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

Google to reduce workforce by 12k

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 1001 posts

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#201

Post by rippercushions »

Jagerbizzle wrote: post #151
makach wrote: post #104

Not a bad email, and a decent follow up on the ones that are affected. It is also a reminder that killing yourself slowly at the workplace is meaningless. Management has no responsibility to you, and no promise is certain. It’s your responsibility to take care of yourself. My take, don’t be bitter. Take the severance as soon as possible and get back on your feet. Having Google on your resume is a very good thing.

Significantly better than the tone-deaf email Satya sent Microsoft employees, which continues to cause undue anxiety for employees who have no clue if or when they'll be laid off over the next 90 days.

Google US employees know if they'll be laid off or not immediately, but all non-US employees are still waiting.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#202

Post by leoedin »

mcculley wrote: post #103
mkl95 wrote: post #57

> In the US: > We’ll pay employees during the full notification period (minimum 60 days). Weird flex. Would it be legal not to?

Yes. California is an at-will state. The employer can terminate at any time for any reason. Unless they have a contract, they can do anything they want.

Do employees not have some sort of contract? Surely you'd want to have some level of notice - it's no good for employers for people to quit with no notice either.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#203

Post by ThunderSizzle »

theGnuMe wrote: post #123
dzonga wrote: post #30

I blame companies for blaming with people's lives like this: not market dynamics. companies are the ones that decided to overhire, overpay - based on covid demand, cheap money that was floating around. companies not the market, resulted in a war over talent. now it's a war on talent. and of course everyone and their grandma will want to work at these tech companies where life is laid back and you get all the benefits…

Healthcare is largely recession proof although hospitals had big layoffs just as COVID hit which was a huge mistake in retrospect. Epic is also a private company and yes pays less but they’ve taken up with Google now as well.

Hospitals chose to do that because everyone thought that bubonic plague was upon us and we no longer needed staff in elective surgeries.

Obviously everyone was proven very wrong.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#204

Post by type-r »

jensensbutton wrote: post #161
kypro wrote: post #146

Are we about to enter a new era of ultra-profitable tech companies? While companies like GOOG and MSFT have had ridiculously healthy margins compared to traditional industries for some time now, it's also been clear in recent years that these companies have become very loose with spending. Take GOOG for example, they spend so much unnecessary money on fancy offices, free lunches, diversity programs, highly speculativ…

> diversity programs... Not even remotely comparable to the other things you listed. People such as yourself seemingly can't stop talking about it though, despite it having no effect on your life.

for a period of time, one of my previous employers had an unwritten policy that you couldn't send a job offer to a non diversity applicant at our headquarters. so yeah, these programs can actually have a pretty big impact on my life.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#205

Post by lr4444lr »

concinds wrote: post #86
eCa wrote: post #51

I guess someone has to write this comment: > I take full responsibility for the decisions that led us here As usual, he says nothing more what the consequences for him are. It seems like all of the FAANGs have made severe strategic cockups when it comes to hiring lately. I wonder if it will affect their longterm attraction as employers.

CEOs are fired for mismanagement. This is good management.

Then he should say something like, "this isn't personal - I am just doing my job."

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#206

Post by rvz »

MonkeyClub wrote: post #92
eCa wrote: post #51

I guess someone has to write this comment: > I take full responsibility for the decisions that led us here As usual, he says nothing more what the consequences for him are. It seems like all of the FAANGs have made severe strategic cockups when it comes to hiring lately. I wonder if it will affect their longterm attraction as employers.

> It seems like all of the FAANGs have made severe strategic cockups I’m becoming more and more convinced that they’re preparing for a global recession. I posed such an Ask HN a while ago, before the Microsoft layoffs, where the general takeaway was that there’s no indication for a recession. However, after the 10+12K layoffs by the giants, and constant news about smaller layoffs by smaller companies (in the 100s per…

> I posed such an Ask HN a while ago, before the Microsoft layoffs, where the general takeaway was that there’s no indication for a recession.

