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

Microsoft to Cut 9k Workers in Second Wave of Major Layoffs

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 215 posts

Re: Microsoft to Cut 9k Workers in Second Wave of Major Layoffs

#101

Post by pjmlp »

atomicnumber3 wrote: post #17
runjake wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't Satya or somebody state in recent months that it was a tactic to get rid of low performers? I believe Meta is doing something similar. Edit: Allegedly not. https://www.financialexpress.com/life/technology-microsoft-c... "Nadella addressed the recent layoffs, clarifying that the decision was not based on individual job performance. “This is a structural change, not a reflection of how people were performing,” N…

Also, if it were actually about "low performers", this wouldn't be in the news. They'd just be terminated during/before perf review.

Somehow on places like HN, people aren't worthy of a job, it is the inverse of Peter Principle, keep firing the low performers until they land a job where they manage not to get fired.

Re: Microsoft to Cut 9k Workers in Second Wave of Major Layoffs

#102

Post by amendegree »

darth_avocado wrote: post #87
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not quite that reductive. If the point of the program is A, and you think it's being used as B, it's fair to ask if the point of the program is really A or if it's actually B. Just pointing that out or asking the question does not mean you "hate immigrants". You might! But I don't think it's guaranteed.

> Hard to imagine all those H1Bs are so unique that others already employed can’t replace them. I think the language speaks for itself

Yes, it’s pretty clear that MS is abusing the H1B program. Which is supposed to be used only when no local talent can be found… if you’re firing 1000s of local people I have a hard time believing they are truly less skilled than the H1Bs being hired.

Most engineers (H1Bs, and not) I’ve met aren’t exceptional. Saying that isn’t xenophobic.

Re: Microsoft to Cut 9k Workers in Second Wave of Major Layoffs

#103

Post by stego-tech »

wingspar wrote: post #79
stego-tech wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Thinking about the middle class in the previous generation, it was unions that effectively ensured a labor job meant a secure future. I wonder if that's the solution (again). It is, and they are. It’s why Reagan fired ATC strikers and blackballed them. It’s why private enterprise stockpiled machine guns and chemical weapons against strikers back in the Gilded Age. It’s why companies will spend billions to block Uni…

Wasn’t the PATCO ATC strike illegal?

That didn’t make the strike or its messaging any less valid. Employers frequently strongarm politicians to make strikes and organized action illegal, at which point a dangerous precedence is set and violence is often the ultimate outcome.

If your job is so important that a strike should be illegal, then that job should also compensate you and your colleagues so well that a strike isn’t even a remote consideration. ATC was being treated like shit, weighed the pros and cons, and decided to strike.

And now in 2025, literally everything they struck against (outdated tech, short staffing, high burnout, low wages) is still here, and still causing harm.

Re: Microsoft to Cut 9k Workers in Second Wave of Major Layoffs

#104

Post by elcritch »

Given I’ve been trying to use some of Microsoft’s various productivity SaaS tools for a new job lately, and well, they need those workers.

Teams is sort of tolerable now, but still feels terrible and lacks many of slacks niceties. The rest of their productivity stuff is terrible and slow. It’s embarrassing really.

From what I read Azure is a border line dumpster fire.

Then what LLM integration do they really have in their software apps?

Re: Microsoft to Cut 9k Workers in Second Wave of Major Layoffs

#105

Post by mxuribe »

crmd wrote: post #41

Earlier in my career I worked for a tech industry-famous CEO who is long retired. One of the most unconventional things he taught me was that “our highest obligation is to employees and their families. Second is to investors. Third is to the communities we operate in. Obviously don’t ever say this in a board meeting or investor conference”. And he meant it. When products got cancelled, people got reassigned. Terminat…

Hi @crmd For that tech industry-famous CEO, did the company that they used to run continue/preserve even a little bit of that good and common-sense approach? Because if so, then I'd love to know the name of the firm...so that i can immediately apply for a role there. (My profile has my email address if you wish to keep the company name sharing private.) Mind you, I'm employed, but, ahem, less than enthused with my current state of affairs. :-)

Re: Microsoft to Cut 9k Workers in Second Wave of Major Layoffs

#106

Post by cloverich »

CommenterPerson wrote: post #66
heathrow83829 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the first responsibility of any company is profitability. they have no economic, moral or ethical obligation to keep employees (no matter how well they performed), if it doesn't help them be more profitable. this should not be news. I think "low performance" is typically just a scapegoat. the real reason is they simply don't need that many empolyees to maximize profitability.

This is Milton Freidman hype and brainwashing. A company profiting in a society has a responsibility towards that society. In Germany, they accomplish this by having one union representative on the board. Profit at any cost leads to a society where workers are paid just enough to prevent starvation so that there are workers.

