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

Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 102 posts

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#11

Post by eunos »

eganist wrote: post #3

Super interesting seeing companies grow like wildfire and overspend as returns for investors skyrocket, and then as the market swings downward, they buoy their stock prices a bit by just as quickly cutting heads. The inverted accountability scheme for leaders doing this is another perverse enabling factor; I've complained about this before, but that tends to lead to flames about why founders etc. can't have ownership…

What I'd like to know is what were the leaderships (Google, Amazon, et al) thinking or expecting when they decided to mass hire.

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#12

Post by yourusername »

cj wrote: post #5
eganist wrote: post #3

Super interesting seeing companies grow like wildfire and overspend as returns for investors skyrocket, and then as the market swings downward, they buoy their stock prices a bit by just as quickly cutting heads. The inverted accountability scheme for leaders doing this is another perverse enabling factor; I've complained about this before, but that tends to lead to flames about why founders etc. can't have ownership…

How do mass layoffs work in places like the EU? I know it's much more difficult to fire people in the EU, but is there an exception if it's done as part of a layoff? The only real solution I can think of is regulatory in nature (e.g. requiring paying out 6 months pay during a layoff, which might make companies think twice before "hiring ahead of growth") Because let's face it, "hiring ahead of growth" is the real pro…

Employment rules are not the same across the EU. You would have to specify the country. In NL if you fire more than 20 people in a 3 month period there is a specific set of rules you have to apply and it determines in what order you must fire people as part of a mass layoff and who you can even fire as part of a mass layoff.

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#13

Post by bestouff »

brookst wrote: post #8
eganist wrote: post #3

Super interesting seeing companies grow like wildfire and overspend as returns for investors skyrocket, and then as the market swings downward, they buoy their stock prices a bit by just as quickly cutting heads. The inverted accountability scheme for leaders doing this is another perverse enabling factor; I've complained about this before, but that tends to lead to flames about why founders etc. can't have ownership…

Do you think these people would have been better off if tech had carried net fewer heads the past couple of years? Having an extra 100k employed for two years is worse than those jobs just never existing?

Maybe for some. The illusion they had of a nice job, especially with lots of money promised, made them take too big a credit for their house or whatever. And now they're doomed. You can always say this is their fault for not having foreseen that, but it probably wouldn't have happened to them if they had another, more regular job.

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#14

Post by jvanderbot »

brookst wrote: post #8
eganist wrote: post #3

Super interesting seeing companies grow like wildfire and overspend as returns for investors skyrocket, and then as the market swings downward, they buoy their stock prices a bit by just as quickly cutting heads. The inverted accountability scheme for leaders doing this is another perverse enabling factor; I've complained about this before, but that tends to lead to flames about why founders etc. can't have ownership…

Do you think these people would have been better off if tech had carried net fewer heads the past couple of years? Having an extra 100k employed for two years is worse than those jobs just never existing?

Aside from the money, I'm quite glad my job was cut, in hindsight, but only because Amazon handled it so well: They gave us time to sort out a new position. I'm already much more excited about my new gig, and for the right reason (not $).

I'm not sure a union would have helped there, but I'm not opposed. Amazon tried to make hay while the sun was shining, and it didn't work out for all depts. It happens.

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#15

Post by elil17 »

cj wrote: post #5
eganist wrote: post #3

Super interesting seeing companies grow like wildfire and overspend as returns for investors skyrocket, and then as the market swings downward, they buoy their stock prices a bit by just as quickly cutting heads. The inverted accountability scheme for leaders doing this is another perverse enabling factor; I've complained about this before, but that tends to lead to flames about why founders etc. can't have ownership…

How do mass layoffs work in places like the EU? I know it's much more difficult to fire people in the EU, but is there an exception if it's done as part of a layoff? The only real solution I can think of is regulatory in nature (e.g. requiring paying out 6 months pay during a layoff, which might make companies think twice before "hiring ahead of growth") Because let's face it, "hiring ahead of growth" is the real pro…

https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/human-resources/employ...

tl;dr: There is a special process called collective redundancy which requires a 30 day notice given to the workers.

There are also country-specific rules.

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#16

Post by jvanderbot »

eunos wrote: post #11
eganist wrote: post #3

Super interesting seeing companies grow like wildfire and overspend as returns for investors skyrocket, and then as the market swings downward, they buoy their stock prices a bit by just as quickly cutting heads. The inverted accountability scheme for leaders doing this is another perverse enabling factor; I've complained about this before, but that tends to lead to flames about why founders etc. can't have ownership…

What I'd like to know is what were the leaderships (Google, Amazon, et al) thinking or expecting when they decided to mass hire.

"Make hay while the sun shines"

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#18

Post by itsoktocry »

eganist wrote: post #3

Super interesting seeing companies grow like wildfire and overspend as returns for investors skyrocket, and then as the market swings downward, they buoy their stock prices a bit by just as quickly cutting heads. The inverted accountability scheme for leaders doing this is another perverse enabling factor; I've complained about this before, but that tends to lead to flames about why founders etc. can't have ownership…

>I'm not seeing a clear solution for this culture of toying with thousands of peoples' lives for a quick buck

A bit over-dramatic, no? Nothing to say about the employees who left their companies for Google to "make a quick buck"?

Business expand and contract. Should Google be considered a retirement home? The people who took these jobs are smart men and women who will go on to work at other companies. This isn't new.

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#19

Post by itsoktocry »

ZiiS wrote: post #10
brookst wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think these people would have been better off if tech had carried net fewer heads the past couple of years? Having an extra 100k employed for two years is worse than those jobs just never existing?

The point is we all know how much these same companies will whine about skills shortages in a couple of years. Even if they cannot manage to make a cent off their work work and completely fail to train them or at least give them experience; they can very easily just write down the salaries till they do need them.

>The point is we all know how much these same companies will whine about skills shortages in a couple of years.

Is that the point? That implies the market is hot again (and I agree with you, it will be eventually) and people are working where they want to. If that's your prediction, what's the problem here? The solution is not to jump ship to Google, then, isn't it?

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#20

Post by [deleted] »

jvanderbot wrote: post #14
brookst wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think these people would have been better off if tech had carried net fewer heads the past couple of years? Having an extra 100k employed for two years is worse than those jobs just never existing?

Aside from the money, I'm quite glad my job was cut, in hindsight, but only because Amazon handled it so well: They gave us time to sort out a new position. I'm already much more excited about my new gig, and for the right reason (not $). I'm not sure a union would have helped there, but I'm not opposed. Amazon tried to make hay while the sun was shining, and it didn't work out for all depts. It happens.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN