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

321–330 of 351 posts

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#321

Post by DrJokepu »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #296
panflute wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Imagine not working for a company that acts like Crazy right?

The person you’re responding to has explicitly said that they worked there after an acquisition (so it’s not like they have chosen to work for Cisco) and that they only worked there briefly afterwards. I don’t understand why you’re being so hostile and judgmental.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#322

Post by fc417fc802 »

senordevnyc wrote: post #319
eudamoniac wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

> I haven't seen any companies granting RSUs that pay a pittance in salary.

If you recognize something as wrong in principle when taken to the extreme shouldn't you also regard milder instances to be wrong as well? "Well sure, if you steal $1M that's obviously immoral but that guy only stole $100."

Of course in this case I recognize that there's quite a bit of uncertainty over how exactly the intent and representation of RSUs ought to be interpreted. I had always seen them as akin to a signing bonus but it's clear now that many people don't share that perspective.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#323

Post by panflute »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #296
panflute wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Imagine not working for a company that acts like Crazy right?

Crazy is imagining an employer is of high integrity for your self esteem. How can a company that is high integrity compete with one that gets the same rewards while being of low integrity?

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#324

Post by ValentineC »

peyton wrote: post #278
darkwater wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exploiting the visa system (especially if using some loophole) is still totally 100% on the company and not on the immigrant workers.

What immigrant workers? H-1B is a non-immigrant visa. Immigrants get screwed too.

Most "work" visas are non-immigrant visas. H-1B is dual intent, at least.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#325

Post by AndrewKemendo »

panflute wrote: post #323
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine not working for a company that acts like Crazy right?

Crazy is imagining an employer is of high integrity for your self esteem. How can a company that is high integrity compete with one that gets the same rewards while being of low integrity?

Simple

There are no high integrity companies so it’s just a rat king

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#326

Post by senordevnyc »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #322
senordevnyc wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

> I haven't seen any companies granting RSUs that pay a pittance in salary. If you recognize something as wrong in principle when taken to the extreme shouldn't you also regard milder instances to be wrong as well? "Well sure, if you steal $1M that's obviously immoral but that guy only stole $100." Of course in this case I recognize that there's quite a bit of uncertainty over how exactly the intent and representatio…

I’ve read probably thousands of negative comments about layoffs over the years, and I don’t think any of them centered on unvested RSUs.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#327

Post by lbreakjai »

acdha wrote: post #227
lbreakjai wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If 51% of the employees would benefit from firing the other 49%, you'd be as good as gone anyway. Not saying it would be worse, but the same incentives are at play.

No, because the average employee has both a lot more in common with their peers and because the gains are lower for people whose stock shares are orders of magnitude lower. Joe from accounting isn’t laying off a department so he can sell shares worth the price of a Corolla before taxes.

"Joe from accounting" would perhaps do it for free, if he thought it would affect the slackers. I've seen colleagues cheer at the news of layoffs because they saw themselves as the rockstars being dragged down by "useless office drones".

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#328

Post by fc417fc802 »

senordevnyc wrote: post #320
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.

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.

The practices that consumer protection laws guard against often historically took the form of contracts so I'm not sure you've got much of an argument there. IMO the much stronger position is to argue the intent behind the common practice but cisco vesting monthly seems like a decent counterpoint.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#330

Post by greycol »

wayeq wrote: post #316
bigtex88 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Of course it's a classic trolley problem, plenty of people won't pull the leaver to move on to the track with 1 person even if it means the 5 people on the other track live. That doesn't mean that you can't argue about the morality of it in both directions it's why plenty of people believe that pulling that leaver is the correct option.
Post reply on HN