Microsoft Looks to Cut Up to 18,000 Jobs • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft Looks to Cut Up to 18,000 Jobs

#251

Post by trjordan » Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 4:31 PM UTC

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #89

pxlpshr wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of writing "Christ", you should consider posting an email as if you were the one newly responsible for a $364B company and a reduction in 18,000 jobs. I'd be curious to see other people's management style from their armchair.

Subject: Important Company-wide Announcement Dear Employees, For our business to continue running, we must reduce the number of staff. This is an unfortunate but also inevitable reality. [insert details of layoff here] [insert honest platitudes] Senior management wishes all of you the best of luck, and has every confidence that you will be even more successful at your next job.

Except, they're not laying off most of the staff. This email is, with 85% confidence, going to staff members who will not be fired.

This is a notification that it's happening, that you're not going to be affected, and that they're doing it because they think it will help the company grow and adapt.

Re: Microsoft Looks to Cut Up to 18,000 Jobs

#252

Post by pliptvo » Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 4:32 PM UTC

I find it fascinating that there's not a single comment here regarding industrial action.

18,000 people will have their jobs slashed just like that without any resistance?

Instead they're just meant to leave with a smile on their face knowing that it's in the supposed benefit of their former employer?

I'm sure Nadella finds the decision to send 18,000 people to the job market much more 'difficult' than they'll find it out there.

Re: Microsoft Looks to Cut Up to 18,000 Jobs

#253

Post by pliptvo » Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 4:34 PM UTC

frou_dh wrote: post #5

Subject: Starting to Evolve Our Organization and Culture Body: Last week in my email to you I synthesized our strategic direction ... Christ.

Litteraly.

Re: Microsoft Looks to Cut Up to 18,000 Jobs

#254

Post by LunaSea » Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 4:39 PM UTC

jjindev wrote: post #240

You know, companies with the size and wealth of MS sometimes employ people just to have them NOT innovating elsewhere. Consider 18K smart people freed of that as the bright side.

"bright"

Re: Microsoft Looks to Cut Up to 18,000 Jobs

#255

Post by headgasket » Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 4:39 PM UTC

72deluxe wrote: post #239

headgasket wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the reply! (I also assume you are not my downvoter:-) I see the value of replacing the NT kernel by a bsd variant as this: you free ride on a lot of work done by other people. Us software heads have decided we wanted the hard core kernel and compiler engineering to be open source, circa 1990. We've won philosophically, albeit we've lost economically, as the 18000 layoffs and the death of SUN, and transform…

No I am not your downvoter! I do not have downvoting powers yet, sadly! Probably because nobody agrees with me either haha I can understand some of your arguments. But I would not be too hasty in believing that everyone wants open source or would agree that open source kernels are better. I don't dispute it! But, a lot of Windows developers wouldn't touch Linux with a barge pole, nor would they even know about any of…

I'm sorry I didn't really mean to frame this as open vs close source; but more on the bsd vs nt plane.

Compiling/porting C or C++ code on any bsd-derived or unix inspired platform is a lot easier than crossing over to windows IMHO, because of the WINNT kernel and the legacy of the prior oses.

I think MS's force is precisely in Office Exchange etc -- business user facing stuff. The rest is a cost. XBox Zune etc. They should have embraced and extended(forked) the android kernel, (the boot to gecko firefox os approach) for these; it would have been a lot less expensive to have a foothold in those markets.

Re: Microsoft Looks to Cut Up to 18,000 Jobs

#256

Post by kanwisher » Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 4:40 PM UTC

woi13 wrote: post #214

1. Any reason why executive pay can't be reduced and save these jobs ? Why pay stupid executive million and millions dollars and chop jobs of these poor people ? 2. Who determines who gets to stay and who gets to be fired ? Fucked up ranking system ? Ass-Lickers ? 3. Anyone saying layoff are good should really take second look outside during daytime ( 9 - 5). Once you are in battleground of searching job its hell. Re…

It seems like if you didn't have a green account, you would have been down voted. Seems like an overly angry un HN post

Re: Microsoft Looks to Cut Up to 18,000 Jobs

#257

Post by cpeterso » Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 4:42 PM UTC

at-fates-hands wrote: post #142

roc wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure Nokia itself knew these layoffs were likely-to-inevitable whether that deal happened or not.