Its not brainwashing though, how to properly regular this is as old as Adam Smith right?

Union leader is one approach. But really if the US had a proper safety net, universal healthcare, and progressive taxes on capital accumulation, layoffs in OPs framing would not be nearly as bad.

The real issue here isnt the layoffs. Its that the top are pulling up profits, theres no quality healthcare for the unemployed (and getting worse), SFH are all levered up making the price unattainable for the average worker and high risk bc layoffs, etc.

The frustrating part is how dead simple the solution is. Universal healthcare. Progressive taxation that applies equally to capital gains. Block SFH investments (by investors and average joes alike). Maybe not emough, but light years ahead of where we are.

Re: Microsoft to Cut 9k Workers in Second Wave of Major Layoffs

#107

Post by riffraff »

heathrow83829 wrote: post #75
CommenterPerson wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is Milton Freidman hype and brainwashing. A company profiting in a society has a responsibility towards that society. In Germany, they accomplish this by having one union representative on the board. Profit at any cost leads to a society where workers are paid just enough to prevent starvation so that there are workers.

I agree that companies who are monopolies (especially government granted monopolies) have a responsibility towards society. But this does not apply to companies that need to compete to exist. For example, if a restaraunt or airlines (highly competitive industry), did anything to reduce their competitiveness they would instantly loose marketshare. that doesn't work. which one is Microsoft?

It does not apply if regulation allows it, but this does not need to be the case, and has been debated for decades

> [the New Deal architect, A. A. Berle] argued that corporations should "serve ... all society" through legally enforceable rules

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berle%E2%80%93Dodd_debate

"profit is the only goal" is not a law of nature, it's the outcome of a specific system of laws.

Re: Microsoft to Cut 9k Workers in Second Wave of Major Layoffs

#108

Post by aydyn »

stego-tech wrote: post #74
idkwhattocallme wrote: post #9

For the most part, I'm indifferent to layoffs. Companies over hire and then course correct. It's part of the game. But for MSFT, it rubs me the wrong way. In the past 5 years, their stock has soared (150% on stock and doubled in valuation). They are insanely profitable ($82B profit). They are diverse (no existential business risk). The fact that they are unceremoniously laying off 30K of the people that helped them g…

> Thinking about the middle class in the previous generation, it was unions that effectively ensured a labor job meant a secure future. I wonder if that's the solution (again). It is, and they are. It’s why Reagan fired ATC strikers and blackballed them. It’s why private enterprise stockpiled machine guns and chemical weapons against strikers back in the Gilded Age. It’s why companies will spend billions to block Uni…

Unions are not effective when there's such a surplus of labor and people willing to break lines. It wont work in today's tech labor market.

Re: Microsoft to Cut 9k Workers in Second Wave of Major Layoffs

#109

Post by triceratops »

heathrow83829 wrote: post #49
idkwhattocallme wrote: post #9

For the most part, I'm indifferent to layoffs. Companies over hire and then course correct. It's part of the game. But for MSFT, it rubs me the wrong way. In the past 5 years, their stock has soared (150% on stock and doubled in valuation). They are insanely profitable ($82B profit). They are diverse (no existential business risk). The fact that they are unceremoniously laying off 30K of the people that helped them g…

the first responsibility of any company is profitability. they have no economic, moral or ethical obligation to keep employees (no matter how well they performed), if it doesn't help them be more profitable. this should not be news. I think "low performance" is typically just a scapegoat. the real reason is they simply don't need that many empolyees to maximize profitability.

> the first responsibility of any company is profitability

No that's what makes management the most money because they're paid in stock. So they want you to think it's legally required.

The first responsibility of a company is "act in the shareholders' best interests".

Is it in shareholders' best interests to have > 20% unemployment?

Re: Microsoft to Cut 9k Workers in Second Wave of Major Layoffs

#110

Post by justin66 »

bitbasher wrote: post #63
idkwhattocallme wrote: post #9

For the most part, I'm indifferent to layoffs. Companies over hire and then course correct. It's part of the game. But for MSFT, it rubs me the wrong way. In the past 5 years, their stock has soared (150% on stock and doubled in valuation). They are insanely profitable ($82B profit). They are diverse (no existential business risk). The fact that they are unceremoniously laying off 30K of the people that helped them g…

I'm indifferent to layoffs. I dislike layoffs these days because it directly fuels the "AI is replacing our jobs" brainrot and then fuels the "AI is the future" hype train. It's not impossible for this to be Microsoft's way to keep the AI flywheel spinning.

I think we can all agree that the real damage caused by layoffs is their effect on the publicity surrounding AI, not their effect on humans and their well being.
Post reply on HN