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

Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

blogs.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 284 posts

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#61

Post by Karunamon »

rcme wrote: post #14
whatever1 wrote: post #5

Families will get torn apart, people with health issues will be on their own, immigrants will get booted. C-suite will get a raise from the stock price bump. Congrats on our system.

People with health issues should still be able to purchase their existing insurance through COBRA, and, once that expires, through the public exchanges that are guaranteed to cover their existing condition. Thanks ACA.

Entirely serious question: is COBRA actually of any use to anyone? From where I sit it's always been pretty aspirational since it requires you to also pay the employer side of the insurance which is colossally more expensive than the employee side, and you are expected to do this while being out of work?

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#63

Post by kenjackson »

sbarre wrote: post #10

They're spreading it out over the full year. Interesting that they would announce it up front like this? What does this do to morale and retention?

I’ve heard this is due to differences in local laws. In the US rumors say it will all happen today. In other countries it may differ. I’ve heard this but can’t confirm if it’s true.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#64

Post by rcme »

notch656c wrote: post #55
rcme wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The HHS disagrees with you: https://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-aca/pre-existing-co... > Health insurers can no longer charge more or deny coverage to you or your child because of a pre-existing health condition like asthma, diabetes, or cancer, as well as pregnancy. They cannot limit benefits for that condition either. Once you have insurance, they can't refuse to cover treatment for your pre-existing condition…

Doesn't this create a huge incentive for people to buy rolling "temporary" insurance plans which can consider pre-existing conditions, and then switch to subsidizing off the healthy once they actually get a condition and buy the regular ACA plans?

You can only switch plans during the open enrollment window or in cases of specific life events. You can't arbitrarily change plans whenever you want.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#65

Post by jsiepkes »

Satya is appointed by shareholders, not by employees. Employees can't fire Satya.

And while employees might give him a hard time for this, shareholders can definitely give him a harder time if they see a (potential) decline in dividend. So cutting cost to keep dividends steady with a decline in profitability and revenue is the easiest fight for him.

While it sucks, when working for a large tech company which is publicly traded like Microsoft antics like this should be no surprise to anyone.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#66

Post by _huayra_ »

habosa wrote: post #22
bratao wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legit question, don't EU have by law, very generous unemployment benefits compared to the US?

The scale of benefits generally looks like: Average US worker << Average EU worker < US Big Tech Worker

I wonder where EU tech workers (big or not) fit in this. Certainly pay is less than US, but when I worked in Europe, everyone took all of their vacation time and generally did not work beyond regular business hours. Where I work today in the US, even junior devs (i.e. no on-call or general need to fight fires outside of regular hours) are grinding away on nights and weekends. The only way I can basically take a half-day here and there during the week to ski is because my team would be screwed without me, but it's still a pressure cooker compared to my last job in Europe; "I'm going to be bikepacking in Sweden all of August and won't be reachable" -> guess which OOO notice that job came from? xD

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#67

Post by w0m »

shiftingleft wrote: post #25
malcolmgreaves wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could all take massive pay cuts to preserve jobs. They have agency and they have chosen to enrich their stock price at the expense of people’s lives and well being.

Microsoft net income 2022: ~$70B. Why force pay cuts or fire workers when you have roughly $300k of net income per employee to work with?

The argument would be sustainability I believe.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#68

Post by yokoprime »

monero-xmr wrote: post #20
whatever1 wrote: post #5

Families will get torn apart, people with health issues will be on their own, immigrants will get booted. C-suite will get a raise from the stock price bump. Congrats on our system.

Ah yes, the “let’s force companies to become unprofitable” theory. I think Venezuela and Argentina are good places for you.

Plenty of profitable companies in Europe. It might be easier to become profitable in the US since you have less of a safety net, but that's a price US voters are willing to pay. Pointing to corrupt developing countries whenever socialized healthcare is brought up is disingenuous.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#69

Post by notch656c »

rcme wrote: post #64
notch656c wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't this create a huge incentive for people to buy rolling "temporary" insurance plans which can consider pre-existing conditions, and then switch to subsidizing off the healthy once they actually get a condition and buy the regular ACA plans?

You can only switch plans during the open enrollment window or in cases of specific life events. You can't arbitrarily change plans whenever you want.

"Temporary" plans are 1-12 months so you can buy ones that last until the next open enrollment, and if you're healthy you buy another (12 month) temporary plan. If you develop a condition you buy the regular plan.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#70

Post by chimeracoder »

rcme wrote: post #48
chimeracoder wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> once that expires, through the public exchanges that are guaranteed to cover their existing condition. Thanks ACA. The ACA just states that insurers can't refuse a customer who wants to purchase a plan just because they have a preexisting condition. It doesn't actually require that the plan cover treatment for said condition. In many states - including wealthier deep blue states - the marketplace plan options are a…

The HHS disagrees with you: https://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-aca/pre-existing-co... > Health insurers can no longer charge more or deny coverage to you or your child because of a pre-existing health condition like asthma, diabetes, or cancer, as well as pregnancy. They cannot limit benefits for that condition either. Once you have insurance, they can't refuse to cover treatment for your pre-existing condition…

No, you are misreading it. They cannot limit benefits due to your condition, but that doesn't mean that they have to cover treatment for your condition.

If you have a disease or syndrome, the treatments for that condition (whether pharmaceutical, outpatient, or inpatient) may simply not be on the list of benefits provided by the insurance plans offered.

It's legally distinct from, but analogous to, a nodiscrimination clause. They can't refuse to cover your mammogram (which they cover for everyone else) just because your initial diagnosis for Vamipiric Brain Syndrome occurred before your plan went into effect. But they can choose to say they they don't cover Nosferatudone for anyone (when Nosferatudone happens to be the only effective treatment for Vamipiric Brain Syndrome).

(There are, separately, certain treatments that all insurance plans must cover by law, although that's separate from the ACA, and it's a very limited set).

Post reply on HN