Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

LinkedIn to cut 960 jobs worldwide

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 312 posts

Re: LinkedIn to cut 960 jobs worldwide

#301

Post by silveroriole »

monadic2 wrote: post #135
mathattack wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, they make a disproportionate amount of their revenue on jobs postings and selling recruiters the right to spam us. With less jobs their revenue goes away. They don’t need as many salespeople and internal recruiters. Microsoft has historically been pretty ruthless about annual culls. It used to be in the GE mode of cutting the bottom 5-10% each year. More recently it’s more quiet. I don’t begrudge compan…

I imagine at some point a reputation like this affects hiring ability.

For a while when I was frustrated with coworkers I dreamed of joining a company that openly said they fired the bottom x%. I think Netflix had a presentation along those lines. I’m older and less into the idea now, but it might attract young confident people who care too much about their work, which is mostly what tech companies want.

Re: LinkedIn to cut 960 jobs worldwide

#302

Post by Nextgrid »

kjeetgill wrote: post #127
Nextgrid wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my experience you can opt-out of the bullshit with no ill effects, at least in the software industry. My activity is completely empty, no posts, no likes, etc and that doesn't seem to hurt me. I mostly use the tool as a rolodex to keep in touch with professional connections and be reachable by recruiters. The problem of course is that the platform doesn't seem to understand that and desperately tries to encourag…

Posts like this baffle me. This tool seems to function perfectly well as a rolodex and as a recruiter contact for you (its primary function for myself and most others) but somehow it's problematic for to have other functions for other users. > The problem of course is that the platform doesn't seem to understand that and desperately tries to encourage me to participate which seems pathetic at this point. They have 2…

> somehow it's problematic for to have other functions for other users

I think it's a fair question to raise when the other function seems out of place or almost inappropriate for what the tool is trying to achieve. I feel like a professional platform should be trying to maintain a higher standard instead of decaying into yet another Instagram-like cesspool.

> What middle finger?

The ~2 years of analytic data showing that I have zero interest in the "features" they're trying to force me to use despite hundreds of attempts? I also find it unlikely to believe that I am literally the only one in this situation, thus why I am raising the issue.

> Nobody's out there 'trying' expending extra energy to engage you specifically.

Not specifically, but surely the platform should be built in such a way to respect the user's decisions? The various nags can have a use to engage new users (that might indeed not be aware of some of the features), but after a certain point it seems counter-productive and annoying. Imagine if every SaaS tool out there would always give you the "new user" onboarding experience with help popups all over the place and call-outs for "new" features, would you enjoy it?

> Disclaimer: Former LinkedIn employee baffled at how personal you seem to think all this is.

I don't think it's personal because I very much doubt I am the only one annoyed by this. The platform has been designed with zero respect for their users and looks like it's intentionally trying to be as annoying as possible. Even Facebook is more subtle in their shenanigans.

Re: LinkedIn to cut 960 jobs worldwide

#303

Post by kjeetgill »

stainforth wrote: post #275
kjeetgill wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Posts like this baffle me. This tool seems to function perfectly well as a rolodex and as a recruiter contact for you (its primary function for myself and most others) but somehow it's problematic for to have other functions for other users. > The problem of course is that the platform doesn't seem to understand that and desperately tries to encourage me to participate which seems pathetic at this point. They have 2…

Baffled by how defensive you are of a former employer. Linkedin emailed my contacts without asking. And the same has happened to me from my contacts. I would get emailed repeatedly to join. I don't support these dark patterns nor those who have worked for companies that build those dark patterns.

Ohhhh I'm with you 100%. There's plenty of shady bs that LinkedIn has done and this wasn't a blanket endorsement at all.

But I do think the parent's personification of the platform misguided.

Re: LinkedIn to cut 960 jobs worldwide

#304

Post by Nextgrid »

GreenWatermelon wrote: post #188
Nextgrid wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm baffled by that number given how bad the product is. It has a lot of potential, but is completely ruined by the social media aspect and their attempt at making it yet another cesspool like Twitter or Instagram, all the way down to the algorithmic feed, likes and reactions. They should step away from the nonsense and make the tool (because yes it should be seen as a tool and not a lifestyle) easier to use, not har…

Is it alright not to have a profile picture on LinledIn? I've searched around and only found advice telling me to put one.

Doesn't seem to be a problem for me. I mean maybe if I added one it will raise the levels of "engagement" on my profile by a lot more but that level is already high enough to give me a steady stream of new work so I really have nothing to gain.

I wouldn't actually mind adding a picture now (I had a reason not to add one at the beginning, but this is no longer a problem) but at this point I will refrain from doing so out of principle to not show them an increase in their analytics data and encouraging their terrible practices.

Re: LinkedIn to cut 960 jobs worldwide

#305

Post by sshagent »

justsid wrote: post #221
sshagent wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They need that many to keep up with the sheer volume of emails they are sending out each day /s

LinkedIn keeps suggesting me my mother who passed away 4 years ago. Every week, without fail, I get an email telling me that I should totally connect with her. It’s highly annoying and no matter what I do to my email preferences, I keep getting the same damn email.

