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

211–220 of 251 posts

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#211

Post by kyllo »

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…

That's because when the performance evaluations are top-down and forced to a curve, "performance" itself is a resource to be allocated, and resource allocation decisions are always political.

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#212

Post by tomjen3 »

aragot wrote: post #182
eps wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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].…

I always knew France had insane labor laws, but they idea of having to ask permission to close a factory is being insane to me.

Also while I doubt I will ever have to, I wouldn't start a business in France under those rules.

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#213

Post by wan23 »

sanowski wrote: post #167
backn4th4ever wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw it first hand. My manager was pushing everyone to get promoted to level 5, of the few who didn't, one was put on a pip then fired, the others worked like madmen after seeing that, still didn't get promoted and somehow moved into another group. They still haven't gotten promoted but they work insanely hard/ aren't the same people. I guess it depends on the group, but I was told that timelines for promotion to le…

there's no 'unwritten rule' for promotion timelines

It's actually a written rule. Look up the job descriptions for SWE2's and 3's and compare them to those for higher levels. It specifically says that you are expected to advance.

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#214

Post by nostrademons »

sanowski wrote: post #167
backn4th4ever wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw it first hand. My manager was pushing everyone to get promoted to level 5, of the few who didn't, one was put on a pip then fired, the others worked like madmen after seeing that, still didn't get promoted and somehow moved into another group. They still haven't gotten promoted but they work insanely hard/ aren't the same people. I guess it depends on the group, but I was told that timelines for promotion to le…

there's no 'unwritten rule' for promotion timelines

It was written for a while - the promotion guidelines used to state that the expectation was that all engineers were expected to get to level 5 within "a reasonable amount of time" (generally 2-3 years between promotions), and that managers should identify roadblocks to continued growth for people stuck at level 3/4. I don't think that the "or out" part was ever specified, but that's the implication. Level 5 was continued a terminal level for folks who didn't want to move into management, roughly equivalent to tenure; at that point, you've paid off your value to the company, and can be trusted to pick your own projects.

I heard less and less about this policy over my time in the company - it was stated explicitly my first few perf cycles in 2009/2010, but I don't think I could recall it ever being mentioned after around 2012. And it was always very sporadically enforced; the longest-serving level 4 I knew had been with the company for 11 years.

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#215

Post by tomjen3 »

Loughla wrote: post #198
crag wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also a feeling of being stuck. I mean, you a 13B, where you gonna get a job? At Burger King? And you're (were) an E6; a platoon leader with responsibility for personnel and artillery equipment worth millions and now you're flipping burgers? I've always thought the Army needed a job training problem (maybe through the VA, if nothing else) where you could "un-learn" your military skills in favor of civilian skills…

I live in an area that had a relatively high number of returning vets about a year ago. We instituted a job training program at our college. Many institutions, especially community colleges, provide similar programs. We have been surprised to see that some of the skills making these young people successful while serving have almost no translation into the civilian world, outside of being able to follow orders really,…

Could you elaborate on those kinds of jobs? Obviously relative few companies hire people to plan artillery strikes, etc, but I suppose those aren't what you mean. Does a purchasing department at Big Corp really differ that much from logistics and supply work?

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#216

Post by tomjen3 »

walterbell wrote: post #69
jarsin wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Every layoff i have seen personally or through close friends at other company's the ass kissers survive and those t hat threaten them get laid off. Those that threaten them (the competent ones) are always painted as non team players because generally the competent ones are unhappy when the teams gain so many slick talking ass kissers but few doers.

Competent people need to know the political basics, it's like defensive driving. http://www.manager-tools.com/2013/04/politics-101-chapter-3-... http://www.manager-tools.com/2013/05/politics-101-chapter-3-...

You don't need to read that much. Most people on HN aren't going to be next Petur Balish, but if you want to protect your job what you should do is find the guy who is the best political player and make sure his job is secure only so long he has your technical expertise. Now it is in his interest to keep you around and your job is almost as safe as his is.

If you want to read more, get a copy of How to Make Friends and Influence People, or 40 Laws of Power (depending on how evil you are okay with being).

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#217

Post by tomjen3 »

ams6110 wrote: post #83
adventured wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But Facebook is in a much more tenuous position. Nobody really needs Facebook; it's mostly entertainment and could be toppled in a few years time by the next internet/tech fad. Microsoft is a lot more entrenched in a lot more places that actually depend on their software.

Facebook is entrenched because that is where all your friends are. G+ is much better (circles are really nice), but what does that matter when your friends aren't there?

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#218

Post by mcguire »

mpyne wrote: post #43
fredophile wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with the military is how benefits are set up. There is a big jump in benefits at twenty years. If you put in 10-12 years your benefits aren't significantly better than someone who just did minimal time. If there was a small jump around the ten year point they'd probably see people willing to stop there instead of holding out 8-10 more years.

Well the personnel problems with the military go far beyond the timing of benefits alone, unfortunately. As it stands the military actually has great difficulty retaining people past 10 years. Many military communities are chronically undermanned at the senior enlisted and officer leadership levels. So while it's fair to say that the military has held onto lower-skilled workers, it's not exactly the case that it's le…

I know several people who left the U.S. Navy after 6-8 years rather than taking unpalatable billets (one was a master-at-arms (IIRC), serving on several of the hospital ships who was given the choice of leaving or moving to Diego Garcia; several others were Sea-Bees) or who took the latter of the up-or-out option after being unable to advance under new requirements.

It always seemed like the Navy was doing its best to get rid of skilled workers.

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#219

Post by mcguire »

keithpeter wrote: post #200
crag wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also a feeling of being stuck. I mean, you a 13B, where you gonna get a job? At Burger King? And you're (were) an E6; a platoon leader with responsibility for personnel and artillery equipment worth millions and now you're flipping burgers? I've always thought the Army needed a job training problem (maybe through the VA, if nothing else) where you could "un-learn" your military skills in favor of civilian skills…

"I've always thought the Army needed a job training problem (maybe through the VA, if nothing else) where you could "un-learn" your military skills in favor of civilian skills." British Army has various qualifications of its own some of which can be 'mapped' over to civilian equivalents. Mainly technical areas plus management/supervisory. I can't find a clear single source of information but I know from ex-students t…

The U.S. military always advertises the skills it provides, and they are certainly present in many cases. (I know a fair number of Sea-Bees; carpenters, mechanics, electricians all have marketable skills.) On the other hand, there are limited civilian opportunities in door-kicking-in or explosive ordinance disposal.

(Weirdly, I just got a job notice from my employer about an EOD position. Not it!)

Re: Large Round of Layoffs Expected at Microsoft

#220

Post by mcguire »

Amezarak wrote: post #185
JibberMeTimbers wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There are flexibility issues as well.

I have contracted with IBM many times over my career, and when the project goes belly-up, the company reorganizes, the division you were working in disappears, and employment contracts aren't renewed. No muss, no fuss, no layoffs.

Post reply on HN