Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

Post by voidfunc » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 1:35 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #36

danpalmer wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been several layers to the criticism. The first is roughly why does a company with many billions in the bank need to lay off anyone. However, assuming that layoffs do need to happen, there has been a lot more criticism of how they were conducted. In the UK there is, in summary, a right to a fair process – where _roles_ are eliminated, not _people_. That when there aren't enough roles for the people left, t…

>The first is roughly why does a company with many billions in the bank need to lay off anyone. because it's a for-profit company, not a jobs program.

Post by pjmorris » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 1:36 PM UTC

ilikehurdles wrote: post #55

danpalmer wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been several layers to the criticism. The first is roughly why does a company with many billions in the bank need to lay off anyone. However, assuming that layoffs do need to happen, there has been a lot more criticism of how they were conducted. In the UK there is, in summary, a right to a fair process – where _roles_ are eliminated, not _people_. That when there aren't enough roles for the people left, t…

You’re right. This should be a teaching moment for innovative tech companies, to avoid growing a physical presence in most of Europe as much as possible. These employees will rarely be a source of innovation or high performance for the company. And contrary to reason, all the advanced social benefits somehow end up being a vine strangling your ability to compete than the ideal that frees you from worrying about basic…

Post by mkl95 » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 1:37 PM UTC

danpalmer wrote: post #18

nonethewiser wrote: post #12

These people seem out of touch. > "It has been difficult for those involved. We have a redundancy process for a reason, so that employees can make their voice heard," they said. "But it feels as if our concerns have fallen on deaf ears." They’re doing layoffs. In what scenario does negative feedback from employees change the minds of management? “Oh shit we didn’t know this negatively impacted you all. My bad.”

There have been several layers to the criticism. The first is roughly why does a company with many billions in the bank need to lay off anyone. However, assuming that layoffs do need to happen, there has been a lot more criticism of how they were conducted. In the UK there is, in summary, a right to a fair process – where _roles_ are eliminated, not _people_. That when there aren't enough roles for the people left, t…

Post by version_five » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 1:39 PM UTC

newswasboring wrote: post #49

version_five wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The first is roughly why does a company with many billions in the bank need to lay off anyone. This shows an utter misunderstanding of how businesses or finances of any kind work and would completely discredit anyone who tried to use it as an argument.

Can you elaborate on your statement for dummies? (Only if your argument isn't companies exist only to maximize profit, that one I understand and reject).

Post by brap » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 1:39 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #20

sklargh wrote: post #4

An effective strategy to avoid layoffs at European offices is to cause just enough friction to get HR to give up and divert the firing to lower-rights countries (i.e. USA).

There's a short-term effect there that might be positive, but a long-term effect that would be negative. There's a reason that a lot of companies won't hire in France or other specific locales where the difficulty in getting out of an employment relationship is so high that it makes it undesirable to get into that relationship in the first place.