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

Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”

independent.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 144 posts

Re: Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”

#61

Post by einpoklum »

rychco wrote: post #39

I'm sure it's already been said, but I genuinely avoid all new Google products/services like the plague. I don't see how anyone could comfortably invest time into a Google service when they have a graveyard of over 200+ cancelled services. If I were an employee, I would be incredibly demotivated. Why build anything new at all? Why work hard at all?

Why just the new products/service? You had better avoid them all.

> Why build anything new at all? Why work hard at all?

The money, Lebowski...

but also, they do a lot of interesting FOSS and published research work, which can't get "canceled".

Re: Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”

#62

Post by [deleted] »

sbarre wrote: post #53
soperj wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is Bain Capitals MO actually. The whole point is to layoff the highest paid people and have the company coast along on previous momentum, making the profit look better so they call sell it off.

How is this relevant to Google's plans in this case?

[deleted]

Re: Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”

#63

Post by diydsp »

soperj wrote: post #40
mc32 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

This is Bain Capitals MO actually. The whole point is to layoff the highest paid people and have the company coast along on previous momentum, making the profit look better so they call sell it off.

Sell it off... and/or offer dividends until it depletes

Re: Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”

#65

Post by GenerocUsername »

hinkley wrote: post #18
mc32 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 often about retrenching on verticals we think we can turn a profit on. If decreasing your overhead by 5% makes or breaks your company then you don’t have a viable business model. You can have plenty of people who are very good at a skill you either don’t need or have an oversupply of bus numbers on. At least a third of the people in any group you shut down completely are going to have been good people. Mo…

Shaving 5% of overhead can absolutely make or break a company.

Re: Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”

#68

Post by hinkley »

GenerocUsername wrote: post #65
hinkley wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Layoffs are often about retrenching on verticals we think we can turn a profit on. If decreasing your overhead by 5% makes or breaks your company then you don’t have a viable business model. You can have plenty of people who are very good at a skill you either don’t need or have an oversupply of bus numbers on. At least a third of the people in any group you shut down completely are going to have been good people. Mo…

Shaving 5% of overhead can absolutely make or break a company.

Going from default dead to default alive is huge. But a 3% profit margin just keeps you alive until some disaster occurs and then you’re still dead.

Going from 5% to 10% might be leverage in the market, but you were still going to limp along anyway. When I’ve been at startups trying to do things like this, it’s very clear that the investors have in their head some notion of multiplying your profits. Every company I worked for that pulled this ended up cutting to the bone later. I don’t think that’s a coincidence.

These days I’m not sure labor is a big enough part of the cost mix for a 10% layoff to actually show up as 5% margin. I pulled that out of my butt and now I’m having second thoughts.

Re: Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”

#69

Post by ZiiS »

xwdv wrote: post #42
projectileboy wrote: post #7

It’s incredibly shitty to telegraph to other employers that all the people you’re about to layoff are damaged goods. Completely unnecessary.

If Google is only laying off poor performers, why hire anyone who has recently worked at Google? Guess you better work harder or be shunned from the industry. Google is a very evil company these days.

The fact someone was not able to move the needle at Google has very close to zero bearing on whether they can deliver for you.
Post reply on HN