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

Google to reduce workforce by 12k

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 1001 posts

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#301

Post by __alexs »

ergonaught wrote: post #234

I need to see these "I take full responsibility" people actually punished. At the very least, this sentence needs to be removed from their mouths. Alphabet had 116 billion USD "cash on hand" at the end of September 2022. Even if the full cost of each of those 12K employees is 500K per year, that's "only" 6 billion dollars to keep those "great" people that they "love" working with around. Net income for that quarter w…

I think the disconnect we feel with these people supposedly taking responsibility is actually that while the impact of these mistakes is real, their degree of control over this outcome was basically zero.

The problem with the statement is not that there is no action to go with the words, it's that actually they are not responsible for this outcome in any meaningful way which in some ways is worse.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#302

Post by dimva »

eCa wrote: post #51

I guess someone has to write this comment: > I take full responsibility for the decisions that led us here As usual, he says nothing more what the consequences for him are. It seems like all of the FAANGs have made severe strategic cockups when it comes to hiring lately. I wonder if it will affect their longterm attraction as employers.

He has already "suffered" the consequences. Google stock is down ~35% from its highs, so his compensation (which is mostly stock) has already been reduced by that amount. Following the layoff announcement, it is up by ~3% in premarket trading, so he is being rewarded for laying off these people. This is how the system works, designed entirely for the benefit of holders of capital.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#303

Post by TomSwirly »

NewEntryHN wrote: post #285
ergonaught wrote: post #234

I need to see these "I take full responsibility" people actually punished. At the very least, this sentence needs to be removed from their mouths. Alphabet had 116 billion USD "cash on hand" at the end of September 2022. Even if the full cost of each of those 12K employees is 500K per year, that's "only" 6 billion dollars to keep those "great" people that they "love" working with around. Net income for that quarter w…

It's not a charity you know. If they fire those many people, it's because they're confident they can go on without them. There are countries in which the law is more protective of employees, and you can't fire them unless you have serious economic reasons, which is a good thing. But in a country like the US where this isn't the case, I wouldn't shift the moral responsibility to the company itself. Its goal is to make…

A person whose only interest is money is a psychopath.

If a company's only interest is money, it is effectively a psychopath too - a potentially immortal, tremendously powerful psychopath.

We shouldn't say, "Oh, psychopaths are psychopathic, that's just the way it is." We need to fight back.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#304

Post by SilverBirch »

jstx1 wrote: post #278
ergonaught wrote: post #234

I need to see these "I take full responsibility" people actually punished. At the very least, this sentence needs to be removed from their mouths. Alphabet had 116 billion USD "cash on hand" at the end of September 2022. Even if the full cost of each of those 12K employees is 500K per year, that's "only" 6 billion dollars to keep those "great" people that they "love" working with around. Net income for that quarter w…

> I need to see these "I take full responsibility" people actually punished. At the very least, this sentence needs to be removed from their mouths. There's some infantile obsession with this phrase in every layoff thread. "I take full responsibility" is partly a polite way to say that they aren't blaming anyone else for what's happening, it partly means "I'm the one making this decision" and it's partly ceremony for…

It's because of an asymmetry in role. As a normal employee when you are "responsible" for something you are fired if you fuck it up. You face consequences. Highlighting the fact that Sundar is responsible for this is saying two things- yes they were his decisions and it's his job to get them right, but secondly, he's going to face no consequences for getting that decision wrong. Instead, the employees- who clearly aren't responsible are going to face the consequences. So it points to a broken system, for the masses, you take responsibility and you take the consequences, for the elite you take the "responsibility" but the masses will still face the consequences.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#305

Post by fahadkhan »

ergonaught wrote: post #234

I need to see these "I take full responsibility" people actually punished. At the very least, this sentence needs to be removed from their mouths. Alphabet had 116 billion USD "cash on hand" at the end of September 2022. Even if the full cost of each of those 12K employees is 500K per year, that's "only" 6 billion dollars to keep those "great" people that they "love" working with around. Net income for that quarter w…

"I take full responsibility"

Translates to "I accept it's my fault but I am still going to sack you."

