Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then you should compare to self-hosted GitHub
Which has an uptime of 0 because it doesn’t exist
Not only does it exist, but we've never been impacted by any of these GitHub outages going on.
Cisco workforce reductions
311–320 of 351 posts
Re: Cisco workforce reductions
#312Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You want the company to share surplus with you but you won't share your surplus with construction workers. Is that fair?
Re: Cisco workforce reductions
#313Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Indians hire only Indians. I've worked for Indian managers several times and they all hired non-Indian people.
I think both can be true.
I have seen teams that are 100% Indians with a manager actively pushing Indian resumes and friends/family on top. They don’t play nice and by the DEI rules like a lot of Americans do.
But I have also seen amazing Indian managers that don’t act like this.
It’s ok to acknowledge that culturally Indians will favor themselves heavily. As bad as some of you want to make it sound like racism to close that conversation at all cost.
Re: Cisco workforce reductions
#314Re: Cisco workforce reductions
#315Earlier 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.
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.
[deleted]
Re: Cisco workforce reductions
#316Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This is how we got Luigi and it's why no one was really too upset with what he "allegedly" did.
speak for yourself, i'm not a big fan of murder
Re: Cisco workforce reductions
#317Im sure all these layoffs will increase profit hence taxes right?
Re: Cisco workforce reductions
#318A 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 c…
Yeah, I suspect that some of my bewilderment is that I've been self-employed for the vast majority of my career; that 5-year stint at a big tech company was an anomaly, and I always viewed it as just another client, essentially. And clients and customers come and go, constantly. I've never felt entitled to their business, and I suppose I extend that same thinking to employment.
I will say that I don't think game theory would dictate that you do as little as you can to not get fired, for at least a few different reasons.
First of all, that's pretty difficult to do, since you don't know in advance exactly what the dividing line is between who gets fired or laid off, and who doesn't.
Second, my experience has been that people who do take that approach are statistically more likely to get laid off, when compared to people who really push hard at work, trying to win. And even if the latter group does get laid off, they're much more competitive in the job market if they have a solid body of work and a network of former colleagues who view them favorably.
And third, having gone through a phase like that when I was getting divorced, it just feels shitty. I'd much rather pull my weight, regardless of whether my job continues in the future.
I do think that game theory would certainly imply that you should not have any loyalty towards your employer, and be willing to jump ship whenever it makes sense for you. But that has always been the case, at least in my lifetime.
Re: Cisco workforce reductions
#319Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Well sure, we could throw out all kinds of theoretically abusive situations, but how often does that happen in the real world? I haven't seen any companies granting RSUs that pay a pittance in salary. And it seems many tech companies have dropped their one year cliff as well. Who has a two year cliff?
Now to be clear, stock options are completely different, and in the vast majority of cases, I'd value those at zero or near-zero.
Re: Cisco workforce reductions
#320Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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.
It's not wage theft, by any legal definition. The terms you agree to when you take the job are extremely clear. Wild to think that you're entitled to whatever you want, despite agreeing to the terms.