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

LinkedIn laying off nearly 700, mostly from core engineering teams

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 294 posts

Re: LinkedIn laying off nearly 700, mostly from core engineering teams

#231

Post by bettercallsalad »

coldpie wrote: post #4

Good news for those 700: because we don't have tech worker unions, they are able to individually bargain the terms of their layoff! ...right?

You are forgetting the root cause of why all the tech layoffs happened.

Between mid 2020 and early 2022, tech was the place investors were willing to pay any money even at a ridiculous P/E. It wasn’t because the value proposition suddenly shifted to tech but money was plentiful and looking for places to go and tech was the place that could give you high return.

Fast forward, US Fed has decided there is too much inflation and consumers need to slow down so they are shrinking their balance sheet. Investors suddenly are getting 8% return basically without any risk. Why would you invest in tech and all the volatility when you can get that return. Suddenly companies that could raise money and rollover their debt in peanut interest expenses are seeing money has dried up.

There is one and only one responsible for this mess. Central Bankers. They had absolutely no idea what they were and are talking about including very basic things such as where would inflation and interest rate go in short term. In 8 months, they went from “we need deflation and we foresee low interest till 2024” to largest inflationary environment since 1980s and highest interest rates. And of course they face no consequences. #EndTheFed

Re: LinkedIn laying off nearly 700, mostly from core engineering teams

#232

Post by wildrhythms »

catlover76 wrote: post #130
deviantbit wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A free market is one that is protected. Unfortunately nothing in the USA is protected. Our borders, our jobs, our votes. Those in control only care about themselves.

Economic protectionism is mostly just a form of socialism (save for those sectors where it can be supported by a natsec rationale). Me and many others are cool with socialism. Are you?

Socialism means worker ownership of the means of production; it has nothing to do with 'economic protectionism' by the state.

Re: LinkedIn laying off nearly 700, mostly from core engineering teams

#233

Post by maximinus_thrax »

stfp wrote: post #153

> For those who are directly affected by these changes, you will receive a calendar invitation within the next hour Is it just me or does this suck a lot? Thousands of people unsure about their fate, refreshing their calendar, checking for... the lack of an invite? So much added stress and anxiety. Surely they could send two versions of the email, specifying to each person if they are affected or not.

> Thousands of people unsure about their fate, refreshing their calendar, checking for... the lack of an invite? So much added stress and anxiety.

> within the next hour

This is great. One hour? Last time we had layoffs I was watching my calendar daily for weeks! There was no timeline at all. I had anxiety every morning logging into work. I think that was a huge part of the burnout I'm currently experiencing.

Re: LinkedIn laying off nearly 700, mostly from core engineering teams

#234

Post by vunderba »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #181
JohnFen wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's no more extortiony than how employers treat their employees. Collective bargaining is pretty much the only tool workers have to even begin to correct the power differential between employer and employee. Ideally, it allows employees and employers to negotiate on more equal terms than is otherwise possible.

> Collective bargaining is pretty much the only tool workers have No, it isn’t. There is the individual threat of quitting. And there are the courts.

Ridiculously naive take. And both of these on an individual level are so diluted as to basically be meaningless.

1. An individual quitting at a company where they are one single cog doesn't impact the company in any measurable way.

2. The court system in the west gives an asymmetric level of power toward the corporation, an individual has neither the time, the money, or the ability to navigate an ongoing protracted lawsuit with a corp that dwarfs them in all three aspects.

Re: LinkedIn laying off nearly 700, mostly from core engineering teams

#235

Post by FireBeyond »

WalterBright wrote: post #190
FireBeyond wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are very few cases where the company is not allowed to hire other people. They may have a hard time, but it's generally allowed. > Whereas the employee is free to go to work for some other company at any time. And generally the employer is free to fire people at any time. And to forbid employees from working elsewhere. I don't think your examples hold up to scrutiny.

They don't? Employers cannot fire striking employees. Or fire any that may look like retaliation for union activity. > And to forbid employees from working elsewhere That's simply not true.

> They don't? Employers cannot fire striking employees. Or fire any that may look like retaliation for union activity.

Who said anything about that? Scab labor is an extremely common thing. How you come to the conclusion that "the company is not allowed to hire other people to replace the striking workers", I'm entirely unsure. For two very popular examples, both in the air travel industry, both pilot's strikes and ATC strikes have had "other people hired to replace striking workers", with varying degrees of notoriety (being at Boeing, I can't imagine you being entirely unaware of either).

