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

Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

bits.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 251 posts

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#181

Post by stcredzero »

kamaal wrote: post #132
greendestiny wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When whom to layoff is a political decision, layoffs will just compound the problem.

That always happens. The problem is the CEO needs an internal partner to get a list of people who need to be let go. And that's generally delegated to the immediate exec staff, they delegate to some layers below and when the list is built, it bubbles up back to the CEO. In the process, most people think performance is the key to decide who stays and who leaves. While the fact is first ones to go are political enemies…

It's the "evaporative cooling" of groups.

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#182

Post by aragot »

eps wrote: post #172
aragot wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how they'll apply this plan in France, where the spirit of the law is, you may massively fire people only if it's part of "plan social", and the only argument is ofthen it's-this-or-we-go-bankrupt. Especially: In those kind of schemes, you must ask who wants to leave, give them a package, avoid those with children, the older ones go last, etc. So I doubt they'd let go of the worst people first.

They can always open a new company and hire only those they want from the existing one, can't they?

Those games are pretty obvious, and they've often been used. We judge by the spirit of the law more often than in US. I know a company of 5-8000 people who's firing 9 managers per month [1] so they don't fall into the "group layout" category. They have to persuade them with a resignation package. They plan a "plan social" in a few months. Here's documentation about it: [3]

It's a job. See this agency, at random: [2]. My godfather was a HR manager specialized in "plans sociaux" (=closing factories when famous tech brands moved to Asia), and his job was pretty much explaining CEO of other continents that they have to put money on the table to be allowed to dump a whole factory, which they couldn't really get, obviously. The mother company has to help refurbish the local economy so workers find new jobs, or hire a job agency to find jobs and prove workers aren't just ditched. When the job is done, he writes the last two resignations: his, and the local director. The length of the process is around 2 years for 500 people. Needless to say, mafia jobs are probably safer.

[1] See "New procedures for implementing mass lay-offs" in http://www.proskauer.com/publications/client-alert/new-labor...

[2] http://www.triplet.com/50-10_employment/50-12_laysoff.asp

[3] http://uk.practicallaw.com/0-503-0054#a362756

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#183

Post by aragot »

abollaert wrote: post #149
aragot wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how they'll apply this plan in France, where the spirit of the law is, you may massively fire people only if it's part of "plan social", and the only argument is ofthen it's-this-or-we-go-bankrupt. Especially: In those kind of schemes, you must ask who wants to leave, give them a package, avoid those with children, the older ones go last, etc. So I doubt they'd let go of the worst people first.

I get what you are saying, but you do make it sound like the (older) people with children are the worst ones, by virtue of having children or being older. Also there is a reason why these measures are in place, being that people with children have more risk (more expenses and responsibility) and are less mobile. And older people typically have a harder time in the job market.

That's correct, I didn't mean to talk about who should be fired first. I meant to say that the company doesn't really get to choose who should leave or stay. There are rules so we don't harm the economic tissue when firing people.

I'm yet to be convinced of how this economy can thrive in the first place. I'm persuaded most French people work in really Dilbertesque comapnies with unpassionnate workmates because of those rules, which correlates with the fact that French people are the first consumers of anti-depressants in the world [1]. I'm not saying it's linked for everyone.

[1] http://www.france24.com/en/20110802-france-world-most-depres...

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#184

Post by yardie »

wavegeek wrote: post #144
crag wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. And it's not just tech. Most large companies have mid-level workers whose sole job is to not to get laid off (fired). I pity anyone under them cause they are usually the hardest working and first to go. Companies should be looking top-down instead of the usual bottom-up. And man, it gets cut-throat. You know, when I traded, I used to think that was the most cut-throat work environment. Then the firm I was tr…

> And it's not just tech. It also applies to countries. Look at the increasing resources that go to people who produce little or nothing of value to others eg lawyers, lobbyists, politicians, financial engineers, LBO operators etc. Not to mention many of the people on welfare.

> Not to mention many of the people on welfare.

Spoken like someone that has never used welfare, doesn't know anyone on welfare, and gets all their ideas from talk radio and Fox News.

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#185

Post by Amezarak »

JibberMeTimbers wrote: post #47
kabdib wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the last layoffs, many of the people who were let go were back working for Microsoft again in a year or so (often as full-time employees, more often as contractors). I believe that Microsoft has more contractors than it does employees. That is just crazy. Also, it's nearly impossible to fire even the most grossly incompetent people. One person I worked with was a utter flatline and doing negative work (very bad Q/…

Contractors can be cheaper than employees, despite paying a higher salary. The reason is that they don't need to do so much legal work or pay their insurances and etc, etc. When a project is finished, they can just end the contract and avoid all of the legality. I've known many people that leave their job as employee and get contracted to the same company for those reasons (and more).

