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

Splunk to cut workforce by 7% after cisco deal

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 163 posts

Re: Splunk to cut workforce by 7% after cisco deal

#141

Post by NotSammyHagar »

tedivm wrote: post #12
greggsy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t a Cisco thing - it’s M&A in general. The sellers need to maintain the appearance of growth before the sale, and the buyers want to rationalise costs. Once they have the IP, or have successfully eliminated the competition through acquisition, those in the old company are really just numbers in an hr system.

When I was at Malwarebytes (I left in 2014) I helped with two acquisitions. In both cases we took care of all of the people in the new company and rolled them into Malwarebytes. M&A can be done without being ethically and morally bankrupt. It's totally possible. Cisco just doesn't think that's a priority.

I’m considering joining a startup, I think they could be acquired before a year is up by someone, their typical 1 year cliff/4 yr total options wouldn’t be vested. The usual answer is the new company will surely want the engineers and offer them new stock or equity, if not too bad. As is common, half the comp is in options, and lower cash comp at this startup.

I’m considering whether I should ask for my options to immediately vest in the event of a buy out or liquidity event. It’s not that much money or options that the overall company will care. Should I ask for 1 year, or all 4 years, I’m uncertain if it could poison the well. Is this even something they would do?

Re: Splunk to cut workforce by 7% after cisco deal

#142

Post by ThrowAway1922A »

saos wrote: post #82
nxm wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fight back by starting your own company then

And the cycle continues. Maybe they are talking of unionising

I am talking about unionizing. Workers deserve better than what they've got and the deserve the protection against a company a union brings.

Re: Splunk to cut workforce by 7% after cisco deal

#143

Post by lern_too_spel »

foobiekr wrote: post #54
sireat wrote: post #17

I am still amazed how quickly Cisco destroyed Flip from 2009 to 2011 - basically 590Million down the drain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flip_Video Sure you could argue that by 2011 Flip was on the way out as phones were taking over, but there was plenty of room to pivot and plenty of good will. Had a relative whose company was to be bought by Cisco but thankfully Flip debacle destroyed that deal.

Flip basically shows up at the same time the iPhone got video. They were dead already and only Cisco didn’t realize it.

Despite the iPhone 3gs and HTC Magic offering video recording in mid-2009, GoPro's market cap peaked in October 2014.

Re: Splunk to cut workforce by 7% after cisco deal

#144

Post by finefinefine »

tedivm wrote: post #6

Cisco buying your company should be considered a worst case scenario for most employees. The important thing to remember is not to trust a word they say. I was at Kenna Security when Cisco bought them (I was only there for a month too, so Kenna hired me knowing the purchase was going to happen). They lied through their teeth about the process. They promised every resume would be reviewed for leveling, but then gave o…

I think everyone whose equity became worth actual US dollars disagrees that Cisco buying them is a "worst case scenario". You would not understand that perspective however, since the vesting cliff is longer than 3 weeks.

Re: Splunk to cut workforce by 7% after cisco deal

#145

Post by jdbernard »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #102
tedivm wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm certainly a fan of legislation to require severance. That said I'm also all about shaming bad actors so that other workers are aware of what they can expect when engaging them.

There is no reason to involve businesses in the equation. If your goal is to ensure people have cash in the event they are terminated from their job, then have the government give them cash in the event they are terminated from their job.

Why should the taxpayers bear this cost instead of the business who is choosing to terminate the person, especially in situations like those discussed where it has nothing to do with the performance of the individual?

Re: Splunk to cut workforce by 7% after cisco deal

#146

Post by lotsofpulp »

jdbernard wrote: post #145
lotsofpulp wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no reason to involve businesses in the equation. If your goal is to ensure people have cash in the event they are terminated from their job, then have the government give them cash in the event they are terminated from their job.

Why should the taxpayers bear this cost instead of the business who is choosing to terminate the person, especially in situations like those discussed where it has nothing to do with the performance of the individual?

The government can collect taxes from the businesses, and call it something like unemployment insurance premiums in the US.

There is no reason to over complicate things and require businesses to directly pay, figure out how much cash to always have to be able to pay, hire auditors to make sure they have enough cash, then take them to court when they don’t have enough cash to pay, yadda yadda.

Business sells product or service. Employee sells labor to business. Government takes care of the safety nets.

Re: Splunk to cut workforce by 7% after cisco deal

#148

Post by kcplate »

tedivm wrote: post #6

Cisco buying your company should be considered a worst case scenario for most employees. The important thing to remember is not to trust a word they say. I was at Kenna Security when Cisco bought them (I was only there for a month too, so Kenna hired me knowing the purchase was going to happen). They lied through their teeth about the process. They promised every resume would be reviewed for leveling, but then gave o…

Sorry that happened to you, I have been through a few acquisitions as both a survivor and a casualty. Being a casualty is certainly no fun. However, if you only have a month of time with your organization and it gets acquired, unless you are some hotshit super hire—you are probably getting RIF’ed, no matter who the acquiring company is and no matter what promises were made to you at any point. Even getting promises in writing doesn’t really help unless they are in your employment contract and most good employment contracts will give the hiring company a legal out for just about any reason within a probationary period (which is often around 90 days).

The two weeks of severance was actually pretty generous too for your time invested.

Re: Splunk to cut workforce by 7% after cisco deal

#150

Post by foobiekr »

tiffanyh wrote: post #61

CFO's will follow suit and Wallstreet will begin to expect tech to make cuts ... It's getting noticed that Twitter/X reduced it's staff by 80%, and also reduced it's cloud spend by 60% ... and there hasn't been any material change to their business. Some might argue that Twitter/X has been able to innovate faster as a result. Now I'm not suggesting that FANG is going to layoff 80% overnight. But I wouldn't be surpris…

I agree with you that people are noticing that Twitter going back to the size it was in 2015 has not really impacted the product, but it has definitely impacted the business. Musk's handling of twitter has been awesome for correcting his public image.

I think everyone who is honest accepts that Twitter was massively bloated. By the time Musk made his offer, it was 8x the size it was in 2011 and the product really hadn't changed much in a way that required that kind of increase. But Twitter is an awful experiment because of Musk's clownish handling of just about everything.

Post reply on HN