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

Verizon says to shed 10,400 jobs by mid next year

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 215 posts

Re: Verizon says to shed 10,400 jobs by mid next year

#191

Post by root_axis »

RHSeeger wrote: post #170
root_axis wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your cynicism seems misplaced; up to a year's salary as severance sounds like a pretty sweet sugar-coating to me. They didn't "avoid bad press", they simply didn't do anything to merit bad press. What's wrong with someone voluntarily choosing to take money in exchange for a resignation? It's not as if there is something inherently wrong with "jobs going away" when your definition includes people voluntarily quitting…

To be fair, it's not entirely resignation. It's "take this X and resign, or be put on the list to be fired and get something less than X". It's still better than just being layed off, but it not as nice as a voluntary resignation.

The company solicited for volunteers, they didn't target individuals and give them an ultimatum.

Re: Verizon says to shed 10,400 jobs by mid next year

#192

Post by padseeker »

Vraxx wrote: post #180
darawk wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So if you still having large scale layoffs then it appears that maybe the SOLUTION is not quite solving the PROBLEM. And you were responding to this thread. Which means you were citing Verizon as evidence of your point. Which people the completely correctly compared to anti-global-warming people citing snow as evidence against global warming.

All of your responses are blatantly telling the person you're responding to what they were thinking instead of considering that perhaps there are multiple ways to interpret things. You told padseeker that they were insinuating something when at best you could guess that they were insinuating something. If you're actually interested in discussing things instead of telling people what they believe or what their intent…

Vraxx I appreciate - Darawk it seems like you are interested in having a totally different fight. There's no point engaging with you.

Re: Verizon says to shed 10,400 jobs by mid next year

#193

Post by tomatotomato37 »

padseeker wrote: post #165
root_axis wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politically, I agree with you, but your comment is akin to when republicans blast global warming when a snow storm blows in. Pointing to a single data point as a summary of something super complex is always silly.

That's a fair criticism. One wave of layoffs does not constitute evidence that the tax cuts are a failure. Still the economy is going in an upward direction, and Verizon isn't shrinking. Why are they laying off 10K people?

A rising economy can't compensate for stupid executive decisions.

Re: Verizon says to shed 10,400 jobs by mid next year

#194

Post by anticensor »

mindslight wrote: post #189
anticensor wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a scam. Severance should be paid as earned money, not as a debt.

Yeah... that was a facetious reference to net neutrality.

I am decoding for readers who did not get the humour:

instead of a single data cap with overage pay and consistent speed for all destinations, you get various separate caps for various destinations.

Re: Verizon says to shed 10,400 jobs by mid next year

#195

Post by axaxs »

reaperducer wrote: post #13
TAForObvReasons wrote: post #3

They aren't laying off people, it was a voluntary separation: > Verizon Communications Inc said on Monday that about 10,400 employees will be leaving the U.S. wireless carrier by mid next year as part of the company’s voluntary separation program. They offered a package earlier in the year https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/25/verizon-offers-separation-pl...

They aren't laying off people, it was a voluntary separation It's just another layer of corporate double-speak. The same way "fired" became "laid off." Until the early 90's, "laid off" applied to factory and seasonal workers, who were expected to be recalled when production ramped up again.

Fired became 'let go'. Layoffs became 'reduction in force'. In my experience, I've never seen 'fired' and 'laid off', or their counterparts, used interchangeably.

Re: Verizon says to shed 10,400 jobs by mid next year

#196

Post by padseeker »

deadmetheny wrote: post #177
padseeker wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The prescribed solution to this problem was tax cuts. So if you still having large scale layoffs then it appears that maybe the SOLUTION is not quite solving the PROBLEM. Instead I need to engage in this stupidity. This is like someone getting cancer, and someone prescribes snake oil solution, and I'm saying the snake oil doesn't work. And instead some of you at the bottom of this thread are saying I'm blaming the ca…

The only stupidity you're engaging in is your own. It's very clear that's exactly what the parent comment said.

In spite of !== Because of. I can't dumb it down for you any more than that.

Re: Verizon says to shed 10,400 jobs by mid next year

#197

Post by padseeker »

padseeker wrote: post #113
jayess wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why aren't you asking this of all the comments in this parent? People seem to be blaming Verizon cutting 10,000 jobs on the tax cuts. Or claiming that jobs weren't created. Or that somehow the tax cuts were an economic negative. None of those things can be attributed to causation.

People seem to be blaming Verizon cutting 10,000 jobs on the tax cuts At no point was that ever insinuated. The simple idea is that the tax cuts were sold as a way to give companies financial resources to boost salaries and hire new people. Well they got their tax cuts, why are they doing the opposite of what the tax cuts were supposed to do? Maybe it's because the tax cuts were never going to boost salaries and incr…

I'll make it clearer for you;

"In spite of" NOT THE SAME AS "Because of"

My comment is clearly saying "IN SPITE OF". I think most people who are reading with intellectual honestly would recognize that.

The people who would interpret it as "BECAUSE OF" before this clarification might have a certain oppositional viewpoint.

And the only people who would interpret it as "BECAUSE OF" after this clarification don't actually care about having a debate, but would rather call me a liar because it feels better then engaging.

I literally cannot dumb it down any more than this.

Re: Verizon says to shed 10,400 jobs by mid next year

#198

Post by ataturk »

roymurdock wrote: post #164
dfxm12 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how a company can think like this with unemployment as low as it is. They don't have much room to be calling labor's bluffs.

Healthcare + low skilled, low wage jobs (EMS, manufacturing, parcel delivery, warehouse work) are taking a lot of slack out of the employment market Check out where job gains in the US were in November: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf Healthcare added +32k jobs, the majority of which were ambulance drivers/EMS jobs Manufacturing added +27k jobs, mainly in chemicals and heavy metals Transportation and…

What, fed.gov lies to us? No! You're silly. They would never lie while billionaires become, uh, trillionaires, or...something.

The wealth gap is unbelievable.

Re: Verizon says to shed 10,400 jobs by mid next year

#199

Post by bduerst »

jedberg wrote: post #93
moftz wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they would just tell you that you're lucky to still have a job. Even if they gave you a raise, you just increase your chances of being a layoff target since you cost the company more now. If you are saved from a massive layoff like that, you seriously need to find something new because you are next on the chopping block no matter what.

> Even if they gave you a raise, you just increase your chances of being a layoff target But if you applied for a layoff and didn't get it, isn't that exactly what you want? And in the meantime you get to make more. It's a win-win!

Best to get off of a sinking ship early, since that's when the biggest lifeboats are available.

The people who are left have to do more work and are less likely to get nice severance packages during the next round.

Re: Verizon says to shed 10,400 jobs by mid next year

#200

Post by jhfdbkofdcho »

TangoTrotFox wrote: post #120
mbreese wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they don’t get enough employees to voluntarily leave, you can be sure that there will be forced layoffs (with probably worse terms). Imagine you’re a 50 year old employee with a kid in college. Would you be thrilled to accept a year of salary with limited job prospects? What jobs do you think will be the first to be cut? Don’t try to sugar coat it - when there are lay-offs (voluntarily or not), it’s rarely a posit…

Here's a more reasonable question. If you ask 10,000 random workers from various tech companies if they'd be willing to leave in exchange for more than a year of salary, + benefits, + a bonus. What percent would say yes? We can only imagine, but it's going to be huge. If you don't want to leave, don't apply. And on that note - yeah people did have to apply, and some were rejected.

You’re presuming that those workers have good prospects for finding a new job as good as the one they currently have. This is harder when you are older.
Post reply on HN