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

301–310 of 351 posts

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#301

Post by eudamoniac »

hansmayer wrote: post #239

> Today we announced our Q3 FY26 earnings with record revenue of $15.8 billion, up 12 percent year over year, and double-digit top and bottom-line growth. The ELT and I could not be prouder of the growth you have all delivered for Cisco. What a sick, deeply disconnected opener. Essentially a big FU to their employees. All these AI-first geniuses will eventually bring about is people intentionally slowing down their "…

> people intentionally slowing down their "productivity" while maxxing the shit out of the company token budget.

I have actually started doing this. At first I was just slowing down productivity, but then I realized that if everyone is going to breathe down my neck about token use, I can just use a shitload and not utilize the output for anything. I consider this game theory optimal and possibly most ethical.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#302

Post by eudamoniac »

senordevnyc wrote: post #263
fc417fc802 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you see it as dangling future compensation in front of you then you wouldn't, obviously. But then why is it structured in that manner? What's the purpose? If you view it as a signing bonus it makes perfect sense. They want to get you in the door but also don't want you to take advantage of them by quitting immediately. In that case you wouldn't be entitled to it if you left voluntarily or were fired for cause but…

It’s structured that way to disincentivize leaving voluntarily, which I think is fine. What’s the problem with that? And why would that imply that if I’m laid off, I’m still entitled to that future compensation?

In the worst case, it's highly misleading. Imagine you get paid a pittance but with a huge RSU grant vesting on a 2 year cliff. Salary 50k, total comp 500k. Then they fire you after 23 months. You took the job because of the stock grants, you had no intention of quitting, but they got 2 years of good talent for 50k.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#303

Post by eudamoniac »

absolutewinner wrote: post #290
devsda wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know cisco doesn't do yearly vesting but at the companies that follow yearly vesting, losing job a week or a month or even 6 months before next vesting date is absolutely wage theft unless they do a full or pro-rated vesting of shares in the upcoming tranche.

Cisco absolutely does yearly vesting.

No they don't. I worked there until recently. They do bimonthly vesting I believe, or something close to it; I had somewhere between 5 and 10 vesting events per year. There is a 1 year cliff sometimes, but that's not the same thing.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#304

Post by hansmayer »

eudamoniac wrote: post #301
hansmayer wrote: post #239

> Today we announced our Q3 FY26 earnings with record revenue of $15.8 billion, up 12 percent year over year, and double-digit top and bottom-line growth. The ELT and I could not be prouder of the growth you have all delivered for Cisco. What a sick, deeply disconnected opener. Essentially a big FU to their employees. All these AI-first geniuses will eventually bring about is people intentionally slowing down their "…

> people intentionally slowing down their "productivity" while maxxing the shit out of the company token budget. I have actually started doing this. At first I was just slowing down productivity, but then I realized that if everyone is going to breathe down my neck about token use, I can just use a shitload and not utilize the output for anything. I consider this game theory optimal and possibly most ethical.

Of course it's ethical - these guys have been persistent in creating a jungle-like environment for all of us. In such a situation, acting primarily for your own egoistic interests is indeed the most ethical choice you could make. I applaud you for doing so.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#305

Post by eudamoniac »

siren2026 wrote: post #61
declan_roberts wrote: post #38

This type of thing should come along with a reduction of allowed H-1bs.

Cisco especially is absolutely full of H1Bs. As someone that has worked for them a decade ago, some of their division are >90% Indian. Those are all good engineers and not dunking on them at all but it should be unacceptable to bring over competing workers on a visa while also laying off so many people.

There are more than a few entire divisions of Indians. Indian manager, 10-12 Indian subs. And these divisions are not in India. Not sure how this flies, legally.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#306

Post by [deleted] »

rayiner wrote: post #115
siren2026 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cisco especially is absolutely full of H1Bs. As someone that has worked for them a decade ago, some of their division are >90% Indian. Those are all good engineers and not dunking on them at all but it should be unacceptable to bring over competing workers on a visa while also laying off so many people.

Do you think there was ethnic favoritism going on?

[deleted]

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#307

Post by eudamoniac »

senordevnyc wrote: post #253

A bit off-topic, but I'm curious: why do so many people seem to be outraged when companies do layoffs? I genuinely don't understand. It's like there's this unspoken agreement that once you get hired, you're entitled to that job for life. Of course, you are free to leave whenever you want, nothing wrong with that, but many seem to see it as immoral or unethical for the company to decide they don't need you anymore, an…

Yeah I'm with you, I think 99% of the reaction is just anger that big corp took away small workers' job, with no further thought.

To try to steelman it best I can, maybe it's the feeling that a successful company should (ethically) pass on the success to the workers in some way. Like, my labor resulted in record revenue, but instead of a raise I'm getting fired. Feels bad.

Also if workers reacted game theoretically correctly to this situation, they would work just enough to not get fired for cause, since working hard is not rewarded. This is overall bad because if everyone starts doing the bare minimum it's not a pleasant place to work. So it's basically the company forcing the workplace into becoming worse, and actually harming themselves in the long run if everyone reacted that way, so the company is being shortsighted. So then the workers are mad because the company isn't even laying them off for "rational" reasons.

Once you accept that employment is just a roulette wheel that you spin quarterly, it becomes less frustrating, but also becomes more soul sucking.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#308

Post by eudamoniac »

mplanchard wrote: post #241

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…

When I worked for Cisco I was doing ~4hrs of work per week, excluding meetings, and always got top performance bonus. I didn't even have many meetings. I only left because my soul stopped being able to take it.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#309

Post by xboxnolifes »

renticulous wrote: post #159
xboxnolifes wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ive seen this exact analogy on HN quite a few times now, and its a bit odd (read: nonsensical). You dont tend to employ construction workers directly to build your house. You contract a housing company, who contracts construction companies (or has inhouse workers), who do keep their employees employed.

The individual is his own construction company in this scenario. Just like the construction company has to advertise itself to keep getting contracts, here the individual has to do the same with employers. The analogy is not superficial.

The analogy is superficial because it makes absolutely no sense. Analogies are supposed to be analogous.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#310

Post by spjwebster »

greatgib wrote: post #274
mplanchard wrote: post #241

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…

Actually it is the current comic trend. The business is sound and we are doing great but we will reduce workforce for pleasure. I think that in most places the business is going bad in fact, but if you were to believe their words it will show a very despicable spirit of the current decade where the goal is to enjoy maximum profit without any care at all to do any good. Before a boss might enjoy to have a sound busine…

My eldest is currently taking her GCSEs, and for the English Literature exam this week she had to write an essay on A Christmas Carol. Whilst helping her, I couldn't help but realise that the overarching messages around the importance of social responsibility are becoming increasingly relevant again.
Post reply on HN