If that was the case, do you think most of the Nokia employees were actively looking for another job and were just riding the gravy train until it finally pulled into the station? I would think if I worked at Nokia and we were acquired by Microsoft, I'd probably be looking for another job fairly quickly. Considering the writing was on the wall for a while even before they were acquired by MS.

If they weren't before, they will be now that Microsoft's layoffs over the next six months hang over everyone's heads. Microsoft should have ripped the bandaid off in one quick move so other employees will feel secure.

Re: Microsoft Looks to Cut Up to 18,000 Jobs

#258

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 4:44 PM UTC

cwyers wrote: post #250

pierreio wrote: post #94

So MS Bought Nokia and ~30k employees for ~$7.2 billion last April. 3 months later, MS may now be firing ~half of the Nokia group. The executives who drove that catastrophic deal stay. What a testament to how disastrous big M&A really is. Is there any large acquisition that succeeded in the last 10 years? I'd feel sorry if I was a Nokia guy there, they pulled out the best non-Apple phone hardware in the last years. P…

I think that "we can run this unprofitable business with half its current headcount, thus turning it into a profitable business" is hardly an indication of failure.

You're assuming the unprofitable business will become profitable.

Businesses are never unprofitable because they have too many employees.

Businesses are unprofitable when management lacks the skills, the foresight, or the vision to make those employees profitable.

Edit: If this isn't obvious consider what a world-class entrepreneur could do with 12,000 experienced employees, a couple of billion in severance savings, and a kick-ass idea.

Re: Microsoft Looks to Cut Up to 18,000 Jobs

#259

Post by ssmoot » Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 4:47 PM UTC

SandB0x wrote: post #139

frou_dh wrote: post #5

Subject: Starting to Evolve Our Organization and Culture Body: Last week in my email to you I synthesized our strategic direction ... Christ.

Here's my attempt at removing some of the worst fluff from the email: Last week in my email to you I outlined our direction as a productivity and platform company. On July 22, during our public earnings call, I’ll share further specifics on where we are focusing our innovation investments. The first step to building the right organization is to make changes to our workforce. With this in mind, we will begin to reduce…

Making the public earnings call the centerpiece seems like a real bad morale move. If I were a 'Softie it would be a strong signal where the leadership's priorities lie (stock price). It gives the talk of "lean" and "accountability" a decidedly negative undertone IMO.

I do like the line about "the respect they deserve" without qualifier. It adds a bit of humanity to the whole thing.

But not enough overall IMO. It really leaves me with the impression that this is just typical corporate speak trying to put the stock price ahead of the mentions of "design and technical innovation".

Re: Microsoft Looks to Cut Up to 18,000 Jobs

#260

Post by dredmorbius » Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 4:48 PM UTC

at-fates-hands wrote: post #142

roc wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure Nokia itself knew these layoffs were likely-to-inevitable whether that deal happened or not.

If that was the case, do you think most of the Nokia employees were actively looking for another job and were just riding the gravy train until it finally pulled into the station? I would think if I worked at Nokia and we were acquired by Microsoft, I'd probably be looking for another job fairly quickly. Considering the writing was on the wall for a while even before they were acquired by MS.

That will largely depend on the severance packages.

Those who stuck around through the merger and take take the first-round cuts offer will likely make out pretty well. Unfortunately for Microsoft, this means that they're largely paying for people with good strategic skills and a high capacity to find work elsewhere to leave.

It's the ones who stay put, largely out of lack of strategic skills and/or alternative options, who are going to be less valuable to the company. There may be further incentives but they're likely to not be as generous.

Or so say the rational expectations theorists.