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

Google to reduce workforce by 12k

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 1001 posts

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#291

Post by Rexxar »

przemelek wrote: post #270
ergonaught wrote: post #234

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 w…

But it sounds better than "Sorry for terminating your positions but we need to keep our finances in check not to loose share values, and we are accountable for shareholders" (edited from "Sorry for terminating your positions but we need to keep our finances in check not to loose share values, and according to law it is only thing we are force to do")

Which law ?

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#292

Post by ipython »

Rezwoodly wrote: post #274
ergonaught wrote: post #234

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 w…

Elon musk set a precedent - you can treat your employees (serfs) like shit and get away with it. Layoffs, perks being removed, the tone has generally shifted to "look we have free coffee" to "we own you, be glad to have a job, oh and you might not actually have a job after all". This is a change of winds, instead of pandering to engineers companies are trying to debase us and remind us where we are in the totem pole.…

Oh, please. Elon has nothing to do with this. Workers have had the shaft for centuries. Tech workers have been treated with kid gloves compared to the “real” world.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#294

Post by IshKebab »

yodsanklai wrote: post #194
shapefrog wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Firstly, attrition, simply don't replace those that leave Nobody is retiring - why would you, you get a fat pay cheque and once you get out of the meat grinder Jr levels life is pretty good. Oh and if they fire you rather than you retiring, they have to pay you another stack of cash and keep those options that vest in a few years. "Seeing people posting about being laid off after 30 years of employment at Microsoft…

> Nobody is retiring - why would you Turnover rates in these companies are pretty high! Surprisingly many employees leave after 1-2 years.

Yeah but are those the good employees?

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#295

Post by toyg »

Rezwoodly wrote: post #274
ergonaught wrote: post #234

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 w…

Elon musk set a precedent - you can treat your employees (serfs) like shit and get away with it. Layoffs, perks being removed, the tone has generally shifted to "look we have free coffee" to "we own you, be glad to have a job, oh and you might not actually have a job after all". This is a change of winds, instead of pandering to engineers companies are trying to debase us and remind us where we are in the totem pole.…

> Elon musk set a precedent - you can treat your employees (serfs) like shit and get away with it.

Really? That habit is older than Henry Ford.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#296

Post by gmd63 »

jstx1 wrote: post #278
ergonaught wrote: post #234

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 w…

> 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. There's some infantile obsession with this phrase in every layoff thread. "I take full responsibility" is partly a polite way to say that they aren't blaming anyone else for what's happening, it partly means "I'm the one making this decision" and it's partly ceremony for…

The point being made is that there are no negative consequences to being responsible, so it's an empty statement. It doesn't even mean anything. They're making the decision because they're being rewarded for it by maintaining a certain level of profitability in the financial reporting game.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#297

Post by TomSwirly »

jstx1 wrote: post #278
ergonaught wrote: post #234

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 w…

> 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. There's some infantile obsession with this phrase in every layoff thread. "I take full responsibility" is partly a polite way to say that they aren't blaming anyone else for what's happening, it partly means "I'm the one making this decision" and it's partly ceremony for…

"If someone lies, it's your problem, not theirs."

What sort of argument is that?!

They are not "taking responsibility" to the slightest degree. It's an empty, enraging statement like, "Thoughts and prayers."

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#298

Post by jstummbillig »

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.

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

It's a company, and it is publicly traded. Thinkable consequences are plentiful and unspecific. Everything that can be imagined will be reflected in how well it is doing.

What I imagine you are actually asking for are not "consequences" but "punishment". Which is understandable: People are hurt in this and where is the justice. But if we start to think it only be fair to personally hurt people who (to the best of our knowledge) inflict pain while acting legally and only as a side effect (while trying to do what is best in terms of their job description) we are on a somewhat weird path, where the more responsibility you have, the more okay it is to have you personally suffer.

For that, I am not willing to "punish" a CEO who is exercising their legal power, because they did something other people dislike. The responsibility is theirs, which, apparently, as a general concept, we are also okay with as long as it goes smoothly.

If we (as a society) think that what we have right now what we want, we need new rules for what businesses are allowed to do.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#299

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

oblio wrote: post #282
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is a company with a fiduciary obligation to maximize shareholder profits. The average employee laid off is going to have 2 months of work - paid - to find a new job, plus an additional close to ~$80k or so to hold them over til they find a new job. If Google hires people they don't need anymore - regardless of how good they are - are they supposed to just keep them on payroll indefinitely? Why? Why are we feel…

They could shuffle them around for 6-9-12 months first... Now they're just saying "you're bad for our company, period", which is demonstrably false. Some people lost motivation for their current project, current team, current manager, current org, etc, they just need a jolt. > Google is a company with a fiduciary obligation to maximize shareholder profits. Yes, both true and also a cop out. We should freaking put it…

> We should freaking put it in the legal description of a corporation that they also have social responsibility.

Until that happens - people should blame the company, it's the system you have beef with.

> Otherwise if you follow your definition to its logical conclusion you end up with the East India Company starving 25% of Bengalis to death because that "maximized shareholder profits"

Isn't this essentially what we have now? With US companies employing lots of people in Bangladesh & Philippines for like $2 for 10 hours of labor - living and working in unimaginably poor conditions by Western standards?

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#300

Post by treeman79 »

ergonaught wrote: post #234

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 w…

Should companies keep paying people they don’t need or want ?
Post reply on HN