Gitlab to lay off 7% of staff • Hacker News Board

Re: Gitlab to lay off 7% of staff

#531

Post by hashmap » Thu, Feb 09, 2023, 10:00 PM UTC

charcircuit wrote: post #493

hashmap wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These companies overhired and now they are realizing that the positive cash flow to justify all of these new employees isn't existing. This is false in a broad sense - the majority of CEOs plan to increase headcount this year in spite of layoffs . You can find examples here and there where it is true, but in general it is not. There's tons of literature of this readily available, but here is an example from as rece…

>the majority of CEOs plan to increase headcount this year in spite of layoffs. This just means that companies are continuing to hirer. It doesn't mean that they plan on increasing headcount to above where it was before the layoff.

It's so weird to post the first thing that feels like a thought, just to carry water for CEOs who are never going to see you write this, and will never like you, without getting paid for it. 1300s feudal serfdom mindset. And it's everywhere.

If you're continuing to hire past these layoffs, and expanding plans to do so, it's to take advantage of the environment created by the layoffs. If there really was a fiscal crisis you'd also see mass hiring freezes, but we're not seeing that.

> “We expect to end 2023 as either roughly the same size or even a slightly smaller organization than we are today,” said Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/41-of-companies-pla...

Re: Gitlab to lay off 7% of staff

#532

Post by blobbers » Thu, Feb 09, 2023, 10:01 PM UTC

anon20230209 wrote: post #176

xyzelement wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. I worked at a Citadel like fund and that's the vibe. The calculus was like this - I'd rather risk being fired than work in a place where low performers are cozy. The reality is that working at a place like that or a FAANG for just a few years sets you up for a great career no matter what happens. So even if you get fired after a few years you are still better off. It's good to have coworkers who can think ra…

I bet people like that drift into voluntary unpaid overtime.

Your contract doesn't say 40 hours a week. It says get the job done and make sure your role keeps the company making money.

Re: Gitlab to lay off 7% of staff

#533

Post by pokstad » Thu, Feb 09, 2023, 10:03 PM UTC

firstfewshells wrote: post #510

pokstad wrote: post #335

As a former GitLab employee from an expensive region, I’m a little concerned Sid didn’t layout the layoff process more transparently. Were high earners more likely to be laid off while lower CoL areas were kept? This was always a distant fear in working for a very global team where I knew teammates from other countries did the same job as me for much less.

Do you expect the CEO to tell his employees that they are more likely to be laid off if they are paid more compared to their peers?

Yes. There was transparency about hiring plans and how low CoL areas were targeted. I would expect transparency on the other end of employment.

Re: Gitlab to lay off 7% of staff

#534

Post by Tao3300 » Thu, Feb 09, 2023, 10:03 PM UTC

waynesonfire wrote: post #478

whatever1 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It takes long time for the layoff effects to hit the company. The main effect is that you lose the trust of the top performers. These will be the in the lookout for new opportunities the day after the layoffs are done. If you cut 10%, expect 10% from the top to flee within a couple of years. The second effect is related to the fact that companies usually target older people with expensive jobs. In an a big org these…

> The main effect is that you lose the trust of the top performers. Why? top-performers are most positioned to be aware of incompetence around them and may in fact welcome a housing cleaning. With that said, it's not always easy to identify who's who-- it's possible top-performs are affected or incompetence isn't, which can erode trust.

> top-performers are most positioned to be aware of incompetence around them and may in fact welcome a housing cleaning

That's thinking from a notch or two below top-performance. Top performers know what's "in the wheel house" for others around them and how to use it optimally. Don't be fooled by local maximums!

Re: Gitlab to lay off 7% of staff

#535

Post by PoignardAzur » Thu, Feb 09, 2023, 10:10 PM UTC

hashmap wrote: post #230

arbuge wrote: post #56

At this point it's beginning to look like tech companies are doing this because it's the trendy thing to do, along with inserting a few words about AI in their websites and pitch decks.

I don't know how this has gone over everyone's heads here, because what's happening is extremely obvious. If you're a big FAANG-like company, you've seen workers make big gains in wages over the past year, and turnover rates have been increasing significantly during the great resignation. This isn't enough to sink you, but you don't like it, because it does eat into your margins a little. Of course you're still makin…

I don't really see it. Gitlab isn't a Google-style megacorporation; its CEO is co-founder, and it still has a reputation for having fairly horizontal management.

The idea that its execs just decided to lay off a bunch of people for no reason just to wage some plausibly deniable class warfare doesn't really make sense to me.

Re: Gitlab to lay off 7% of staff

#536

Post by waynesonfire » Thu, Feb 09, 2023, 10:12 PM UTC

Tao3300 wrote: post #534

waynesonfire wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The main effect is that you lose the trust of the top performers. Why? top-performers are most positioned to be aware of incompetence around them and may in fact welcome a housing cleaning. With that said, it's not always easy to identify who's who-- it's possible top-performs are affected or incompetence isn't, which can erode trust.

