[deleted]
Google cuts jobs at cloud-computing group
31–40 of 335 posts
Re: Google cuts jobs at cloud-computing group
#32December 2019
“Google Brass Set 2023 as Deadline to Beat Amazon, Microsoft in Cloud“
https://www.theinformation.com/articles/google-brass-set-202...
The clock is ticking for Google Cloud.
The Google unit, which sells computing services to big companies, is under pressure from top management to pass Amazon or Microsoft—currently first and second, respectively, in cloud market share—or risk losing funding. While the company has invested heavily in the business since last year, Google wants its cloud group to outrank those of one or both of its two main rivals by 2023, said people with knowledge of the matter.
Re: Google cuts jobs at cloud-computing group
#33I 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.
I've personally been through this twice at Google. The company definitely provides a very attentive set of resources to help you find a new position within the company, but I've always been able to find a new project on my own.
That said, the more flexibility you have the easier it is to find a new position. This naturally favors some people over others.
In my most recent case, it ended up being a bit more challenging due to having to balance the constraints of family life versus the opportunities availed by an extremely arduous commute, but I ended up finding a project I enjoy that works with my commute constraints.
Re: Google cuts jobs at cloud-computing group
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Here's a couple: 1. Google's tech staffers are supposed to be some of the top people in the world, and Google spends a considerable amount of resources hiring them. It seems foolish not to keep them on the bench a bit, unless Google foresees that it will be shrinking soon. 2. The people not laid off will very much notice their colleagues being zapped the moment they're not needed. They will rationally tilt towards le…
The thing is, if they bench too many workers, they will also be ridiculed: https://www.networkworld.com/article/2920903/google-really-k...
In fact, this action is probably part of a conscious effort to move away from "benching".
Re: Google cuts jobs at cloud-computing group
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like the analogy: You don’t get nine women in a room to make a baby in one month.
If you assemble a 9+ stage pipeline, you may reach a point where you produce approximately one baby each month.
Even then they are "working" independently. It's not a pipeline that passes the baby from one to the next. That's just plain parallelism. Either way it would do nothing to latency and so would not get the current one done any sooner.
Re: Google cuts jobs at cloud-computing group
#36I 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.
This is a very smart tactic that also, as a side effect, brings the average quality across all engineers at the company up. Smart people with desirable skills would have no problem finding another team within Google to transfer to, while bottom tier performers won’t, thus leaving Google.
Re: Google cuts jobs at cloud-computing group
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Here's a couple: 1. Google's tech staffers are supposed to be some of the top people in the world, and Google spends a considerable amount of resources hiring them. It seems foolish not to keep them on the bench a bit, unless Google foresees that it will be shrinking soon. 2. The people not laid off will very much notice their colleagues being zapped the moment they're not needed. They will rationally tilt towards le…
You haven’t heard about Netflix’s policy....
https://www.slideshare.net/reed2001/culture-1798664
“We’re a team, not a family.”
They “hire, develop, and cut smartly”. It doesn’t seem to have hurt their recruitment.
Re: Google cuts jobs at cloud-computing group
#38Why would Google even take the risk of this PR, vs. just moving these people into R&D inside the Cloud group? I feel like this clickbait headline will frighten markets more than the bloated headcount expense.
Re: Google cuts jobs at cloud-computing group
#39Can 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.
I don’t believe that. I’ve been at public companies that reorg mid level with no announcement.
Re: Google cuts jobs at cloud-computing group
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not an announcement as much as a legal obligation to disclose, and news sources just pick up on it.
This is correct. In many jurisdictions, when a certain number of employees are laid off in a given amount of time, they are required to disclose this to the government. For example, California has the WARN act: https://www.shouselaw.com/employment/warn-act.html
So this is a WARN act announcement?