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

Cisco workforce reductions

blogs.cisco.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 351 posts

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#251

Post by alistairSH »

davidcollantes wrote: post #240

> Today we announced our Q3 FY26 earnings with record revenue of $15.8 billion, up 12 percent year over year, and double-digit top and bottom-line growth. The ELT and I could not be prouder of the growth you have all delivered for Cisco. Great! A successful company, right? Ah, but then: > we are making changes today that will result in the reduction of our overall workforce in Q4 by fewer than 4,000 jobs, representin…

Why not? All that matters is the investors, and both of those are positives to that group. Sure, it's not particularly humane, and I'm sure those that were fired are angry, but this is the norm in American business and has been for many years.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#252

Post by alistairSH »

mplanchard wrote: post #241

I briefly worked for Cisco after an acquisition, and it was a great time: I would get my sprint’s worth of work done in two days, ask if I could do anything else and be told no, and then spend the rest of the two weeks doing whatever I wanted, which at the time was learning Rust. All that is to say, I would not be remotely surprised if Cisco has more employees than they strictly need. But, this email from the CEO is…

the CEO is comically out of touch

Maybe with normal people but that's not the target audience. The investors are the target and it's exactly what they want to hear.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#253

Post by senordevnyc »

A bit off-topic, but I'm curious: why do so many people seem to be outraged when companies do layoffs? I genuinely don't understand. It's like there's this unspoken agreement that once you get hired, you're entitled to that job for life. Of course, you are free to leave whenever you want, nothing wrong with that, but many seem to see it as immoral or unethical for the company to decide they don't need you anymore, and let you go. Why? What exactly is a company's moral obligation when it comes to who they employ and for how long?

For context, I was most recently employed at a public tech company as a staff engineer. I was there for five years, got paid very well, and then was part of broad layoffs last year. I got a generous severance, and moved onto the next thing. I don't have any bitterness about it; I was selling my time and expertise to the company, and they no longer felt it was worth buying. I wouldn't have felt bad about leaving the job, so why should they feel bad about ending the employment?

Don't get me wrong, I know how stressful layoffs are. But all kinds of things in life are stressful (like a breakup, for example), but that doesn't imply you've been morally harmed in some way. You aren't entitled to keep your job for life!

Help me understand.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#254

Post by roxolotl »

alistairSH wrote: post #251
davidcollantes wrote: post #240

> Today we announced our Q3 FY26 earnings with record revenue of $15.8 billion, up 12 percent year over year, and double-digit top and bottom-line growth. The ELT and I could not be prouder of the growth you have all delivered for Cisco. Great! A successful company, right? Ah, but then: > we are making changes today that will result in the reduction of our overall workforce in Q4 by fewer than 4,000 jobs, representin…

Why not? All that matters is the investors, and both of those are positives to that group. Sure, it's not particularly humane, and I'm sure those that were fired are angry, but this is the norm in American business and has been for many years.

Why should we be ok with this? Just because something is the norm doesn’t mean it should be nor does it mean it’s moral.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#255

Post by alistairSH »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #3

The casualness of mentioning record revenues in the same PR statement as laying off 4,000 people is fucked up on a new level. It used to be you were supposed to at least pretend you were forced into a layoff. But now it's like "Hey guys! It's time for our regularly scheduled layoff to juice profits! I got an extra $5M bonus for this!"

It's 100% normal these days. My employer did the same thing in January.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#256

Post by alistairSH »

asdfsa32 wrote: post #74
banach wrote: post #37

This is why corporations need to be owned and operated by the employees.

Have you look at how efficient your local government is?

Reasonably efficient. Local schools are good, local roads are good, job market is solid, housing is being built and the urban planning is better than most areas. Taxes are high, but not NJ/NYC high.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#257

Post by fc417fc802 »

senordevnyc wrote: post #250
fc417fc802 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that legal? I thought the entire point of delayed vesting was to disincentivize jumping ship. If they're the ones throwing you overboard clawing back RSUs seems like a roundabout form of wage theft.

I always viewed them as future comp that was locked at a certain rate (in terms of number of shares per quarter). I got four years of unvested stock on day 1 when I joined a tech company, why on earth would I think I'm entitled to all that if I leave before it's vested?

If you see it as dangling future compensation in front of you then you wouldn't, obviously. But then why is it structured in that manner? What's the purpose?

If you view it as a signing bonus it makes perfect sense. They want to get you in the door but also don't want you to take advantage of them by quitting immediately. In that case you wouldn't be entitled to it if you left voluntarily or were fired for cause but being laid off is entirely their choice.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#258

Post by skinfaxi »

danw1979 wrote: post #128
banach wrote: post #37

This is why corporations need to be owned and operated by the employees.

For the last 15 years I’ve been telling anyone who would listen about my idea for a John Lewis (British retail chain) model IT consultancy- employee owned, everyone is motivated, high quality, etc. Except last month I met someone who worked there and got TUPE (involuntary contractual transfer of employment) to Wipro (Indian outsourcerer) a few years ago. So even though this corporation is owned by the employees, and…

Even under non-hierarchical systems someone has to take out the trash.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#259

Post by alistairSH »

roxolotl wrote: post #254
alistairSH wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? All that matters is the investors, and both of those are positives to that group. Sure, it's not particularly humane, and I'm sure those that were fired are angry, but this is the norm in American business and has been for many years.

Why should we be ok with this? Just because something is the norm doesn’t mean it should be nor does it mean it’s moral.

Does making separate statements suddenly make it moral or humane? How long between the statements should the CEO wait?

I agree, we've built an extremely inhumane economy in the US. And it feels like it's gotten worse since I entered the workforce in 1999. But calling out CEOs isn't going to change it - the only thing that will help is the force of law - higher taxes on executives and profits and stronger worker protections might make a dent.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#260

Post by AndrewKemendo »

mplanchard wrote: post #241

I briefly worked for Cisco after an acquisition, and it was a great time: I would get my sprint’s worth of work done in two days, ask if I could do anything else and be told no, and then spend the rest of the two weeks doing whatever I wanted, which at the time was learning Rust. All that is to say, I would not be remotely surprised if Cisco has more employees than they strictly need. But, this email from the CEO is…

I love how

“it was a great time” = “I worked two days a week”

Any job that pays a full week and only requires two days of work is a “great time”

tells you literally nothing about the actual job.

Post reply on HN