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#306

Post by TomSwirly »

jstummbillig wrote: post #298
eCa wrote: post #51

I guess someone has to write this comment: > I take full responsibility for the decisions that led us here As usual, he says nothing more what the consequences for him are. It seems like all of the FAANGs have made severe strategic cockups when it comes to hiring lately. I wonder if it will affect their longterm attraction as employers.

> As usual, he says nothing more what the consequences for him are. It's a company, and it is publicly traded. Thinkable consequences are plentiful and unspecific. Everything that can be imagined will be reflected in how well it is doing. What I imagine you are actually asking for are not "consequences" but "punishment". Which is understandable: People are hurt in this and where is the justice. But if we start to thi…

> we need new rules for what businesses are allowed to do.

What a shame that "we" won't get a look in.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#307

Post by pm90 »

md_ wrote: post #130

I found https://news.stanford.edu/2022/12/05/explains-recent-tech-la... to be very insightful, framing layoffs as "social contagion." As others noted here, irrespective of whether there is a coming recession, for companies like Google and Microsoft, 10-20k employees are not so expensive as to be existential for the company, *or even for specific opportunities the company wants to pursue*. (E.g. for Microsoft, buying…

Yes exactly. CEOs that don’t follow the “trend” will be marginalized and questioned. Of course they need to demonstrate that they’re “serious” and can make “tough” decisions.

Keep in mind that being the CEO often requires a person to have a certain kind of personality that might be easier to influence this way.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#308

Post by fipar »

londons_explore wrote: post #171
eCa wrote: post #51

I guess someone has to write this comment: > I take full responsibility for the decisions that led us here As usual, he says nothing more what the consequences for him are. It seems like all of the FAANGs have made severe strategic cockups when it comes to hiring lately. I wonder if it will affect their longterm attraction as employers.

Over-hiring and then firing in big rounds once a decade can sometimes be better... It can be a good way to get the low performers out without fostering a culture of 'must make the metrics look good or I'll be fired'.

I guess it also means the often-copied interview process isn’t that good at predicting worker performance.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#309

Post by netheril96 »

belugacat wrote: post #213
kkoncevicius wrote: post #186

I don't understand some of the comments here, maybe someone can explain. Does a company need to have an excuse to let people go? Is there a right to stay employed? As far as I am aware working for a company is not a life-long situation. And further - why don't we invert it and praise these companies for supplying thousands of six figure jobs for years. Surely being employed for several years is better than never bein…

In some cultures the prevalent view is that employees should be grateful to their employer for providing them with a job and a paycheck, and that the needs of the business comes first and therefore the business should be free to layoff employees when it deems it necessary. In other cultures, the view is more that the business benefits from various social contracts (governments providing various structures & regulatio…

I don't think that the US has the culture that employees should be grateful to their employer for providing them with a job and a paycheck. The idea of at will employment comes from the ideology of freedom rather than who owes who.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#310

Post by newshorts »

Rezwoodly wrote: post #274
ergonaught wrote: post #234

I need to see these "I take full responsibility" people actually punished. At the very least, this sentence needs to be removed from their mouths. Alphabet had 116 billion USD "cash on hand" at the end of September 2022. Even if the full cost of each of those 12K employees is 500K per year, that's "only" 6 billion dollars to keep those "great" people that they "love" working with around. Net income for that quarter w…

Elon musk set a precedent - you can treat your employees (serfs) like shit and get away with it. Layoffs, perks being removed, the tone has generally shifted to "look we have free coffee" to "we own you, be glad to have a job, oh and you might not actually have a job after all". This is a change of winds, instead of pandering to engineers companies are trying to debase us and remind us where we are in the totem pole.…

To some extent I agree with the sentiment.

COVID seemed to create an awareness amongst employees that they could have better living conditions. There was a capitulation on the part of employers (especially in the tech industry).

Now it seems employers are firing a warning shot across the bow, reminding employees where the power truly lies.

Seeing twitter cut in half and continuing to function probably begs questions at other companies about how many folks are “essential”.

The macroeconomic situation is probably a factor but one could make the argument that it’s only creating a window of convenience for a little house cleaning.

Post reply on HN