Google to reduce workforce by 12k • Hacker News Board

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#231

Post by paganel » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:54 AM UTC

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…

> Does a company need to have an excuse to let people go? Is there a right to stay employed?

When you work for a small to medium company yeah, I expect something like responsibility and a little more than "just contractual obligations" (from both sides, both the employer and the employee).

But it when it comes to behemoths like Alphabet things change completely, it's all about the money and the contract.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#232

Post by rco8786 » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:54 AM UTC

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.

He said responsibility, not consequences. I am still not sure what people expect CEOs to do in these situations to "punish" themselves. Google is not going bankrupt, they are still wildly profitable, they overhired and are adjusting headcount by a few percent.

It sucks for the people affected, I don't want to downplay that. But I'm genuinely curious what is supposed to happen to the leader in these situations.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#233

Post by whatyesaid » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:55 AM UTC

jatins wrote: post #100

I wonder if 6% really moves the needle in terms of cost. Coupled with the fact they are still hiring it feels like succumbing to investor pressure rather than a real cost cutting measure.

In the UK they only have 20 roles for hiring and it's been that way for months prior. Not development jobs by the way, that's all jobs.

I've also heard other companies paused hiring (Amazon?) and basically stopped interviewing yet their websites advertise plenty of roles. I wouldn't consider them reliable. You could say it's almost as if they want people to think there are opportunities to aim for at such companies...

What you'll have to see is for the next round of "top" CS graduates how it is.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#234

Post by ergonaught » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:56 AM UTC

I need to see these "I take full responsibility" people actually punished. At the very least, this sentence needs to be removed from their mouths.

Alphabet had 116 billion USD "cash on hand" at the end of September 2022. Even if the full cost of each of those 12K employees is 500K per year, that's "only" 6 billion dollars to keep those "great" people that they "love" working with around.

Net income for that quarter was almost 14 billion dollars, and net income for "that year" was almost 67 billion dollars.

Things are in decline, sure, but clearly this is a company that can actually afford to keep "great" people that they "love" working with employed, so "affecting Googlers lives" doesn't have to "weight heavily" on anyone.

Sorry, but these antics require revolution. Not a friendly chat with the brand imagery wizards. Not a "well just use DuckDuckGo".

It's rare to encounter a whole "class" of people more desperately deserving barbarians at the gates of their tower.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#235

Post by lmm » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:56 AM UTC

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…

> Does a company need to have an excuse to let people go? Is there a right to stay employed?

Generally in developed countries, yes.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#236

Post by LaGrange » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:56 AM UTC

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

cockups?

> As usual, he says nothing more what the consequences for him are.

...and that's why I don't think those are cockups.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#237

Post by refused_cov_vax » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:56 AM UTC

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.

>I rank the odds of you getting hurt by these specific discrimination practices aimed at you low, so stop mentioning them!

No. Humans are not equal in aptitude. Neither are human groups. Either account for it, or don't, but be consistent.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#238

Post by dom96 » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:56 AM UTC

bearmode wrote: post #5

ak_111 wrote: post #4

Question for those who got laid-off from tech recently (say since Aug last year): how hard did you find it to get another tech job? Would be interesting to get some anecdotal evidence to shed light on the following WSJ article which claims laid-off tech workers are finding it easy to get re-recruited: https://www.wsj.com/articles/laid-off-tech-workers-quickly-f... If the phenomena described in the WSJ article is true…

Not been laid off myself, but I'm still being absolutely hounded by recruiters. There are still a ton of tech jobs out there, at least in the UK.

Really? Where are you located in the UK? In London I have noticed a definite reduction in recruiter reach outs in comparison to 2022 (and even then it was mainly finance companies)

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#239

Post by rpastuszak » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:57 AM UTC

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’m becoming more and more convinced that they’re preparing for a global recession.

Wait, are you telling me that I picked a wrong time to quick my job and work on side projects, again?

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#240

Post by kkoncevicius » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:57 AM UTC

lmm wrote: post #235

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…

> Does a company need to have an excuse to let people go? Is there a right to stay employed? Generally in developed countries, yes.

Oh, this is new to me. Which developed countries have the right to stay employed?