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

241–250 of 294 posts

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

#241

Post by JumpCrisscross »

janalsncm wrote: post #239
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.

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 worke…

> 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

Unions are inefficient--only those represented get benefits. And they're unnecessary. Most countries with good worker rights have low union penetration. Unions in America are a dead end. They let electeds toss a bone to the ten percent of Americans in a union while delaying broad reforms.

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

#242

Post by slg »

pandaman wrote: post #198
slg wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The unions have power in the industry and they work to maintain that power. That includes trying to establish rules making it difficult for union members to work non-union gigs and vice versa. This gives incentives for studios to make their productions union jobs which strengthens the union. An actor who refuses to join the union will have a harder time getting work because people generally don't want to deal with th…

>An actor who refuses to join the union will have a harder time getting work This does not make membership an option, does it then? This is exactly the reason programmers like myself oppose the unions. Bringing up SAG in this context seems to be counter-productive to me but you can do that if you think this increases union's support somehow. So I was wrong on the Jordan's membership, then who was playing in NBA witho…

>This does not make membership an option, does it then?

Yes it does. You are just redefining the meaning of "choice" now. There is always going to be pros and cons to any choice including this one. What do you want the non-union membership to look like? There are obviously going to be downsides to not joining the union or else there would be no reason to join the union and if there was no reason to join the union, it wouldn't exist.

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

#243

Post by cj »

hotpotamus wrote: post #68
rocgf wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally, in my circles, most truly thought that this won't have an impact in the compensation levels. Always struck me as incredibly short-sighted and your comment is actually the first I see that explicitly states what I thought as well. There is still an argument that, if you truly want top talent, then that top talent might actually want to live in high COL locations like NY or whatever.

I've had private equity people tell me prior to the pandemic that if a job can be done from home, then it can be done from India. It basically makes sense to me. I know the common rejoinders about time zones (which ignores that there are plenty of cheaper countries south of the US) and culture/language, but I suppose we'll see if the FAANGs can overcome those issues; many companies have gone before in this regard. It…

> I know the common rejoinders about time zones

Cheat code: most engineers in India will agree to work US hours if they're compensated accordingly. "Compensated accordingly" is still well below even the lowest US engineering salaries, and still in the top 1% income percentile in India.

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

#244

Post by pandaman »

slg wrote: post #242
pandaman wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>An actor who refuses to join the union will have a harder time getting work This does not make membership an option, does it then? This is exactly the reason programmers like myself oppose the unions. Bringing up SAG in this context seems to be counter-productive to me but you can do that if you think this increases union's support somehow. So I was wrong on the Jordan's membership, then who was playing in NBA witho…

>This does not make membership an option, does it then? Yes it does. You are just redefining the meaning of "choice" now. There is always going to be pros and cons to any choice including this one. What do you want the non-union membership to look like? There are obviously going to be downsides to not joining the union or else there would be no reason to join the union and if there was no reason to join the union, it…

Well, you said it's not true that you can play in Hollywood and NBA w/o being a union member. Apparently either it's true (even Joh Voight you gave as an example has to become a member to do Hollywood production as in pay dues and follow uinion regulations) or there is no choice, up to you.

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

#245

Post by coolspot »

WalterBright wrote: post #192
cryptonector wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to think so, before I understood that we live in a mercantilist world economy. I still think protectionism would be bad in a less distorted economy, and I think it's bad in as-distorted an economy as ours (because people who are subjected to pressure are more likely to be adaptive and dynamic), but it's harder to make the case, don't you think?

Protectionism means you're protecting inefficient industries. In a global marketplace, this means industries in other countries will out-compete yours.

Usually they out-compete yours because they burn coal and you have to buy solar, they commute in packed trains while you drive tesla to work, they live in tiny apartments, while your house has a backyard and frontyard.

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

#246

Post by gv83 »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #75
neovive wrote: post #57

> “As we continue to execute on our FY24 plan, we need to also evolve how we work and what we prioritize so we can deliver on the key initiatives we’ve identified that will have an outsized impact in achieving our business goals,” LinkedIn executives Mohak Shroff and Tomer Cohen wrote in the memo. Is this standard business communication lingo for layoffs?

Short answer is: in memos, yes. You will note that in the interviews, also depending on audience, the executives may be a little less corporate: "We don't have room for bystanders, we don't have room for people who want to stand on the sidelines,"[1] [1] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/citigroup-outlines-layoff-pro...

But they won’t change me to another team because some Spotify model and long lived team bullshit and I’m forced in the sidelines

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

#247

Post by slg »

pandaman wrote: post #244
slg wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This does not make membership an option, does it then? Yes it does. You are just redefining the meaning of "choice" now. There is always going to be pros and cons to any choice including this one. What do you want the non-union membership to look like? There are obviously going to be downsides to not joining the union or else there would be no reason to join the union and if there was no reason to join the union, it…

Well, you said it's not true that you can play in Hollywood and NBA w/o being a union member. Apparently either it's true (even Joh Voight you gave as an example has to become a member to do Hollywood production as in pay dues and follow uinion regulations) or there is no choice, up to you.

>even Joh Voight you gave as an example has to become a member to do Hollywood production as in pay dues and follow uinion regulations

I already provided a link that proved this wrong. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but that other commenter is right, you aren't engaging in this conversation in good faith.

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

#248

Post by samsolomon »

ecshafer wrote: post #49
raybb wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are some tech worker unions (like at NYT) but not enough. A relevant book that recently came out but I have not read is You Deserve a Tech Union by Ethan Marcotte https://abookapart.com/products/you-deserve-a-tech-union

The biography for Ethan marcotte says he is responsible for “responsive web design”, which looks like he made wrote some book in 2010 about the topic. But didn’t actually write the browser code, specifications, frameworks or anything that actually allows responsive web design. Not was he involved in any of the first examples. Kind of tangential but that seems like a resume stuffer at best and stolen valor at worst.

He coined the term and wrote a lot of the early guidance for designing responsively for the web. Most of that is common knowledge now, but back in 2010 he was definitely on the cutting edge.

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

#249

Post by adharmad »

neovive wrote: post #57

> “As we continue to execute on our FY24 plan, we need to also evolve how we work and what we prioritize so we can deliver on the key initiatives we’ve identified that will have an outsized impact in achieving our business goals,” LinkedIn executives Mohak Shroff and Tomer Cohen wrote in the memo. Is this standard business communication lingo for layoffs?

It gets proportionally easier to say such things with a straight face as the size of the exec's golden parachute increases.

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

#250

Post by pandaman »

slg wrote: post #247
pandaman wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, you said it's not true that you can play in Hollywood and NBA w/o being a union member. Apparently either it's true (even Joh Voight you gave as an example has to become a member to do Hollywood production as in pay dues and follow uinion regulations) or there is no choice, up to you.

>even Joh Voight you gave as an example has to become a member to do Hollywood production as in pay dues and follow uinion regulations I already provided a link that proved this wrong. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but that other commenter is right, you aren't engaging in this conversation in good faith.

Same here, you came out and claimed there is no forced membership in NBA and SAG, which I took in good faith and did some research. It appears that no, you really cannot play in NBA or Hollywood without being a member in some sense (paying dues, obeying regulations but not having the right to vote). Now you are trying to present this as if union is completely voluntarily and not being a member having grave consequences is just some coincidence and my bad faith...
Post reply on HN