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

141–150 of 351 posts

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#141

Post by anal_reactor »

hirako2000 wrote: post #109
spike021 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

we were acquired and part of our org moved into cisco HQ. the entire floor were Indian other than our org, and over time our org was filled out with incoming transfers and new hires. i'll never forget some irony in that one of the engineering leaders brought us together for a mini townhall once and praised our "diversity" but by then the percentage of people in the room were basically the same as you described, inclu…

Diversity is the term to disguise cheaper labor. Call it women, ethnic minorities, trans, neuro divergent, on wheelchair, or those having criminal records. It's a brilliant slogan, not just because virtue signalling, but because it spawns cross cultural factions, all selfishly united to defend it. At no further brainwashing cost to you. You dare to attack it? You are out. Pack your stuff, and your shame. Consolation?…

This is so obvious now that you point it out I'm embarrassed not to have noticed it.

By the way, I was wondering if learning Hindi would be the winning strategy here. Be the only white guy speaking Hindi, instant hire.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#142

Post by bakugo »

vkou wrote: post #106
z0mghii wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

0

Do you have anything but prejudice to support that, or..?

When tech companies lay off large amounts of workers like this, they often immediately replace them with H1Bs. These layoffs are almost always cost-cutting measures, not caused by lack of work - the work is still there and still has to be done, they just don't want to pay expensive white people to do it.

https://www.newsweek.com/microsoft-layoffs-h1b-visa-applicat...

It makes no sense to lay off H1Bs only to immediately re-hire them afterwards.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#143

Post by el_jay »

holysoles wrote: post #8

Almost bought cisco shares today, glad I didn't. A workplace that values job security is such a motivating factor for employees that I don't think is recognized enough. At a company that conducts layoffs, it feels like you're just waiting for the next one.

Who really cares about the lives of lim n —> 4k wagies? There is an opportunity to maximise shareowner returns here - failing to seize it would be little more than economic treason, a dereliction of our duty to be good capitalists. If those people wanted job stability, they should have worked harder to become indispensable to their employer. Frankly, they should have known better than to stake their livelihoods on unstable, declining industries like employment. Now, The Market Has Spoken, and only those let go are to blame for what it said - no one else.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#144

Post by myst »

stack_framer wrote: post #103

"...fewer than 4,000 jobs, representing less than 5 percent of our total employee base." I cringe at this attempt to soften the numbers by saying "fewer than" and "less than" here. Conversely, and ironically, it also puts inflated numbers in your head. "How many people will be axed at Cisco?" "3,998 ... but at least it's fewer than 4,000!"

The message is for the investors.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#145

Post by xboxnolifes »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #127
ciscociscocisco wrote: post #9

> We have important, impactful, and consequential work ahead writing so bad claude could do better

I do wonder if we're going to start seeing people intentionally writing poorly so it's clear their memo is not just "Claude, please write an email saying that..."

Maybe they will start writing better, so it stops reading like corporate nonsense all the time. Because I'd argue most corporate PR statements and such as not written well, they are just written grammatically correct.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#147

Post by bodegajed »

myst wrote: post #144
stack_framer wrote: post #103

"...fewer than 4,000 jobs, representing less than 5 percent of our total employee base." I cringe at this attempt to soften the numbers by saying "fewer than" and "less than" here. Conversely, and ironically, it also puts inflated numbers in your head. "How many people will be axed at Cisco?" "3,998 ... but at least it's fewer than 4,000!"

The message is for the investors.

cisco executives will be rewarded with fat bonuses soon!

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#148

Post by xboxnolifes »

renticulous wrote: post #91
33MHz-i486 wrote: post #16

its sickening that these companies making 10s of Billions in profit annually at 60% gross margins are going to throw their employees that got them there under the bus. layoffs are for at risk companies undergoing restructuring not semi-annual financial engineering of your earnings release I’m not a big collective action proponent historically but in the face of this bs, it might be time.

> that got them there under the bus. Do you employ construction workers for lifetime after they have built your house?

Ive seen this exact analogy on HN quite a few times now, and its a bit odd (read: nonsensical). You dont tend to employ construction workers directly to build your house. You contract a housing company, who contracts construction companies (or has inhouse workers), who do keep their employees employed.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#149

Post by zzrrt »

renticulous wrote: post #91
33MHz-i486 wrote: post #16

its sickening that these companies making 10s of Billions in profit annually at 60% gross margins are going to throw their employees that got them there under the bus. layoffs are for at risk companies undergoing restructuring not semi-annual financial engineering of your earnings release I’m not a big collective action proponent historically but in the face of this bs, it might be time.

> that got them there under the bus. Do you employ construction workers for lifetime after they have built your house?

Among other differences, a house construction contract is understood to be limited in time.

Imagine the construction company said "record profits this year, thanks for building great houses, you're fired." The message wouldn't go over well. They are being outrageously cutthroat or hiding bad news.

Post reply on HN