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

281–290 of 351 posts

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#281

Post by mplanchard »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #260
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.

Yeah I mean, I was being a bit sarcastic. As the sibling points out, I was getting paid a full time salary to largely do whatever I wanted. But, it was also soul crushing to have so little meaningful work to do. I left within a year of the acquisition as a result.

The actual job was working on a python server for the acquired company, and it’s not like there wasn’t more work to do, but we were not allowed to go outside the bounds of the work that had been allocated for a sprint, which was always conservative in order to allow for more accurate overall plans. It’s certain that it was different in other departments or areas or acquired companies, but that at least was my experience.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#282

Post by intended »

suddenlybananas wrote: post #245
intended wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes you do if you want to change their labour laws. You aren't changing the labour laws in their nations. If firms want to trade with American firms, then they have to have certain work norms that they abide by in their contracts/.

Which is an extremely aggressive trade policy that would not be accepted by other states and would be viewed as an infringement on their sovereignty.

I think you are unaware that this is the status quo as of this moment, and is not aggressive in the least.

America (or any country) can set whatever rules that it likes on firms that exist within its boundaries.

Those rules currently cover things like not taking bribes, not using sweatshop labour, not enabling terror groups - all which America is well within it's rights to set.

Those firms float contracts goes out, and international firms that can satisfy those rules, take them up.

If they don't want to, or cannot fulfill those contracts, they don't win the contract.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#283

Post by alistairSH »

roxolotl wrote: post #261
alistairSH wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 prote…

Sure but you know what doesn’t help, defending CEOs. Calling out CEOs expands the number of people who realize this is immoral and who find statements like this repulsive. The more people that find this announcement repulsive the more likely we’ll get actual political change. As for the CEO the only moral response is to quit and force someone else to write this statement.

I'm convinced most/all C-suite (at least at big enough companies) are sociopaths. It's the only explanation I have for how they do the things they do and sleep at night.

I've had to lay off a few people over the years. It's by far the worst part of my job. I loose sleep for weeks, can't eat, etc whenever it happens. If I was a normal part of my job, I'd have to quit because it's unhealthy.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#284

Post by simianwords »

weakfish wrote: post #273
simianwords wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Newer evidence from same group invalidates the outdated claim https://metr.org/blog/2026-05-11-ai-usage-survey/

No it doesn't - that data is self-reported, and the 2025 study explicitly compares _against_ self-reported data. Granted, I agree models have improved since then, but still. > Importantly, survey results are not necessarily grounded in reality. There are reasons to be skeptical of people’s responses to counterfactual questions such as about AI’s effect on productivity — for instance, our study in early 2025 found tha…

> No, actually all evidence points exactly to a ~20% slowdown>

It contradicts this

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#285

Post by weakfish »

simianwords wrote: post #284
weakfish wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it doesn't - that data is self-reported, and the 2025 study explicitly compares _against_ self-reported data. Granted, I agree models have improved since then, but still. > Importantly, survey results are not necessarily grounded in reality. There are reasons to be skeptical of people’s responses to counterfactual questions such as about AI’s effect on productivity — for instance, our study in early 2025 found tha…

> No, actually all evidence points exactly to a ~20% slowdown> It contradicts this

Not really? I mean, the original study says this, in essence:

1. Developers _self_ report a 1.5-2x increase in productivity 2. Empirical measurements show 20% slowdown

Now, that study is from 2025, so it may be outdated.

The study you linked and claim contradicts the 20% slowdown is only _self reported_ data, which the original study proves is unreliable and overestimates productivity.

In fact, the study _you linked_ says this:

> In 2 of these 7 cases we were able to view public outputs from the work completed using AI. We are confident that in both cases the participants are overstating their change in value produced as we understand it; at least, the enormously more valuable work is not externally visible.

> In 2 other cases, we are somewhat suspicious of large changes in the value of work produced because qualitative claims do not match our intuitive sense of agent capabilities.

> There is 1 instance where our best sense is that the respondent does indeed have agents doing an impressive quantity of productive work, although we suspect that this work is better captured by improved speed or quantity of output, not improved value of output.

> In the remaining 2 cases we lack sufficient qualitative information to meaningfully interpret.

(edits for formatting)

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#286

Post by panflute »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #260
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.

Funny that you expect an employee to view a great time as meaning more than successfully exploiting advantage to the employers disadvantage in a relationship with Cisco.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#288

Post by Noumenon72 »

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.

Because it's just as beneficial to society to say "we're doing the same work with fewer workers" as "we're doing the same work with fewer trucks" or "we're doing the same work with fewer barrels of oil".

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#290

Post by absolutewinner »

devsda wrote: post #276
senordevnyc wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I know cisco doesn't do yearly vesting but at the companies that follow yearly vesting, losing job a week or a month or even 6 months before next vesting date is absolutely wage theft unless they do a full or pro-rated vesting of shares in the upcoming tranche.

Cisco absolutely does yearly vesting.
Post reply on HN