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

Cisco workforce reductions

blogs.cisco.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 351 posts

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#241

Post by mplanchard »

I briefly worked for Cisco after an acquisition, and it was a great time: I would get my sprint’s worth of work done in two days, ask if I could do anything else and be told no, and then spend the rest of the two weeks doing whatever I wanted, which at the time was learning Rust.

All that is to say, I would not be remotely surprised if Cisco has more employees than they strictly need. But, this email from the CEO is comically out of touch. “We’re doing great, better than we’ve ever done, so we’re going to fire thousands of you” is a chef’s kiss encapsulation of American corporate culture.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#242

Post by dial9-1 »

darkwater wrote: post #165

Here we have a PR statement of a company announcing at the same time record revenues AND cutting 4000 jobs and the longest thread is complaining about Indian workers instead of bitching about the dystopian reality we live in where Cisco's behavior is accepted and acceptable. Also, H1B are issued and requested by the company. Blame the system, not the immigrants .

those 4000 laid off people will be replaced with 6000 H1B's. also why can't we hold both of them accountable?

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#244

Post by simianwords »

hansmayer wrote: post #236
simianwords wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> all evidence points to AI bringing at least 10-20% more productivity. No, actually all evidence points exactly to a ~20% slowdown> https://metr.org/blog/2025-07-10-early-2025-ai-experienced-o... The "evidence" that you think about is probably that dopamine hit you felt when the shit-generator spat out a complete half-finished react app. But that's not evidence of increased productivity, unless we now measure produc…

Newer evidence from same group invalidates the outdated claim https://metr.org/blog/2026-05-11-ai-usage-survey/

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#245

Post by suddenlybananas »

intended wrote: post #238
suddenlybananas wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You don’t need political will in other nations. Yes you do if you want to change their labour laws.

> Yes you do if you want to change their labour laws. You aren't changing the labour laws in their nations. If firms want to trade with American firms, then they have to have certain work norms that they abide by in their contracts/.

Which is an extremely aggressive trade policy that would not be accepted by other states and would be viewed as an infringement on their sovereignty.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#247

Post by bravetraveler »

somewhatgoated wrote: post #243
misnome wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you should compare to self-hosted GitHub

Which has an uptime of 0 because it doesn’t exist

> because it doesn’t exist

I'm not so sure, and I'm looking at the friggin' thing: https://enterprise.github.com/trial

For the small, small price of your business email address, it's yours.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#248

Post by [deleted] »

anal_reactor wrote: post #139
passive wrote: post #46

My extremely cynical, but not yet proven wrong view: Tech, more or less, has a group of investors centered around Silicon Valley. Not the only ones, but especially now, the most active. Generally, these folk have a lot of exposure to AI, and probably mostly believe the hype around it. Which means they believe companies using AI should produce better results, which in the current market means short-term cash. So if a…

>My extremely cynical, but not yet proven wrong view 1. FAANG does something that's relevant to their company. 2. Everyone thinks that this is an universally good move because they're FAANG. 3. Market rewards copying FAANG regardless whether that strategy also applies to your company. Simple as that.

[deleted]

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#249

Post by throwaway0123_5 »

lbreakjai wrote: post #218
banach wrote: post #37

This is why corporations need to be owned and operated by the employees.

If 51% of the employees would benefit from firing the other 49%, you'd be as good as gone anyway. Not saying it would be worse, but the same incentives are at play.

Presumably ~100% of the employees want to feel secure in their jobs, so I don't think this would happen unless the benefit to the 51% is extreme.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#250

Post by senordevnyc »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #126
boguscoder wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alas this happens in all FAANG layoffs too, some lucky people get to received one more vest but nothing close to all unvested RSUs

How is that legal? I thought the entire point of delayed vesting was to disincentivize jumping ship. If they're the ones throwing you overboard clawing back RSUs seems like a roundabout form of wage theft.

I always viewed them as future comp that was locked at a certain rate (in terms of number of shares per quarter). I got four years of unvested stock on day 1 when I joined a tech company, why on earth would I think I'm entitled to all that if I leave before it's vested?
Post reply on HN