> Contractors can be cheaper than employees, despite paying a higher salary. The reason is that they don't need to do so much legal work or pay their insurances and etc, etc.

Unless they're independent contractors, I've never understood how this can be true. Sure, the company paying the contracting company doesn't have to directly pay for that kind of thing, but the contracting company does, and on top of that, has to earn a profit, and that should all be included in the billing rate.

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#186

Post by protonfish »

walterbell wrote: post #154
codeonfire wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but the first one was 20 minutes of "the world is not fair. Some people think its fair but it's not" repeated for 20 minutes. The second one was "You need to observe people's actions and understand why they do things" repeated for 20 minutes. Those are both very helpful points but I think people would be better served with some advice or techniques. For example: Discuss your plans with each person one by on…

One challenge is that naturally talented people often don't understand why the facts are insufficient. Others who are less talented often needed to develop political skills for survival. Agree that those links are basic (hence Politics 101), but convincing technical folk to care about this topic isn't easy. One needs to understand offense in order to play defense. Here are some books with timeless techniques for thos…

So the solution is to join the ranks of the lying ass-kissers? Who would be left to do any work?

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#187

Post by super_mario »

adventured wrote: post #55
TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #18

Any company that has been around for as long as Microsoft, has a huge amount of dead weight in its mid-level management. I mean people whose main skill is mastery of the internal political process. Lest people think I'm singling out Microsoft specifically, this same problem is present at Google as well, but is less of a problem because Google has not been around long enough to pick up the same amount of dead weight p…

Facebook does indeed have a very efficient corporate structure (whether that will last is another question). Perhaps 7,000 to 7,300 employees (assuming some pickup the last quarter or two), and $8.9 billion in sales. Microsoft by comparison had roughly 15,000 employees when they had that level of revenue (adjusting for inflation), circa 1993 / 1994.

20 years ago you could have bought a house for $50k in the town I live in currently. Today same house is $500k. So, 10 times more.

Let's extrapolate that to Facebook vs Microsoft and basically Facebook would have to have $89 billion in sales or alternatively have 70,000 employees.

This is of course rubbish but illustrates the point that you can't compare revenues from 20 years in absolute terms like there is no such thing as inflation and time value of money.

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#188

Post by TallGuyShort »

anoothrowaway wrote: post #122

As someone starting at Microsoft in the near future, should this make me worried?

It should make you cautious and curious. A few years ago I accepted an offer from a large company who announced massive layoffs in the near future. I contacted my recruiter and asked if this affected my offer and they said no. I later pushed them for more details about who I would report to, if I could speak with a member of the team, what I should do to prepare, and what I would work on. They were very closed about all this and hard to contact. Eventually I found out the entire department was gone and I was going to work on mobile apps and web pages instead of highly scalable backend infrastructure and distributed databases. I also found out they had intentionally hid this from me, so I immediately told them I would not join the company. I don't share this to scare you or suggest Microsoft would do the same, but understand that you are entitled to have your questions about your standing with the company answered. Pay attention to who they let go, and question how well that bodes for your goals at the company. If they can't or won't help you understand this, understand the risk you're taking. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, layoffs can be a sign the company is doing what it needs to for the future if it's done correctly.

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#189

Post by jbn »

walterbell wrote: post #95
cpeterso wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if your joking, but there is research into managing a business' longevity, such as the book "Built to Last": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Built_to_Last:_Successful_Habi...

Not joking :) Built to Last is inspirational, a bit like Warren Bennis "Organizing Genius". I was thinking of research topics like these: 1) Financing, staffing and governance of short-lived organizations which perform complex tasks then disband, e.g. film production, election campaigns, bi-annual sporting events, disaster relief, NGO coalitions. How are institutional identity and knowledge preserved when developed w…

I believe it's "Gareth Morgan" (Here's a link: http://www.amazon.com/Images-Organization-Gareth-Morgan/dp/1...). Interesting read, but dry.

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#190

Post by jbn »

ryanburk wrote: post #153
localhost wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the goal is 600MM / year in savings, your denominator is off by quite a bit. Fully loaded cost of an employee is significantly higher than 60-75K. Try 3-4x that amount.

you should assume ~200k for an engineer in a market like seattle

Well, isn't this going to drop if the market is suddenly flooded with people looking for work? Tough situation for anyone getting laid off.
Post reply on HN