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

Salesforce will lay off 10% of staff as part of restructuring

marketwatch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 355 posts

Re: Salesforce will lay off 10% of staff as part of restructuring

#311

Post by rkunde »

time_to_smile wrote: post #257
fatnoah wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Salesforce is giving a minimum of 5 months severance to affected people. That's not too shabby.

I really hope that I get laid off in the first round of these layoffs where everyone gets good severance. My current worry is that the first round of layoff at my first company will get 4 months severance, I'll miss that round, and 2 months later get laid off with only 2 months severance. This would of course mean that my severance ends at the same times as the first group but I had to work an additional 2 months.

It’s should be possible to volunteer.

Re: Salesforce will lay off 10% of staff as part of restructuring

#312

Post by Eumenes »

Spivak wrote: post #307
Eumenes wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, liberty is totally defined by draconian policies on employers/companies to give hand-outs for lay offs. If that's the case, we need to mandate employees give 3 months notice, for the employer to backfill the position properly. Its only fair.

Literally nothing could be considered a handout to your own employee. By definition they’re selling their labor to you for a public contract called “legally being an employee” which comes with obligations on the part of the employee and employer. Everything else is haggling over the specific details. If we decide that one of those employer obligations is to provide guaranteed runaway for employees in the case of term…

Yeah but majority of employment contracts are 'at-will', so either party can say bye-bye anytime they want. I work, you pay me - pretty simple, lets keep it that way. If job seekers want extra perks/fringe benefits, ask for them in the job offer process. If employers want to offer them, be my guest. But keep the government out of this. We need less bureaucratic BS, not more.

Re: Salesforce will lay off 10% of staff as part of restructuring

#313

Post by Dwolb »

erpNerdThrAway wrote: post #166
Dwolb wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you run financials in SF?

SF doesn’t do ERP level financials natively, but there is an industry of apps built on top of SF. Some try to turn SF into an ERP. Examples I’ve worked with in the last year: -Rootstock -Accounting Seed -FinancialForce That said, I design ERP integrations for a living. SF based ERPs are consistently the lowest quality and most limited ERPs we deal with. I would highly recommend that any finance professional seriously…

Hilarious, thanks for the chuckle.

I'd like to ride along on an ERP integration some day.

I've been a part of a scaling start-up and it just feels like the kludge of tools small teams buy would be better served by a more integrated system. So I'd like to see what a big implementation looks like and figure out what pieces might be usable for small teams.

Re: Salesforce will lay off 10% of staff as part of restructuring

#314

Post by grantsch »

corry wrote: post #140
grantsch wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many many software companies end up spending more money to acquire a customer than a customer will ever pay them. I tend to think this is because the demand and need for many tools is not significant enough to justify the amount of capital allocated to promote them. Finance spreadsheet alchemists last 10 years saw big gross margins in software (overinflated by not taking into account cost to acquire user), bought int…

I get where you're coming from, but since the dawn of SaaS we've had rules of thumb about LTV-to-CAC, CAC payback period, etc. Most SaaS founders know that a 3:1 ratio between LTV and CAC is ideal - and while arguments might hold water that a worse ratio is OK for a brief period, I don't think anyone involved doesn't realize that it's difficult to sustain that. The mental magic trick to justify it probably goes like…

Why does real LTV have to be greater than CAC. Can you explain that to me?

If you’re LTV is actually higher than LTV can’t you finance the difference?

Re: Salesforce will lay off 10% of staff as part of restructuring

#315

Post by steveBK123 »

ghaff wrote: post #289
andsoitis wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HBR has an interesting, recent article about why, in some cases, it might be better to have two CEOs: https://hbr.org/2022/07/is-it-time-to-consider-co-ceos

Good read. The one time I've seen this situation has been as a board member of a small non-profit. This was ages ago but, as I recall, there were two well-qualified candidates for an editor-in-chief position. It seemed a case where if we appointed one, the other would walk. So we made them co-editors and it didn't go well. But I can imagine circumstances when it can work with the right people and circumstances.

Exactly.. probably instead of ending up with 1 happy person and the other walking, you ended up with 2 unhappy people and both eventually walking!

Re: Salesforce will lay off 10% of staff as part of restructuring

#316

Post by cableshaft »

missedthecue wrote: post #211
xena wrote: post #201

Why do CEOs claim to "take responsibility" for the hard times, but their salary is never cut because of it? If they were actually taking responsibility then they would face real consequences instead of dooming people to no longer having healthcare. Fucking rich people.

Ed Bastian, CEO of Delta Airlines requested the board cut his salary when he had to lay off people during the covid travel implosion. I think it ended up being cut 50% that year.

"As Chief Executive Officer at DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Edward H. Bastian made $12,360,420 in total compensation. Of this total $950,000 was received as a salary, $3,038,542 was received as a bonus, $4,125,062 was received in stock options, $4,125,186 was awarded as stock and $121,630 came from other types of compensation. This information is according to proxy statements filed for the 2021 fiscal year."

Salary is often one of the smallest parts of a CEO's compensation, so it doesn't mean a whole lot. It's better than nothing, though.

Source: https://www1.salary.com/Edward-H-Bastian-Salary-Bonus-Stock-...

Re: Salesforce will lay off 10% of staff as part of restructuring

#317

Post by erik_seaberg »

orangecat wrote: post #290
alistairSH wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, if we roll out some sort of socialized medical coverage. At least for my family, stability of medical coverage is a major impediment to changing jobs.

I continue to not understand the position that the default provider of health insurance has to be either your employer or the government. What makes it fundamentally different from housing, food, or transportation, where you just pay money and there's assistance for people who can't afford it?

This was a mistake the US government made in World War II—they made it illegal for wages to change in response to actual shortages of workers, so employers competed by offering health insurance and other perks instead of more pay.

Re: Salesforce will lay off 10% of staff as part of restructuring

#318

Post by BurningFrog »

erik_seaberg wrote: post #317
orangecat wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I continue to not understand the position that the default provider of health insurance has to be either your employer or the government. What makes it fundamentally different from housing, food, or transportation, where you just pay money and there's assistance for people who can't afford it?

This was a mistake the US government made in World War II—they made it illegal for wages to change in response to actual shortages of workers, so employers competed by offering health insurance and other perks instead of more pay.

One of Hitler's lesser known crimes!

Re: Salesforce will lay off 10% of staff as part of restructuring

#319

Post by missedthecue »

paxys wrote: post #275
missedthecue wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I understand it, but the analogy I was trying to illustrate is that in theory, 10% of a workforce produces something, and while it costs something to employ them, it also costs something to lose their employment. In theory. Otherwise, why were they hired to begin with?

There are inefficiencies in every organization. It's not like 100% of the workforce is 100% productive and critical to operations. You can cut a lot more than 10% before it starts to affect the business in a meaningful way.

Makes one wonder why they were ever employed if they don't impact the business in a meaningful way

Re: Salesforce will lay off 10% of staff as part of restructuring

#320

Post by bcrosby95 »

mym1990 wrote: post #190
rybosworld wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A strong labor market has been effective in rasing the real incomes of the bottom 25% or so over the past few years Source?

Not really the source and not specific to the bottom 25(but the bottom 50), based on this graph( https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBLB50107 ) we can see net worth going up quite dramatically. If you look at pretty much any metric of capital( https://fred.stlouisfed.org/release/tables?rid=453&eid=81366... ), it has been rising for the bottom 50. How much of that is attributed to income vs government stimulus is un…

That chart basically mirrors real estate prices.
Post reply on HN