then presumably you could simply shift developers/sales/marketing from one area to another - particularly in this market when finding developers is very difficult in the bay area. Heck, even leaving a region doesn't prevent a company from giving their employees the opportunity to phys…

Even if your layoffs were 100% based on refocusing on certain areas, surely you'd (often) still want to keep the best employees you have in areas you no longer care about over the worst employees you have in areas you still care about, if you have to get rid of someone.

It's true that you do what you can to hold onto your top 1-5% of employees - but, I've been through two real layoffs - one at Netscape, and one at Loudcloud, very little differentiation occurs below that layer. At Netscape, when Microsoft effectively killed the browser-as-a-product space by giving theirs away for free, entire buildings were let go, and all the client side developers, and wan-dialer people, customer service, sales - 100% of the divisions were just gone, with pretty much zero concern as to how "good" they were.

Same thing at Loudcloud, 1/3 of the company that had revenue bearing jobs went to EDS, 1/3 of the back-end developers went to Opsware, and then the other 1/3 (including everyone in the field, all the service delivery/sales teams/support) - were just let go, with very little attention to how good they were.

The difference between these types of these "real" layoffs, and "faux" layoffs, is that in "real layoffs" - companies will try and fight to hold onto the top 5%, but the bottom 95% are let go. In the "faux" layoffs, the bottom 5-10% are let go, but the top 90% are basically okay.

Of course, the reality is that it's never totally black and white, and any real world reductions-in-force are is likely to be some combination of these two, which is why I like the term "Reduction in Force" rather than "Layoffs" - though there are probably some legal reasons why companies use the exact word "layoffs"

Re: Twitter announces layoffs

#222

Post by spikels » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 4:19 PM UTC

Coincoin wrote: post #185

ghshephard wrote: post #98

The number, 336, is roughly 10% of their employees - which is pretty much exactly the number that Jack Welch recommended turning over each year to improve the work force. I often wonder whether these "layoffs" aren't actually layoffs, but simply performance based assessments. It's not like Twitter is shutting down an entire office, or abandoning some technology, and letting everyone associated with that office/techno…

I worked for one of those mega corporation that followed Welch's book, only they didn't have the courage to openly state it, oh and screw the top 30%. They would "layoff" 10% every year blaming the bad economy. A friend even tried to fire a guy for bad performance and high management told him to wait for the next "annual layoff", that it would be easier.

I have seen this happen many times in big companies. Even people who clearly should have been fired long ago are kept around until the next round of layoffs. I think it is because it is simply easier on management as well as the fired employee's themselves: "it's not you, it's the recession/company/etc." Also seems to be the way to get rid to bad employees when they were worried about getting sued for descrimination because of sex/race/age/etc.

Re: Twitter announces layoffs

#223

Post by socksy » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 4:21 PM UTC

Nadya wrote: post #202

Cakez0r wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually when you use a citation, it's supposed to provide substantive evidence. Not just reiterating your opinion[1]. [1] This is a fact.

Some people use that form factor as footnotes or offhand comments.

Indeed, some people like PG...

Re: Twitter announces layoffs

#224

Post by RyanMcGreal » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 4:21 PM UTC

> Emails like this are usually riddled with corporate speak so I'm going to give it to you straight.

[...]

> we plan to part ways with up to 336 people from across the company

Nothing says "give it to you straight" like using "part ways" to mean "you no longer have a job".

Re: Twitter announces layoffs

#225

Post by grandalf » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 4:21 PM UTC

When 80% of the promotional mail in my inbox is from Twitter trying to drive engagement, something is going badly.

Re: Twitter announces layoffs

#226

Post by grandalf » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 4:23 PM UTC

This is great for the startup ecosystem because likely many of the engineers are very talented.

Re: Twitter announces layoffs

#227

Post by icebraining » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 4:23 PM UTC

jsprogrammer wrote: post #177

adevine wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read his followup email? He said they called but he did not pick up. Whenever you have a large layoff, it is fairly standard to lock accounts immediately.

Did you check the screenshot? Access was removed at 5:24AM, but the voicemail wasn't until 7:22AM.

Access was removed from Github. Not necessarily from his email.

Re: Twitter announces layoffs

#228

Post by icebraining » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 4:25 PM UTC

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #158

ghshephard wrote: post #98

The number, 336, is roughly 10% of their employees - which is pretty much exactly the number that Jack Welch recommended turning over each year to improve the work force. I often wonder whether these "layoffs" aren't actually layoffs, but simply performance based assessments. It's not like Twitter is shutting down an entire office, or abandoning some technology, and letting everyone associated with that office/techno…

This. I never understood this mentality that all cuts are bad or evil or whatever. Funny, we never question when these companies go on a hiring spree. No one asks, "Do they need this many engineers? Will these people have jobs in two years?" Restructures happen all the time, especially at dotcoms. If you work in this industry, then you can expect some level of volatility.

No one asks, "Do they need this many engineers? Will these people have jobs in two years?"

Clearly you're missing @Pinboard from your life.

Re: Twitter announces layoffs

#229

Post by Retra » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 4:27 PM UTC

deepfriedbits wrote: post #200

cdubzzz wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying it like that makes it sound too much like the brand is what is needed as opposed to the tool. To put your words another way: The world is better off with a strong tool to fight against censorship and public and private control. If Twitter starting taking massive cash payments from governments to filter content, it would be a strong Twitter with lots of cash, but not a strong tool to fight against anything.

Yes, but Twitter deserves credit for creating something that didn't exist. It's global IRC for the masses. That and it brought the Internet real-time search. That's huge and did not exist before Twitter.

Well, in the world Twitter was created, maybe it was needed. But that is not the world you live in right now.

Re: Twitter announces layoffs

#230

Post by ngoel36 » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 4:27 PM UTC

This truly sucks - I'm sorry to hear that. If you're one of the unlucky engineers that caught up in all this - reach out to the email address in my profile. We're hiring tons of awesome engineers at Uber, and if that's not the right fit for you I can help get you connected to other SF companies as well.