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

321–330 of 1001 posts

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#321

Post by i_like_apis »

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…

Punished for what?

This is about miscalculating business needs and failing to create a culture of work ethic, leading to a situation where people need to be let go.

That is not a crime. It’s just business.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#322

Post by antasvara »

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.

I mean, they are fully responsible for those decisions that led to the layoffs. Being responsible for something doesn't imply that there are consequences.

They overhired during the pandemic with the hopes that it was a permanent shift in the e-commerce space, and are now laying off employees when that didn't happen. Nobody else is responsible for that decision but the leadership.

I was also under the impression that working for FAANGs was done because they paid best, had the best perks, had interesting work, and were the most prestigious. I don't think that "job security" was even in the top 5 reasons for taking a FAANG job for most employees.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#323

Post by jeroenhd »

Draiken wrote: post #244
kkoncevicius wrote: post #186

I don't understand some of the comments here, maybe someone can explain. Does a company need to have an excuse to let people go? Is there a right to stay employed? As far as I am aware working for a company is not a life-long situation. And further - why don't we invert it and praise these companies for supplying thousands of six figure jobs for years. Surely being employed for several years is better than never bein…

Comments like these tell me how ingrained capitalism is on people's minds now. We seem to forget that without the people that make up the company, it simply does not exist. Companies are imaginary entities chasing profits for its owners. There's nothing sacred about it and they shouldn't EVER be more important than people. I don't understand how we can lose sight of that.

Ruthless capitalism is the only reason people can even earn the ridiculously high Google wages in the first places.

Google can fire a small town's worth of employees and only lose 6% of their workforce. These companies are ridiculous in size. Really, this was only a matter of time.

I wouldn't like to live in the USA for the extremely weak employee protections there despite the massive amounts of money you can earn compared to Europe. Personally, I'm all for better employee protections to balance out the overpowering employer, but those protections don't come for free. If a company fulfils its social purpose of making people earn their living for a long time, they also need to be ready to pay their current rates (and up) for a long time. More protections means higher risks for companies, higher risks means fewer hires and lower rewards in case you can't get rid of someone in an economic downturn.

I think these protections are worth it, but I reckon the highest earning American programmers and managers wouldn't; the more you earn, the more those protections will cost you. Applying European protections wouldn't immediately drop wages down to European levels (you need a strong welfare state and such for that too) but it would certainly reduce the amount of disposable income these people have.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#324

Post by mcv »

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.

Yeah, I think by "responsibility" he means "profit". He takes full profit of the decisions that took them there.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#325

Post by hsn915 »

I find it odd that most of the comments here are angry, as if at someone who stole the livlihoods of thousands of people.

I understand the general public thinks their life depends on a company.

I find it odd that this sentiment is so strong on HN.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#326

Post by miguelrochefort »

SethTro wrote: post #137
makach wrote: post #104

Not a bad email, and a decent follow up on the ones that are affected. It is also a reminder that killing yourself slowly at the workplace is meaningless. Management has no responsibility to you, and no promise is certain. It’s your responsibility to take care of yourself. My take, don’t be bitter. Take the severance as soon as possible and get back on your feet. Having Google on your resume is a very good thing.

Do you know the subject line of the follow up email (for those laid off)?

"Notice of unemployment" (personal email address)

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#327

Post by nindalf »

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 best part about people who take every word literally and demand punishment is that no punishment will ever satisfy all of them.

It wouldn’t matter if Sundar took a pay cut (like Tim Cook) because the same people would say he’s still worth hundreds of millions. It wouldn’t matter if he fired himself because there would be some other, equally fallible human being in the same role that he vacated. That person would be capable of making the same mistake Sundar did.

Have these people never worked in a real organisation where people make mistakes? When an engineer causes an incident, we fixed it and then did a review to understand how we can improve the process to prevent such an incident in future. We didn’t point fingers, we didn’t demand punishment.

Here’s the thing - Sundar is still probably the best person to helm Google, despite this mistake. In fact, a person who has had to lay off thousands will definitely think twice before going on a hiring spree in future. Exactly the sort of person you want in charge.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#328

Post by davedx »

blagie wrote: post #87
neodypsis wrote: post #2

Amazon and Meta I can understand why. But why Microsoft and now Google? What positions were affected in Google? Just developers?

To be honest, I feel like Google and Meta both had far too many employees. "Too many cooks spoil the meal." "The Mythical Man-Month" etc. There was a crazy push for hiring and growth, which diluted the quality and increased the communications bottlenecks. A 10% cut won't do it, though. Over-hiring is hard to recover from. Google would need to cut 75-90% of its workforce to be at all efficient. If it did that, it woul…

> Google would need to cut 75-90% of its workforce to be at all efficient.

Where on earth do you get that number from?

Also, they have a 27% operating margin, how much more "efficient" do they need to be?

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#329

Post by mailmrg »

might not be a popular opinion, but different perspective. during pandemic, demand was high and employees where asking anywhere from 60% to 100% hikes to do the same job. no one complained. people were ready to jump every 6 months in search for more pay without thinking career, is the position impacting the company or anything of that sorts. founders (esp smaller ones) had tough time meeting insane demands. people were asking for joining bonus (an insane concept in my view) to the tune of 50% of annual salary.

Now the tables have turned. so if former is accepted then later also has to be accepted without complaints. just how things work in this new age.

Re: Google to reduce workforce by 12k

#330

Post by shin_lao »

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…

These companies are over bloated and it seems he can't write "well most of you aren't doing anything useful so we are using the downturn to fire you" so they BS their way through. Nothing to do with current revenue.
Post reply on HN