Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts • Hacker News Board

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#171

Post by nonethewiser » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 3:49 PM UTC

danpalmer wrote: post #79

gruez wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

> 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. Roughly, voluntary redundancies, pay cuts, unpaid sabbaticals, job trades, and various other implementation details. They also presented a range of options for those at risk of, for example, deportation, including those at risk of deportation to face legal conseq…

Well all of those encourage the best people to leave. Why would Google want to keep everyone at the expense of their top talent?

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#172

Post by nonethewiser » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 3:53 PM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #91

gruez wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. (Th…

It makes Google a less competitive employer. It’s better than being laid off, for those that would have been laid off. But worse for the top 94% of people that Google wanted to keep. Why optimize for the bottem 6%?

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#173

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 3:54 PM UTC

UncleMeat wrote: post #150

voidfunc wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Corporation works to maximize benefit for shareholders at the expense of its employees: "What do you expect, this is capitalism working as intended." Employee works to maximize benefit for themselves at the expense of their employer: "Ugh, what entitlement."

[deleted]

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#174

Post by nonethewiser » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 3:54 PM UTC

throwaw12 wrote: post #57

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.”

> These people seem out of touch. Why? This is basic capitalism, every party cares about their interests. On one side you have companies laying off people to increase profits (some of them have billions in their account), on the other side people walking out to prevent future scenarios for their own interest > In what scenario does negative feedback from employees change the minds of management? “Oh shit we didn’t kn…

Cares about their interest. Yes.

Expects Google to do things differently… out of touch. For the exact reason you cite - Google will act out its best interest.

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#175

Post by nonethewiser » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 4:00 PM UTC

agilob wrote: post #34

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.”

>Sundar Pichai previously said he takes "full responsibility" for the decisions which lead to mass layoffs, and has now been accused of hiring sprees for "vanity". The same way CEOs say "I take personal responsibility for this layoff". Thoughts and prayers.

What else do people think taking full responsibility means? It doesn’t mean they can somehow prevent the action they are taking responsibility for, nor does it mean they are going to inflict some symbolic hardship on themselves in response.

It basically just means “I deserve the blame.” To which people puzzlingly reply as if they are trying to escape blame.

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#176

Post by voidfunc » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 4:05 PM UTC

cmh89 wrote: post #165

voidfunc wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>The entitlement is off the charts. People are just sick of corporations causing havoc in our lives.

> People are just sick of corporations causing havoc in our lives.

Corporations have brought most of us ridiculous amounts of prosperity.

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#177

Post by version_five » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 4:11 PM UTC

nonethewiser wrote: post #159

rhaway84773 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There must be some maxim like "reality is the best propaganda" that's already out there

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#178

Post by ghaff » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 4:13 PM UTC

nonethewiser wrote: post #172

ghaff wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. (Th…

It makes Google a less competitive employer. It’s better than being laid off, for those that would have been laid off. But worse for the top 94% of people that Google wanted to keep. Why optimize for the bottem 6%?

Why would you assume that people on the edge of leaving Google in exchange for a package are going to stay there anyway--and, especially, put any real effort into it.

I'd be willing to bet that whatever 94% Google ended up deciding to keep would not be the "best" working on the most important/strategic projects and unlikely to leave Google anyway in the next 6-12 months.

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#179

Post by cmh89 » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 4:24 PM UTC

voidfunc wrote: post #176

cmh89 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The entitlement is off the charts. People are just sick of corporations causing havoc in our lives.

> People are just sick of corporations causing havoc in our lives. Corporations have brought most of us ridiculous amounts of prosperity.

That's what they'd like to believe! Corporations didn't build the interstate network, provide stable economic conditions, or create a literate, educated workforce.

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#180

Post by ThrowawayR2 » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 4:55 PM UTC

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.

Most developers at Google, the rest of FAANG, startups, etc. get a big part of their compensation as stock. They _are_ shareholders and profiting handsomely from it so of course they're firmly aligned with the pro-shareholder, pro-corporate viewpoint.

Yet, somehow, people are failing to understand this and attributing it to propaganda? To tweak the parent poster's words, the fact that so many commenters fail to realize that is an absolutely fascinating study in how common ignorance is of how people's bread is buttered, even their own.