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

151–160 of 199 posts

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#151

Post by bryanrasmussen »

version_five wrote: post #38
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. 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.

evidently different arguments are allowed in different countries, so if Google wants to have a presence in that country it should follow the standards of the country or it will run into problems of the sort now being experienced.

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#152

Post by ilikehurdles »

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.

Building Tesla or OpenAI or Amazon or Google or Netflix or Moderna or Apple is a higher goal than merely surviving/putting food on your table.

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#153

Post by nradov »

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…

No, that is not to my benefit. As a US based employee I would generally rather have fewer employment rights. While this might increase my risk of getting laid off, this also makes it easier to find a new job. Employers are more likely to hire me if they know they're not being locked into a long term commitment. And greater labor flexibility increases the average economic growth rate; a rising tide lifts all boats.

The amount of cash reserves is entirely irrelevant. Why would shareholders want to waste that capital on unnecessary employees when it could be invested in growth projects or returned as a dividend?

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#154

Post by Quarrel »

newswasboring wrote: post #136
Quarrel wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if they are entirely employee owned, having thousands of staff working towards goals that you're no longer trying to meet or are unproductive is a bad idea. You need to employ & deploy your people in a productive capacity (however that is defined, it could be pure research, not profit motivated). Big tech expanded a LOT during the pandemic. Too much. Google hired 30,300 people in 2022! (and 21k in 2021) While la…

> While layoffs are tough for everyone That's the thing though, its not tough for everyone. Its only tough for the employee, the employer gets more money. Its not tough for them at all.

Having had to sack 90% of staff that worked for me at one point, I'd disagree and say that it is pretty tough on both sides.

That said, I meant it was tough on all employees, not just those fired, to be going through layoffs.

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#155

Post by cmiles74 »

gruez wrote: post #133
cmiles74 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure the distinction here is all that useful. From the point-of-view of the UK government, employing people and paying taxes are important roles companies like Google need to play. It seems to me that the rules around redundancy have been put in place to discourage just the sort of layoffs Google is trying to put in place (i.e., lay off N% of everyone).

>From the point-of-view of the UK government, employing people and paying taxes are important roles companies like Google need to play. That's only true in the vaguest sense, and not something that's inscribed in law. According to a link someone else shared[1], the only real requirement is for google to do a "consultation". There's no requirement or duty to keep people employed. [1] https://www.gov.uk/redundancy-your…

This page outlines the rights of the person being laid off, there are a couple other pages out there that outline the responsibilities of the company[1]. Among other things there is a requirement to notify the UK government if they plan to let go of 20 or more employees. It's clearly stated[2] that this information goes directly to job assistance and training for the unemployed.

It's up for debate but I do think this indicates that the UK government is concerned about companies laying off a large number of people. In my opinion, this and the rules around the fair selection process are designed to make mass layoffs less attractive to companies.

In regards to how the activities of a company like Google appear to any regional government, I do think the two most important functions of that company are to employ people in the region and pay taxes to the regional government. They do not seem vague to me and, in this case, we have laws on both sides: some that deal with taxes and others that deal with employment and layoffs.

[1]: https://nhglobalpartners.com/employee-redundancy-in-the-uk/

[2]: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/redundancy-paymen...

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#156

Post by nonethewiser »

luckylion wrote: post #146
cmiles74 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that really true? I believe that this is exactly the sort of negotiation in which Google UK decided they wouldn't participate.

You don't need Google UK to give money to people you know. Get together with them, exchange contact details, set up a recurring payment from your account, done.

Can’t I just spend someone else’s money instead?

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#157

Post by xhkkffbf »

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.

But they do. The budget for the next productions will be slightly smaller. Yes, it's small but they add up.

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#158

Post by nonethewiser »

Quarrel wrote: post #154
newswasboring wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While layoffs are tough for everyone That's the thing though, its not tough for everyone. Its only tough for the employee, the employer gets more money. Its not tough for them at all.

Having had to sack 90% of staff that worked for me at one point, I'd disagree and say that it is pretty tough on both sides. That said, I meant it was tough on all employees, not just those fired, to be going through layoffs.

Paying people to work on stuff that doesn’t doesn’t generate value is also tough on the employer.

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#159

Post by nonethewiser »

rhaway84773 wrote: post #76
newswasboring wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

The idea that companies only exist to make money for the owners/shareholders is not a law of nature. Heck it’s not even a very old idea but is probably about 50 years old. The fact that so many commenters here seem to think it’s akin to a law of nature is an absolutely fascinating study in the effectiveness of propaganda.

Propaganda for what?

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#160

Post by nonethewiser »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #71
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. 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.

Well there should be rules against this. NYTimes is vital to Democracy and needs your money.
Post reply on HN