So Pichai is also laid off?
Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”
21–30 of 144 posts
Re: Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”
#22I was told at some point by someone that a layoff can’t be done based on performance, because that would mean it’s a firing instead. An amazon manager told me they were careful to avoid mentioning perf as a factor in their latest layoffs. Is that accurate and if so how does this jive with that at all?
Re: Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”
#23https://archive.ph/BjMZn
how to get these links ?
Re: Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”
#24It’s incredibly shitty to telegraph to other employers that all the people you’re about to layoff are damaged goods. Completely unnecessary.
[deleted]
Re: Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”
#25Quoted post unavailable.
People didn't even stop shopping on Amazon knowing full well how drivers and warehouse employees were treated so...
The driver thing could be regional. I have always lived in a less dense area and the drivers always were happy and helpful. Didn't look at all like what I'd expect from the news.
Re: Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”
#26Is the current macroeconomics really a good reason to lay people off? It feels to me almost like double speak for a company that just made less money than they expected and blaming it on the economy rather than taking any responsibility.
Re: Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”
#27BREAKING: 6% of workforce will be ranked in the sixth percentile. This “news” is from back in May when the new performance management system buckets were released.
As a current employee: this is so, so accurate. This whole “article” and the 10 others just like it this week are just a bad rehash of the exact same article posted below, but baselessly (I.e. with no quoted source at all) ratcheting up the stakes from
“Under the new system, managers have been asked to categorize 6% of employees, or roughly 10,000 people, as low performers… In the previous performance review system, managers were expected to put 2% of employees in that [low performing] bucket.”
To “google is laying off 10k people lol trust us”. The first quote isn’t even correct! They added a new “moderate” bucket that covers the 2nd-6th percentiles, which I think is obviously different from expanding the very worst rating to be 3x bigger.
Re: Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”
#28It’s incredibly shitty to telegraph to other employers that all the people you’re about to layoff are damaged goods. Completely unnecessary.
With the exception of companies going under or closing divisions or departments what kind of companies shave off “high performers”? Sure some high performers could erroneously slip trough but the intent is predominantly to lay off poor performers (sometimes high earners or older employees, but not usually)
Layoffs are because management screwed up. It's blame-shifting.
And let's not act like you can actually truly quantify employee performance generally. It's largely guesswork and politics in the hands of the said management-who-screwed-up doing the layoffs.
Re: Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”
#29BREAKING: 6% of workforce will be ranked in the sixth percentile. This “news” is from back in May when the new performance management system buckets were released.
Thank you for being the only commenter in this thread with an accurate take.
Re: Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”
#30It’s incredibly shitty to telegraph to other employers that all the people you’re about to layoff are damaged goods. Completely unnecessary.
There's legal implications that I don't understand fully. But laying off people you have already defined as poor performers can be a hedge against lawsuits for wrongful termination including the WARN act (and other state laws).
For what it's worth, I wouldn't look negatively at someone who was fired due to alleged poor performance. Poor performance means different things in different context when rated by different people.