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

Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

blogs.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 284 posts

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#231

Post by candiodari »

joshribakoff wrote: post #124
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean I don't understand the big announcement in the first place; with a company that large, reducing staff count by 10K can be done organically, simply by not hiring replacements. Which makes me think of two things; one, they want to get rid of very specific people, people who wouldn't quit on their own. And two, that they can't just reduce staff count without an announcement, because staff count is one of those me…

Some low performing employees just wont leave on their own. Sometimes its the higher performers who feel they deserve more compensation and leave. With your proposal the company could end up with only the low performers which is the opposite intent of a layoff

Whereas with firing everyone's success is now tied to how well they can lie to higher management.

THE Recipe for success, that is.

It doesn't even make sense. They're going to fire 10k people. The result? A 1.2 BILLION charge. Firing these people costs them 120000$ per person. And with that, their personnel cost won't drop until end of Q3 + let's say 2 months, so let's call it 2024. They could have let each of these employees do nothing until 2025 for the same amount of money!

They will definitely hire 20k people by 2025 too. It just seems to awkward and stupid.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#232

Post by MuffinFlavored »

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #228
anthomtb wrote: post #81

Is Microsoft laying off executives too? Or will this only affect the rank and file? IME, if the company does not let go of executives, they are just tagging along with their peer companies on the layoff train. If they do make cuts at the VP/SVP level then the company really does have margin/profitability issues.

> Is Microsoft laying off executives too? You must be new here. I work for a blue chip Fortune 200 widely known for their binge-and-purge cycles. Management is never affected. They just reshuffle the cards. I've been predicting another "purge" in 2Q, but I suspect we will lag the tech sector, so maybe it will be EOY.

> Management is never affected.

What level?

Typical corporation structure I've seen is

CEO -> CEO -> SVP -> VP -> Director -> Managers

You're saying the managers at the bottom are generally safe? I feel like that's not typically true?

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#234

Post by MuffinFlavored »

jsiepkes wrote: post #65

Satya is appointed by shareholders, not by employees. Employees can't fire Satya. And while employees might give him a hard time for this, shareholders can definitely give him a harder time if they see a (potential) decline in dividend. So cutting cost to keep dividends steady with a decline in profitability and revenue is the easiest fight for him. While it sucks, when working for a large tech company which is publi…

> shareholders can definitely give him a harder time

What's the worst they can do? Fire him? He's worth somewhere between $300m-$800m according to Google. Even if he's "only" worth $100m. He'll never have to worry about providing/monthly expenses to cover rent/food. Can't say the same for employees. Obviously that's not his responsibility/concern. Just an interesting take.

What's harder? Getting squeezed by shareholders or being unable to afford your rent?

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#235

Post by candiodari »

jsiepkes wrote: post #65

Satya is appointed by shareholders, not by employees. Employees can't fire Satya. And while employees might give him a hard time for this, shareholders can definitely give him a harder time if they see a (potential) decline in dividend. So cutting cost to keep dividends steady with a decline in profitability and revenue is the easiest fight for him. While it sucks, when working for a large tech company which is publi…

He just spent 1.2 billion dollars. He could have given every last one of those 10k people 2 YEARS to get retrained for that amount.

That's enough time for a new bachelor's degree.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#236

Post by petilon »

pyuser583 wrote: post #217
petilon wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a poorly executed process: "... the reduction of our overall workforce by 10,000 jobs through the end of FY23 Q3". So employees will have to live with uncertainty for the next three months!

All employees get 60 days notice, so it seems like there will be 30 days of uncertainty. Maybe I'm optimistic.

That's not how it works. You won't be told 60 days before you are let go. You will be let go and then given pay for 60 days.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#237

Post by mrep »

_huayra_ wrote: post #66
habosa wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scale of benefits generally looks like: Average US worker << Average EU worker < US Big Tech Worker

I wonder where EU tech workers (big or not) fit in this. Certainly pay is less than US, but when I worked in Europe, everyone took all of their vacation time and generally did not work beyond regular business hours. Where I work today in the US, even junior devs (i.e. no on-call or general need to fight fires outside of regular hours) are grinding away on nights and weekends. The only way I can basically take a half-…

Maybe find a different company. I ski 2 hours every weekday before I start my work day.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#238

Post by DarkNova6 »

aeze wrote: post #189
DarkNova6 wrote: post #178

> Could there be a tech recession? Yes. Was there a bubble in valuations? Absolutely. Did Meta overhire? Probably. I'm glad we agree > But is that why they are laying people off? Of course not. Meta has plenty of money. These companies are all making money. How does this follow any logic at all. He does not even dispute that overhiring took place. Should companies continue with a stupid hiring frenzy until they run o…

I think you may be unintentionally misinterpreting some of the items you've quoted. 1) Layoffs != Hiring frenzy. A company can slow or stop hiring but also not do layoffs. It's actually a common way to downsize softly. 2) Most of these companies are profitable. Running out of money isn't likely.

No, I don't think so.

1) I really have no issues with layoff in Big Tech. They pay very very well and no parent who was let go can't feed his family all of a sudden. If you were even a semi-decent employee, you can find a job at another place quickly. So many places still look for people in spades.

There are as many good business reasons to contract your workforce, as there are bad ones. And it's likely you hired a lot of low-performers and quacks during peak hiring. Now is the time to do so without creating public outrage.

2) This implies that the reason for layoffs are exclusively linked to payrolls. And the guy in the interview suggest as much as well. I dispute this notion.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#239

Post by Ancalagon »

MSFT_Edging wrote: post #198
hnfong wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worse, they're actually sort of using unemployment rate as a benchmark on when the economy has cooled down and when to stop raising the rates. eg. https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2022/10/12/does-the-f... It's politically incorrect to say the Fed is trying to make x% people lose their jobs but that's basically what they're scheming for the past year or so...

Its politically incorrect because you're not supposed to say the quiet part out loud. Our system relies on the fear of the bottom. Capital is in charge, they require the threat of destitution in order to continue to get away with their continued extraction. When wages go up, more power is vested in the worker which isn't okay by the folks at the top.

I didn't used to believe this but its actually true.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 10k workers

#240

Post by rcme »

chimeracoder wrote: post #95
rcme wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you're always able to buy a bad health insurance plan. But you're also able to buy a good health insurance plan, and your pre-existing condition won't impact the price of the good insurance plan.

> Yes, you're always able to buy a bad health insurance plan. But you're also able to buy a good health insurance plan, If one exists , and as I stated in the original post, in many states, even the best plans available on the marketplace are quite terrible. And that's a problem that's actually gotten worse in recent years, not better, as plans have left the exchange (and providers have dropped marketplace plans from…

Do you have any evidence that the plans aren't sufficient? Others in the thread have mentioned they have gotten nearly identical plans to their old employer plans. People I know who buy their own health insurance have totally adequate coverage, and this is in a "blue northeast state" that, according to you, has inadequate options.
Post reply on HN