> That's simply not true.

Many employment contracts have "no moonlighting" clauses. Only two states specifically forbid them: Washington, and Washington DC (and Washington's policy only affects lower-paid workers) (https://sbshrs.adpinfo.com/blog/7-faqs-about-moonlighting-po... and https://www.rocketlawyer.com/business-and-contracts/employer...)

Re: LinkedIn laying off nearly 700, mostly from core engineering teams

#236

Post by JumpCrisscross »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #230
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe if China had labor unions their software engineers wouldn’t be working 996 Again, you're ignoring that countries with terrific worker protections have, on average, low union penetration. The one is uncorrelated with the other. In America, unions principally serve as a distraction. We periodically throw a few industries a bone while most workers get zero protection.

Unions are the only path to success when Congress is operating in a degraded governance state. Do you know how many worker hours will be exhausted in suboptimal labor conditions waiting for Congress to pass human labor protections? Strong legislative labor protections would be wonderful, but they are not on offer in the present day United States. Congress won't function until the cohorts who vote for representatives…

> Unions are the only path to success when Congress is operating in a degraded governance state

Congress is divided, but still generally productive [1]. Expanding labor protections simply isn't a political priority. Also, this can be done at the state and local levels.

> Do you know how many worker hours will be exhausted in suboptimal labor conditions waiting for Congress to pass human labor protections?

About as many as there are laid off writers? Ten percent of Americans are in unions [2]. Doubling union membership in a year has less effect than waiting ten years to pass protections into law.

[1] https://datainnovation.org/2023/01/visualizing-congressional...

[2] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf

Re: LinkedIn laying off nearly 700, mostly from core engineering teams

#237

Post by JumpCrisscross »

vunderba wrote: post #234
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Collective bargaining is pretty much the only tool workers have No, it isn’t. There is the individual threat of quitting. And there are the courts.

Ridiculously naive take. And both of these on an individual level are so diluted as to basically be meaningless. 1. An individual quitting at a company where they are one single cog doesn't impact the company in any measurable way. 2. The court system in the west gives an asymmetric level of power toward the corporation, an individual has neither the time, the money, or the ability to navigate an ongoing protracted l…

> both of these on an individual level are so diluted as to basically be meaningless

I've personally used both to extract concessions from employers.

In any case, my general point is that we need more protections in law for workers. Unions are a good way to distract from that.

Re: LinkedIn laying off nearly 700, mostly from core engineering teams

#238

Post by kar5pt »

paxys wrote: post #24
LewisVerstappen wrote: post #3

> LinkedIn is now ramping up hiring in India, according the person familiar. So, laying off people in the US and hiring in India?

Is anyone really surprised? Did you think the end result of the WFH movement was going to be companies continuing to pay you to live out of your Bay Area house?

I would be expect the result to be zero because companies respond to financial incentives, not cultural "movements". Do you really think driving to an office will stop this?

Re: LinkedIn laying off nearly 700, mostly from core engineering teams

#239

Post by janalsncm »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #225
janalsncm wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe if China had labor unions their software engineers wouldn’t be working 996.

> Maybe if China had labor unions their software engineers wouldn’t be working 996 Again, you're ignoring that countries with terrific worker protections have, on average, low union penetration. The one is uncorrelated with the other. In America, unions principally serve as a distraction. We periodically throw a few industries a bone while most workers get zero protection.

Individually, workers have very little bargaining power. Collectively, we have a lot of power. So unless you’re arguing that workers would deliberately argue for fewer protections, I don’t see how not having collective bargaining could lead to more workers’ rights.

The fact of the matter is, God gave us Sunday off and unions gave us Saturday off. Unions were the reason child labor was banned in the U.S. We have worker’s comp and the 40 hour work week was standardized. None of those things would’ve resulted from the benevolence of profit maximizing corporations.

Re: LinkedIn laying off nearly 700, mostly from core engineering teams

#240

Post by leksak »

bogtog wrote: post #211
catlover76 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> LeBron James is also underpaid, at least his NBA salary. By what logic?

The NBA has a cap on how much each player can make (around $50M this year). Lebron could be, say, worth $100M/yr, yet they can't be paid this. I'm guessing that there are around a dozen players in the league worth more than the max salary.

$50M is not underpaid for any profession, that sounds like a sizeable salary regardless of what you do or the sacrifices you have to make.
Post reply on HN