Live data from Hacker News

Google cuts jobs at cloud-computing group

wsj.com

11–20 of 335 posts

Re: Google cuts jobs at cloud-computing group

#11
post #3

I 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.

[deleted]

Re: Google cuts jobs at cloud-computing group

#13
post #3

I 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.

Why would they publicize it this way though. It seems like it would be easy enough to reallocate these folks in a staged manner without creating a news story out of it.

Re: Google cuts jobs at cloud-computing group

#14
post #3

I 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.

It's a for profit company with a fiduciary responsibility to share holders. There is zero reason to find jobs for people regardless of the cash position.

Re: Google cuts jobs at cloud-computing group

#15
Can someone with an MBA or a business understanding explain why they would even make this announcement if it is a small number of roles in the company? Why not just reorganize? I don’t get it unless it’s a signal to the market that the execs are looking at cloud compute.

Re: Google cuts jobs at cloud-computing group

#16
post #3

I 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.

> Company that is flush with that much cash couldn't find new roles for the 'small number' of people that were impacted?

The third sentence in the article: "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

#18
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is often attributed to Fred Brooks in his seminal book "The Mythical Man Month"

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks%27s_law * https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fred_Brooks

It also appears to originate from Theodore von Kármán (1957): "Everyone knows it takes a woman nine months to have a baby. But you Americans think if you get nine women pregnant, you can have a baby in a month."

Re: Google cuts jobs at cloud-computing group

#20
post #15

Can someone with an MBA or a business understanding explain why they would even make this announcement if it is a small number of roles in the company? Why not just reorganize? I don’t get it unless it’s a signal to the market that the execs are looking at cloud compute.

It's not an announcement as much as a legal obligation to disclose, and news sources just pick up on it.
Post reply on HN