291–300 of 351 posts
"I could not be prouder of the growth you delivered" Note the "you delivered"... --- A few lines later "With this, we are making changes today that will result in the reduction of our overall workforce in Q4 by fewer than 4,000 jobs" Rough, bit on the nose no?
My company just did something like this. We completed a big redesign and the CEO sent an email saying how proud he was of our work. Layoffs started the next week.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love how “it was a great time” = “I worked two days a week” Any job that pays a full week and only requires two days of work is a “great time” tells you literally nothing about the actual job.
Yeah I mean, I was being a bit sarcastic. As the sibling points out, I was getting paid a full time salary to largely do whatever I wanted. But, it was also soul crushing to have so little meaningful work to do. I left within a year of the acquisition as a result. The actual job was working on a python server for the acquired company, and it’s not like there wasn’t more work to do, but we were not allowed to go outsi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love how “it was a great time” = “I worked two days a week” Any job that pays a full week and only requires two days of work is a “great time” tells you literally nothing about the actual job.
Funny that you expect an employee to view a great time as meaning more than successfully exploiting advantage to the employers disadvantage in a relationship with Cisco.
Crazy right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should we be ok with this? Just because something is the norm doesn’t mean it should be nor does it mean it’s moral.
Because it's just as beneficial to society to say "we're doing the same work with fewer workers" as "we're doing the same work with fewer trucks" or "we're doing the same work with fewer barrels of oil".
And people who don't have jobs are a drain on society, unlike trucks. So we're left hoping those people find jobs quickly. And the impact on those individuals isn't great - they either lose or have to pay massively more OOP for health coverage, the stress has physical impacts, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure but you know what doesn’t help, defending CEOs. Calling out CEOs expands the number of people who realize this is immoral and who find statements like this repulsive. The more people that find this announcement repulsive the more likely we’ll get actual political change. As for the CEO the only moral response is to quit and force someone else to write this statement.
I'm convinced most/all C-suite (at least at big enough companies) are sociopaths. It's the only explanation I have for how they do the things they do and sleep at night. I've had to lay off a few people over the years. It's by far the worst part of my job. I loose sleep for weeks, can't eat, etc whenever it happens. If I was a normal part of my job, I'd have to quit because it's unhealthy.
These reason this statement and many like it are so heinous is because they do not even pretend to say they had no other choice in order for the company to survive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah but when you get old enough you get sacked and cant get employed anywhere and have to start frying chicken. So..
As opposed to what happens in the US, you mean?
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…
I look at it a bit differently. I bet Cisco's overall employment will only rise over time maybe even this year but certainly in the years to come. But the point is they do need to rebalance the kind of focus area they have. In other words someone who's great at one part of the technology stack might not be who they need for a different part and the priorities change over time. The reality is Cisco does a huge amount…