Google cuts jobs at cloud-computing group
1–10 of 335 posts
Re: Google cuts jobs at cloud-computing group
#2> Google said it is cutting jobs at its cloud-computing unit as part of a reorganization aimed at improving operations at the business that has become more central to parent Alphabet Inc.
> Google on Friday said “a small number of employees” have been notified their roles have been eliminated. Google didn’t specify how many roles are being cut and said it was working with affected employees to find them new positions in the company.
Re: Google cuts jobs at cloud-computing group
#3I don't get it. Company that is flush with that much cash couldn't find new roles for the 'small number' of people that were impacted? I'm thinking they used the good old "your position is being eliminated due to business reasons" excuse to get rid of people they didn't want to keep.
It's a common HR tactic.
Re: Google cuts jobs at cloud-computing group
#4What is cloud computing here? Is it some of Google services such as Mail or Drive. Or is it the cloud hosting competing with MS Azure or AWS?
Re: Google cuts jobs at cloud-computing group
#5I don't get it. Company that is flush with that much cash couldn't find new roles for the 'small number' of people that were impacted? I'm thinking they used the good old "your position is being eliminated due to business reasons" excuse to get rid of people they didn't want to keep. It's a common HR tactic.
I hate to be that guy, but I want to point out that more people not always equate to more output. E.g. if you create a "controller" role, they would try to justify their existence and create more work/overhead for others.
And you would be surprised how many roles in big bureaucracies are "controller" roles by nature.
Re: Google cuts jobs at cloud-computing group
#6What is cloud computing here? Is it some of Google services such as Mail or Drive. Or is it the cloud hosting competing with MS Azure or AWS?
GCP
Re: Google cuts jobs at cloud-computing group
#7I don't get it. Company that is flush with that much cash couldn't find new roles for the 'small number' of people that were impacted? I'm thinking they used the good old "your position is being eliminated due to business reasons" excuse to get rid of people they didn't want to keep. It's a common HR tactic.
I hate to be that guy, but I want to point out that more people not always equate to more output. E.g. if you create a "controller" role, they would try to justify their existence and create more work/overhead for others. And you would be surprised how many roles in big bureaucracies are "controller" roles by nature.
[deleted]
Re: Google cuts jobs at cloud-computing group
#8I don't get it. Company that is flush with that much cash couldn't find new roles for the 'small number' of people that were impacted? I'm thinking they used the good old "your position is being eliminated due to business reasons" excuse to get rid of people they didn't want to keep. It's a common HR tactic.
I hate to be that guy, but I want to point out that more people not always equate to more output. E.g. if you create a "controller" role, they would try to justify their existence and create more work/overhead for others. And you would be surprised how many roles in big bureaucracies are "controller" roles by nature.
I like the analogy:
You don’t get nine women in a room to make a baby in one month.
Re: Google cuts jobs at cloud-computing group
#9I don't get it. Company that is flush with that much cash couldn't find new roles for the 'small number' of people that were impacted? I'm thinking they used the good old "your position is being eliminated due to business reasons" excuse to get rid of people they didn't want to keep. It's a common HR tactic.
In "defrags" like this, Google does not lay off people outright, it just tells them their job is going away and they have X months to find a new one within Google -- and they usually do.
Re: Google cuts jobs at cloud-computing group
#10I don't get it. Company that is flush with that much cash couldn't find new roles for the 'small number' of people that were impacted? I'm thinking they used the good old "your position is being eliminated due to business reasons" excuse to get rid of people they didn't want to keep. It's a common HR tactic.
I hate to be that guy, but I want to point out that more people not always equate to more output. E.g. if you create a "controller" role, they would try to justify their existence and create more work/overhead for others. And you would be surprised how many roles in big bureaucracies are "controller" roles by nature.
[deleted]