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

Meta and Google are cutting staff

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 408 posts

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#311

Post by shemnon42 »

deelowe wrote: post #166
sequoia wrote: post #165

Facebook and google have "required some employees to apply for new jobs if they wish to remain at the company." I have to say this is a sort of hilarious newspeak framing of layoffs. "We're not laying you off, you just need to apply and get accepted for a job or else you're terminated." OK, so I was a job-haver, now I'm a job-seeker... but at least I haven't been laid off!

Assumption being, if you can't pass interviews with another team, you're not good enough to stay. That only works for large campuses and of course, getting another role is more indicative of your networking abilities than skillset and experience.

Less of an interview and more of an informal team-matching coffee chat. They all have access to your co-workers and body of work, so no need to haze you with leetcode again.

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#313

Post by n0tth3dro1ds »

battery_glasses wrote: post #243
Johnny555 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't that just encourage writing code for max LoC rather than efficiency or maintainability? Instead of generalizing a procedure you use in multiple places to make it a single function, if you write it out (slightly differently) each time you do it, then you get a higher LoC count?

I mean people there aren't stupid and there is a fairly high engineering bar, your code won't get through review if you're doing stuff like that. Where it really digs is when you are 1.5 weeks into writing an in depth project plan, meeting with other engineers, coordinating cross teams, researching, reviewing code etc. you better have a good explanation why your delivery over time graph has a big flat spot.

How are non engineers graded then? Is it just the “GitHub metrics” of merged LoC?

I know architects that spend most of their time writing design docs. Does that not get measured as a deliverable? That’s literally their job

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#314

Post by game_the0ry »

kevstev wrote: post #159
game_the0ry wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judging by the financials, the underlying business for both is strong, especially relative to many other kinds of businesses. The drop, still, does not look fatal when considering how much growth there was in 2020 and 2021.

I agree, I mean the businesses overall are very strong. That said, as a shareholder, watching Google and FB's headcount soar over the last 5-10 years to stratospheric numbers, they have to have a point where they sit down and take a hard look at what everyone is doing and be realistic about whether the projects make sense. I am all about R&D and experimentation and moonshots and the like, but the sheer number of bodi…

> That said, as a shareholder, watching Google and FB's headcount soar over the last 5-10 years to stratospheric numbers, they have to have a point where they sit down and take a hard look at what everyone is doing and be realistic about whether the projects make sense.

As an employee, shareholders have to remember that sometimes stock prices go down, instead of hoping for cost cutting via layoffs.

Shareholders have had it good for a long time, especially during covid, with stock prices higher now then before the pandemic. Time to pay back karma.

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#315

Post by jedberg »

dymk wrote: post #245
jedberg wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PIPs are lawsuit fodder. A general layoff where a bunch of people are let go at the same time makes it a lot harder for the person who was let go say it was targeted at them.

Why do you think PIPs are lawsuit fodder?

Because no matter what you write in a PIP someone could turn around and sue you for it and have a good enough case to at least force a settlement. Everyone has some sort of "protected class" they are part of.

But with a layoff it's really hard to prove the layoff was targeted unless everyone in the layoff happens to be part of the same protected class.

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#316

Post by soheil »

SighMagi wrote: post #306
o10449366 wrote: post #29

The article highlights that the easiest way for these companies to let go of staff right now is to dissolve entire teams. I've heard from friends that work at these companies that recent hiring freezes have actually made managers more hesitant to fire low performers because anyone they fire can't be replaced and they'd rather have a low performer than no one at all. The team dissolving process seems to sidestep this…

Low performer here. This is absolutely true. I cannot figure out how I was not let go even a year ago so asked the Director about it in 1:1 and she flat out said they can’t hire so it doesn’t matter.

Did you try harder?

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#317

Post by choppaface »

bentlegen wrote: post #309
cletus wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worse than that. Not only is it graded on a curve but to prevent ratings inflation there are quotas for each ratings bucket. Many deny this, even when presented with concrete proof that such quotas exist (but were called "performance targets"). This itself would be fine except that negative ratings have a target percentage of ~10%. This includes regrettable losses and ratings below Meets All Expectations. Such t…

Here’s what I’ve observed as a senior manager: First, it’s important to understand that managers are held to outcomes. If a manager retains low performers because “they’re friends”, over time they’ll find themselves with a low performing team and it will be visible in their results. At that stage they are now at the bottom of their manager’s stack-ranking process. Retain and promote your low-performing friends at you…

Have never seen a low manager get fired for having low performers inside of 2 years. I’ve seen stack ranking invented to push out non-senior managers, but never the feedback cycle you claim exists.

“there’s no reason to believe anything is functional” should be “you don’t believe in your manager.” Good managers divorce moral edict from feelings. Good managers know they don’t get to define what functional means.

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#318

Post by throwawaysleep »

function_seven wrote: post #297
cletus wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worse than that. Not only is it graded on a curve but to prevent ratings inflation there are quotas for each ratings bucket. Many deny this, even when presented with concrete proof that such quotas exist (but were called "performance targets"). This itself would be fine except that negative ratings have a target percentage of ~10%. This includes regrettable losses and ratings below Meets All Expectations. Such t…

I'm constantly amazed at how stupid supposed smart people can be when it comes to applying metrics to an organization made up of humans. Stack ranking and related schemes are so obviously going to be gamed, will definitely measure something other than the nominal thing, and will gum up the works. It's one thing to have a Hunger-Games-style hiring process. Bad as that is, there's an expectation that once you've passed…

Does it matter?

We assume that the people implementing stack ranking have good incentives.

At one of my jobs, my manager blurted out what we have all suspected about Scrum. It is valuable to generate a neat numerical progress report for the guy above. It has no other value.

My manager doesn't give a shit about achieving anything either. He is doing the same gaming we are.

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#319

Post by throwawaysleep »

bentlegen wrote: post #309
cletus wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worse than that. Not only is it graded on a curve but to prevent ratings inflation there are quotas for each ratings bucket. Many deny this, even when presented with concrete proof that such quotas exist (but were called "performance targets"). This itself would be fine except that negative ratings have a target percentage of ~10%. This includes regrettable losses and ratings below Meets All Expectations. Such t…

Here’s what I’ve observed as a senior manager: First, it’s important to understand that managers are held to outcomes. If a manager retains low performers because “they’re friends”, over time they’ll find themselves with a low performing team and it will be visible in their results. At that stage they are now at the bottom of their manager’s stack-ranking process. Retain and promote your low-performing friends at you…

I don't view the management chain to be incompetent. I think they have the same bad incentives to game things we employees do.

Re: Meta and Google are cutting staff

#320

Post by umeshunni »

kevstev wrote: post #47
game_the0ry wrote: post #15

I can't read WSJ while at work, but after checking on the financials for both Meta and Alphabet, I do not understand why either would be cutting staff. Both look pretty strong, so I am not sure how cuts are justified or why Zuckerberg has a negative outlook, especially since 2021 was such a great year for both. Do American executives, investors, and start up owners not have the guts for even a moderate stock price dr…

Google's profits dropped last quarter, and that is a rare occurrence for them. Metas revenue actually fell last quarter, with profits dropping 35%. IIRC, that's the first revenue drop they have had since going public. This isn't about stock prices, this is about the strength of the underlying business.

Also, financial indicators are a lagging metric. If companies are anticipating a recession and cutting advertising and marketing budgets, that will impact G/FB's future revenues. If they hired anticipating 20% YoY growth, this is the time to cut.
Post reply on HN