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

411–420 of 1001 posts

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#411

Post by lm28469 »

elektrontamer wrote: post #408

Judging by the comments I think it's safe to assume that the "taking responsibility" part is a meaningless statement at best. What I want to understand is does he even owe anyone an apology? Isn't employment just an agreement to provide services in exchange for money and benefits? Anywhere I work I expect my employer to fire me the moment they don't need my services or find a better/cheaper alternative, I wouldn't th…

It really depends on how you see work and companies on an almost philosophical level. It hasn't always been as bleak as it is now

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#412

Post by 2143 »

shapefrog wrote: post #164
DrBazza wrote: post #110

Another multi-billion dollar company making billions of dollars of profit dumps thousands of staff on the streets. There are two approaches here. Firstly, attrition, simply don't replace those that leave. Given the sheer size of the company, a hiring freeze and attrition would gradually reduce the size of the workforce. I'd be astonished if a company with a market cap of $1.2 trillion would be likely to collapse if i…

> Firstly, attrition, simply don't replace those that leave Nobody is retiring - why would you, you get a fat pay cheque and once you get out of the meat grinder Jr levels life is pretty good. Oh and if they fire you rather than you retiring, they have to pay you another stack of cash and keep those options that vest in a few years. "Seeing people posting about being laid off after 30 years of employment at Microsoft…

> Is it last in first out or first in last out?

Aren't they the same?

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#415

Post by tsimionescu »

__alexs wrote: post #301
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.

Those employees didn't fire themselves, nor was this the decision of their direct managers. The CEOs are absolutely responsible, and doing mass layoffs while a company is growing should be (and is, in much of the world) illegal.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#416

Post by DrBazza »

jwhiles wrote: post #155
DrBazza wrote: post #110

Another multi-billion dollar company making billions of dollars of profit dumps thousands of staff on the streets. There are two approaches here. Firstly, attrition, simply don't replace those that leave. Given the sheer size of the company, a hiring freeze and attrition would gradually reduce the size of the workforce. I'd be astonished if a company with a market cap of $1.2 trillion would be likely to collapse if i…

I think that your best employees are the people who are most likely to leave a company of their own accord, and so if you rely on attrition to reduce headcount you will also reduce the average quality of your workers.

In the tech industry the best employees are going to leave regardless, especially if they're bored.

Also, like banks, the FAANGs pay bonuses. And also like banks, if you want to 'suggest' to someone that ought to leave, regardless of who they are, you pay them a near-zero bonus, and give them a negative annual review as well.

Conversely, if a company wants to keep someone they pay more to encourage that person to stay.

All the gears and levers are in place in Megacorp, to do this kind of thing.

The whole mass-redundancy thing from companies of this size I find distasteful and cowardly, a reflection of the disrepect and arrogance senior management has for it staff, and an indication of mismanagement at a high level that can be afforded because a company is too large to fail.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#417

Post by UncleMeat »

dimva wrote: post #302
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.

Oh no. A billionaire's unimaginably massive compensation is now just somewhat less unimaginable.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#418

Post by saidinesh5 »

4764764 wrote: post #334
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…

[flagged]

But they already have their (new?) stack ranking system to take care of dead weight no?

If they themselves say they hire/pay "very talented people", and still layoff so many people while still being very profitable company, what would you infer from that?

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#419

Post by DrBazza »

whiplash451 wrote: post #259
DrBazza wrote: post #110

Another multi-billion dollar company making billions of dollars of profit dumps thousands of staff on the streets. There are two approaches here. Firstly, attrition, simply don't replace those that leave. Given the sheer size of the company, a hiring freeze and attrition would gradually reduce the size of the workforce. I'd be astonished if a company with a market cap of $1.2 trillion would be likely to collapse if i…

1. The cost saving is much (much) faster with layoffs 2. You don't lose (or get rid of, for that matter) the same people when you do layoffs vs organic attrition On (2), I don't only mean "good" vs "not good" people, but also distribution per department.

No, but you can give zero bonus, zero payrise, and negative annual review as a clear indication that you're not wanted.

In fact, don't many of the Megacorp companies have a 'cull the bottom 10% annually' policy anyway?

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#420

Post by keyanp »

thedougd wrote: post #398
dzonga wrote: post #30

I blame companies for blaming with people's lives like this: not market dynamics. companies are the ones that decided to overhire, overpay - based on covid demand, cheap money that was floating around. companies not the market, resulted in a war over talent. now it's a war on talent. and of course everyone and their grandma will want to work at these tech companies where life is laid back and you get all the benefits…

I didn't realize the Raleigh, NC metro was in the middle of nowhere. ;)

He was likely referring to HQ in Verona, Wisconsin. I've been there, can confirm it sure looks like the middle of nowhere :)
Post reply on HN