161–170 of 199 posts
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.
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).
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…
The company with billions of dollars in the bank will have teams of people assessing risk management. But apparently those assessments didn’t address the human risk of over hiring tens of thousands of people to such a degree that they ‘need’ to dispose of them at the first sign of trouble.
Other sectors of the economy didn’t see such drastic layoffs so they can’t claim it’s a widespread and unforeseeable problem. They made a risky bet that had a real human cost, and people are right to wonder what’s the point of mega corps if they’re not any better at this than a small or medium business.
lol good luck US
easy to teel in this thread, so cutthrouat. Like they should be happy just to have a job...
Here you need 3months
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's completely irrelevant. And, yes, reducing you spending does lead to job losses.
I strongly disagree; my reduction in spending doesn't lead to job losses at any particular company. Perhaps if said company is providing such little service that many people choose to reduce their spending by all spending less on the same company, job losses would result. In this case we're talking about a lot of people at a pretty far remove from the employees being laid off. This is very different from what is happ…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
The entitlement is off the charts. People have completely lost perspective on how money is made and where they fit into the money making machine.
People are just sick of corporations causing havoc in our lives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The cold hard truth is that people would rather the 3-4x salaries. This sounds like an assumption based firmly in the American value system. This part is often missed: > 25 days annual leave (rising to 30 after 5 years), plus 8 public holidays and the King’s birthday Anyway comparing a government job to big tech isn't fair. It is big tech salaries that are unusual, not the other way around.
The 5 extra PTO days are not worth halving my salary and then almost halving it again. I may move (back) to Europe when I retire or come close to that age.
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…
> 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 needs in pursuit of higher goals. It's like the AI alignment problem, but between corporations and people.
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.
Then when the axe comes for them, they want Google to "do no evil".
Well, government regulations do that in the EU and UK... its not up to individual companies.
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.”
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 “it”s you are referencing here are different things. There is a formal process. And employees did give negative feedback.
I was never suggesting the formal process is negative feedback. In fact that seems non-sensical which makes me wonder how you thought that I thought that made sense. It seems like a lazy dismissal, quite frankly. In what way could someone think an overarching policy is negative feedback on a particular event?