I don't how this 'indication of a recession' could not have been more clearer since November 2021 as predicted a year ago. [0] We were already in a recession [1] and it just took time for the indicators to take effect.

I guess now the people denying about a looming recession are now 'preparing for a recession' which is a bit too late for that.

Should have prepared as early in November 2021.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29508238

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31441710

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#207

Post by rippercushions »

jensensbutton wrote: post #161
kypro wrote: post #146

Are we about to enter a new era of ultra-profitable tech companies? While companies like GOOG and MSFT have had ridiculously healthy margins compared to traditional industries for some time now, it's also been clear in recent years that these companies have become very loose with spending. Take GOOG for example, they spend so much unnecessary money on fancy offices, free lunches, diversity programs, highly speculativ…

> diversity programs... Not even remotely comparable to the other things you listed. People such as yourself seemingly can't stop talking about it though, despite it having no effect on your life.

Diversity programs have considerable side effects: there's both pressure to hire people who tick DEI boxes, and equivalent resistance to get rid of those who are underperforming. And neither of these does any favors to those who are qualified, but get tarred with the suspicion of being the dreaded "diversity hire".

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#208

Post by gls2ro »

kkoncevicius wrote: post #186

I don't understand some of the comments here, maybe someone can explain. Does a company need to have an excuse to let people go? Is there a right to stay employed? As far as I am aware working for a company is not a life-long situation. And further - why don't we invert it and praise these companies for supplying thousands of six figure jobs for years. Surely being employed for several years is better than never bein…

(I am not talking here about Google but more like general)

A company (especially a big one) needs to have an excuse to let people go.

The argument here is two-fold:

1. There is a power imbalance between a company and an employee.

Just as a short example: letting go of 1 employee usually means nothing for the company life, but for the employee is biggest/impactful event happening that month or maybe that half of the year.

Thus we usually balance this with laws (in some countries/states) and, of course, with public expectations.

2. Companies are asking for your whole professional time, and they usually want exclusivity

You can see this usually written in contracts like "you dedicate all your work time", "you cannot work for other companies", "you dedicate all your business time" ...

Thus when a company is asking this from you then they need to offer something in exchange. And this exchange is they need an excuse to let you go.

---

(again I don't speak here about Google as I never worked there so I don't know what they offer and what they ask for)

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#209

Post by somedude895 »

88 wrote: post #160
pembrook wrote: post #58

A lot of people seem to be chalking this one up in the “memetic imitation among tech execs” column. However, in the case of Google, I’m not so sure. Google is an advertising business. And advertising revenue is extremely sensitive to changes in the economy (Companies cut ad spending when there isn’t as much demand to soak up). In the last recession Google was still rapidly stealing ad share from old media, but now th…

Just a theory but in a downturn I could see a lot of companies increasing their ad spend as they lose existing customers and find they need to work harder to acquire new ones. Obviously this doesn’t apply to advertising which is just gratuitous brand building.

It applies to Google. Their main revenue still comes from Search Engine Advertising, which is a really good customer acquisition channel.

But the reason ad spends decrease during downturns is that people consume less, so there's no point in advertising when nobody's buying.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#210

Post by kazakx »

trabant00 wrote: post #97

I don't understand why the comments are mostly upset in these cases. If it makes financial sense for you, as an employee, you are free to leave a company. Shouldn't companies have the same freedom? Why should the CEO be punished in any way for making such a decision? Having too many people being payed for some time and having to pay severance packages is not enough? What is the moral or legal base for attacking these…

The issue is not simple. There are various reasons why people may react negatively to news of layoffs. Some may be angry at upper management for not feeling the impact of the layoffs and still receiving bonuses. Others may be worried about the potential for a recession. Additionally, some people may critique the capitalist system, despite participating in it in their own lives on a smaller scale. And on some level you are completely right as it may be necessary for a private company to occasionally lay off employees, like pruning a tree.
Post reply on HN