Agreed. A couple of times a year i go try and purge the stuff they send. I do want to see the job searches that I've asked for, i don't expect to see any job posting I've even glimpse at, or anything vaguely associated with it. In all seriousness someone at Linkedin is getting paid per email sent.

Re: LinkedIn to cut 960 jobs worldwide

#306

Post by Traubenfuchs »

diogenescynic wrote: post #288
projektfu wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a company like LinkedIn is doing a lay-off, that’s different from business as usual. They’re supposed to be growing. When they grow they fire people along the way. But a lay-off means they have run out of work or can’t employ people profitably. This can mean: 1. LinkedIn has its own special problems. (Maybe I’ll sell and follow another company or sector). 2. The economy is in recession. (Should have gotten into bo…

Other companies just do layoffs less obviously. For instance, PayPal has been laying people off in the Bay Area even though they are doing really well to shift those jobs to Austin or Omaha or Chandler. They just don't do it all at once and often give people anywhere from several weeks or months to start looking for a job before their actual termination date, depending on how long they've been with the company and pa…

> They just don't do it all at once and often give people anywhere from several weeks or months to start looking for a job before their actual termination date, depending on how long they've been with the company and pay grade.

Sneaky? This is the nice and humane way. Instead of firing a bunch of people that might directly have to compete for new jobs.

Re: LinkedIn to cut 960 jobs worldwide

#307

Post by octygen »

beachy wrote: post #216

> "Our Talent Solutions business continues to be impacted as fewer companies, including ours, need to hire at the same volume they did previously." We're in a recruitment-related field (online background checking) and we can clearly see that recruitment activity has dropped way off, even in sectors that are largely unaffected by the pandemic. My theory is that people are clinging on to their jobs tightly as unemploym…

I'd err towards this direction too based on the megacorp I work at. Curious if you have ballpark #s to how much less companies are hiring.

Re: LinkedIn to cut 960 jobs worldwide

#308

Post by decafninja »

twblalock wrote: post #171
decafninja wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've interviewed for roles at several top tech companies and what surprised me was that there were entire teams dedicated to working on what seemed like a tiny feature or functionality. In some cases, two entire teams - one for frontend, one for backend. Granted, I understand there is a HUGE mind boggling level of scale involved. But still, after going on such interviews, and talking with friends who work at FAANG, e…

FAANG companies can't move fast and break things like startups. If their services go down, it might be mentioned on the evening news, and it would certainly cost a lot of money. FAANGs have huge existing revenues to protect, large customer bases to keep happy, and laws to obey in all of the countries where they operate. A "simple" feature change is not so simple for companies with those concerns.

Can't you say the same about banks and finance? Hospitals and medical tech? Software in say, cars, aircraft, ships? If anything, even more so?

I could be naive, but what is the most societal impact that could happen if say, Instagram goes down or gets a major bug? Or if something went wrong at Netflix?

Vs. software going wrong at a major bank or on an airliner?

Re: LinkedIn to cut 960 jobs worldwide

#309

Post by jsjohnst »

compiler-guy wrote: post #231
jsjohnst wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even if they average $200,000 You’re still way high. It might help to step outside the software engineering bubble once in a while and learn what folks outside your field are paid. LinkedIn probably has >1,000 employees who make around US$50,000 a year or less.

Speaking of assuming too much: You have no idea who I am, or my employment history. The top-line going even lower still doesn't materially change the calculus. Those people cost money to pay, and multiply it by almost 1,000 people and it makes a real difference.

> The top-line going even lower still doesn't materially change the calculus.

There’s a big difference between $50-100M and $460M, almost an order of magnitude difference, so yes it does change the dynamics.

> Speaking of assuming too much

I made no assumptions about who you are or your employment history, I stuck to the figures presented. Software engineers are barely as high as the figure you first provided for fully loaded salary on average, hence the comment about the software bubble. The rest of the LinkedIn org makes no where near those numbers on average.

Re: LinkedIn to cut 960 jobs worldwide

#310

Post by eldavido »

projektfu wrote: post #269
eldavido wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like there are basically three ways to lose your job in tech. In one, the company cuts an entire business unit, or a company shuts down, or something else cataclysmic happens. This is where you have dozens/hundreds of people let go. Outside of small startups, this seems pretty rare. I think selling/divesting a failing business unit is more common than outright shutdown in tech. In the second, the employee does…

The fourth is the market is drying up and your line of management isn’t going to bat for you. Lots of reasons for this and many aren’t personal so no need to personalize it. Many companies try to let underperforming employees go for cause before starting a lay-off because they can avoid the repercussions in unemployment taxes.

This hasn't been my experience, but would love more info if you could provide it.

I'm actually surprised how slowly most tech companies shed staff. In general, it seems the industry is pretty hit-driven, and if you're attached to a good product that's still making money, there's rarely much attrition, even when perhaps there should be. Conversely, a lot of great people get let go when a product isn't working (misses the market or no sales). It all seems kind of arbitrary and random. It's a lot different than, say, a restaurant with really tight margins where you're a day away from getting fired if you aren't perceived to be pulling your weight.

Post reply on HN