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

Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 199 posts

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#91

Post by ghaff »

gruez wrote: post #41
UncleMeat wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't negative feedback. It is an organized process established in the UK for handling layoffs. The UK workers didn't just say "don't fire us." They offered a ton of different options that, based on actual data, would have produced the same savings as the proposed layoffs. These included things like voluntary layoffs. All of these proposals were rejected. It sucks to have a corporation say "okay we'll have a discu…

>The UK workers didn't just say "don't fire us." They offered a ton of different options that, based on actual data, would have produced the same savings as the proposed layoffs. These included things like voluntary layoffs. All of these proposals were rejected. What were the specific list of proposals? The only one you mentioned (voluntary layoffs) is a bad idea because it leads the most talented people to leave.

>The only one you mentioned (voluntary layoffs) is a bad idea because it leads the most talented people to leave

Not necessarily.

Also people who have been sticking around out of inertia and doing the bare minimum. People ready to retire a bit early. Etc. Basically, it's reasonable to think that most people who would volunteer--especially at a very top-tier pay job--might well not be there in a year or so anyway. (There is I guess an argument that the people who are going to leave anyway will leave with or without a package so why pay for the package?)

While you might not want to choose people purely based on volunteers, it's not clear that taking at least some volunteers doesn't benefit both the company and workers.

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#92

Post by ExoticPearTree »

pjc50 wrote: post #59
ilikehurdles wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Everyone else in this thread is stating that a company has no higher goals than profit.

Well, why else would you start a company?

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#93

Post by mytailorisrich »

IanCal wrote: post #77
mytailorisrich wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As others mentioned, in the UK (for now) you eliminate roles, not people - this means you can't just shift a role to another cheaper country. Of course you can. If you shift a role from the UK office to the Bangalore office you have made that role redundant in the UK and can layoff the employee...

It's not that simple. There are two points to this 1. There's explicit legislation around moving a role to another company (TUPE regulations) 2. Just because the role goes doesn't mean that that employee needs to leave. You may instead want to let a different employee go and shift the one whose role has disappeared over.

Nitpick.

In practice, your employer do away with your role. You're made redundant. It's a simple downsizing.

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#94

Post by jrochkind1 »

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.”

Being in the USA my whole life, I was curious what they meant by "redundancy process", if there were laws in the UK governing layoffs that we might not be used to in free-for-all USA.

But here's all I found, from [1], basically:

> Your employer needs to show they have a redundancy process. They can decide what the process is, but it should always include a meeting with you to talk about:

> * why you’re being made redundant

> * the next steps in their process

> …Your employer’s process has to explain: how they’ll choose people for redundancy; how long the decision will take; what meetings you can go to and when; how you can appeal if you’re chosen for redundancy…

> …You should get invited to at least 1 meeting between you and your employer. Your meeting should happen before your employer has made their final decision about who will be made redundant…

> …You might be able to challenge your redundancy by making a claim for ‘unfair dismissal’ if your employer hasn’t told you these things

That, which is apparently legally required, is definitely not something that is guaranteed to happen in the USA, or really probably ever happens quite like that. (internal appeals process for a layoff? Unheard of in the USA).

I don't know if this law was followed or not by Google; or if this website I found is completely accureate, or if there are additional UK customary practices we should know about. (The OP article was not great, actual reporting would be including something on if Google broke the UK law or not). Perhaps someone from the UK could give us some context? But it doesn't seem like "these people are out of touch", it seems like possibly the commenter is out of touch with law and practice in the UK (and Europe)?

I suppose someone, perhaps the person I'm replying to, could say, who cares about this process, what difference does it make, in the end the employer still gets to lay off who they want, their decision, nothing in that process needs to change their minds, and people still won't be happy.

That may be; I'm still curious for a report from a worker in the UK of how this works out in practice.

I could see that process making people feel like they had a bit more dignity even when getting laid off, which is not nothing.

In general, I agree with the workers that it would be better if the decision of who to layoff is not solely the employers, but the employees actually do have a say in it. The legal process above is not necessarily that. To get that, you usually need a union, and this is one of the things union contracts often cover.

[1] https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/redundancy/check-your...

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#95

Post by absrd »

gruez wrote: post #41
UncleMeat wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't negative feedback. It is an organized process established in the UK for handling layoffs. The UK workers didn't just say "don't fire us." They offered a ton of different options that, based on actual data, would have produced the same savings as the proposed layoffs. These included things like voluntary layoffs. All of these proposals were rejected. It sucks to have a corporation say "okay we'll have a discu…

>The UK workers didn't just say "don't fire us." They offered a ton of different options that, based on actual data, would have produced the same savings as the proposed layoffs. These included things like voluntary layoffs. All of these proposals were rejected. What were the specific list of proposals? The only one you mentioned (voluntary layoffs) is a bad idea because it leads the most talented people to leave.

If they're both the most talented and also don't want to work for you, what makes you think they'd stay?

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#96

Post by mytailorisrich »

cmiles74 wrote: post #84
mytailorisrich wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The first is roughly why does a company with many billions in the bank need to lay off anyone. I suppose for the same reason as even if you have money in the bank I'm sure that you don't keep subscriptions and running costs that you've determined are no use to you or you think are not worth it.

When I cancel a subscription to Disney+, no one loses their job. I think that's an important distinction.

It's completely irrelevant. And, yes, reducing you spending does lead to job losses.

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#97

Post by bananapub »

the thread below is really peak HN - a beautiful mix of people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about (having not read the article or union press release or looked into UK employment law) alongside sociopaths suggesting employees should never demand anything or act as a group.

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#99

Post by robswc »

fsniper wrote: post #78

It's strange to see US based workers to bash on Europe based workers who push back for their rights. Even if you don't see any "rights" to fight back, isn't it to your own benefit that someone else is fighting for more rights/better conditions? Why would you sit back and accept to be the scapegoat for conditions that you didn't cause or you didn't have any say over at the first place? The companies are laying of peop…

B/c the cold hard truth is that people would rather the 3-4x salaries.

https://jobs.theguardian.com/job/8512191/head-of-cyber-secur...

You have the head of cyber security making almost 1/2 as much as many CS grads right out of college.

People can and will say they want more rights... but if that were _really_ true you would see tons of tech workers breaking down the door to get into Europe. As it stands, the complete opposite is happening.

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#100

Post by alephnerd »

theGnuMe wrote: post #61
sokoloff wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes but you do actually want access to the French market so you will likely need employees in France.

You hire the bare minimum. Also, the French market is within the EU/EEA, so there's always Switzerland right next door (plus CH also supports German and Italian markets so you can merge your DACH, Francophone, and Italian operations in one country).
Post reply on HN