> top-performers are most positioned to be aware of incompetence around them and may in fact welcome a housing cleaning That's thinking from a notch or two below top-performance. Top performers know what's "in the wheel house" for others around them and how to use it optimally. Don't be fooled by local maximums!

i don't know if i agree, stocks usually increase after layoffs.

Re: Gitlab to lay off 7% of staff

#537

Post by PoignardAzur » Thu, Feb 09, 2023, 10:12 PM UTC

pokstad wrote: post #396

postexitus wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that value justifies the cost, there should not be a problem. Some of that value may move to low CoL areas and offer comparable value for much lower cost - then things will start to become complicated - this is totally based on the assumption that that value is only available in high CoL areas.

The problem is when you hire those high CoL areas, extract value by training others, and then discard them. This will make high CoL workers more hesitant to join a globalized employer.

You say that like it's a bad thing. International corporations don't have a duty to subsidize poor Californian urbanism policies.

Re: Gitlab to lay off 7% of staff

#538

Post by Lio » Thu, Feb 09, 2023, 10:13 PM UTC

whalesalad wrote: post #117

softwaredoug wrote: post #63

Listened to a great podcast about layoffs yesterday ( https://hbr.org/podcast/2023/02/why-many-companies-get-layof... ) The takeaway is that layoffs are extremely trust destroying for employees NOT laid off, and in the end not clear they're a financial net positive. Both with direct and indirect costs (lack of engagement from employees, etc).

If your plane is gonna crash without dumping some excess weight, killing everyone on board, what do you do? You throw a ton of stuff out of the plane in an effort to continue on. This is what layoffs are. It’s a survival mode tactic. The cost of lower morale is smaller than the cost of complete failure.

Layoffs seems more Like jettisoning the fuel or engines to save weight in that scenario.

Re: Gitlab to lay off 7% of staff

#539

Post by mbesto » Thu, Feb 09, 2023, 10:23 PM UTC

jlmorton wrote: post #527

mbesto wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, it isn't, and it's embarrassing at this point to continue insisting this. Your macro is not the macro that Gitlab is referring to. It's disingenuous to interpret it otherwise. All of these tech companies "overhired" (in hindsight) because they achieved unprecedented growth 2021~2022. If you're Gitlab - who sells to software development organizations - and the whole market has thrown hand over fist into the soft…

Let's be clear about what the macroeconomic environment is, because it has a specific meaning. I'll quote from another definition here, so I'm not merely offering my own interpretation: > A macro environment refers to the set of conditions that exist in the economy as a whole, rather than in a particular sector or region. In general, the macro environment includes trends in the gross domestic product (GDP), inflation…

> Instead, Gitlab explicitly blamed economy-wide conditions for these layoffs, and that is what I take issue with. The economy is doing well.

And a macro-environment doesn't refer to just the economy. Per wikipedia: "The macro-environment refers to all forces that are part of the larger society and affect the micro-environment. It includes concepts such as demography, economy, natural forces, technology, politics, and culture."[0]

Btw, if you really want to get pedantic, you specifically used macroeconomic and macro-environment interchangeably, which also have two specific but interrelated meanings. Gitlab used the word macroeconomic. Which sort of tells me all I need to know about how you and other people really understand Gitlab's message, which is exactly what I was referring to - the macro "view" is that people aren't spending like they used to on technology. Look at every publicly traded tech companies and you'll see that. Combine this with political factors (inflation at recent historic highs) and the macro "view" or whatever term you want to use seems dim compared to what it was in 2021/2022.

> And frankly, my comment was not directed merely at Gitlab, but rather the slew of layoff notices we've seen that appear

That was obvious, and so was mine.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_environment

Re: Gitlab to lay off 7% of staff

#540

Post by pjmorris » Thu, Feb 09, 2023, 10:26 PM UTC

waynesonfire wrote: post #478

whatever1 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It takes long time for the layoff effects to hit the company. The main effect is that you lose the trust of the top performers. These will be the in the lookout for new opportunities the day after the layoffs are done. If you cut 10%, expect 10% from the top to flee within a couple of years. The second effect is related to the fact that companies usually target older people with expensive jobs. In an a big org these…

> The main effect is that you lose the trust of the top performers. Why? top-performers are most positioned to be aware of incompetence around them and may in fact welcome a housing cleaning. With that said, it's not always easy to identify who's who-- it's possible top-performs are affected or incompetence isn't, which can erode trust.

There are many factors involved in employee assessment of employer suitability. Steve Blank has observed [0] that when top employees recognize that when an employer moves to assessing them from a purely financial perspective, it's time to go.

https://steveblank.com/2009/12/21/the-elves-leave-middle-ear...