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

331–340 of 351 posts

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#331

Post by vkou »

bakugo wrote: post #142
vkou wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have anything but prejudice to support that, or..?

When tech companies lay off large amounts of workers like this, they often immediately replace them with H1Bs. These layoffs are almost always cost-cutting measures, not caused by lack of work - the work is still there and still has to be done, they just don't want to pay expensive white people to do it. https://www.newsweek.com/microsoft-layoffs-h1b-visa-applicat... It makes no sense to lay off H1Bs only to immediat…

Thank link does not provide any evidence that no h1bs were laid off.

How many non-h1bs did they hire in that fiscal year? How many h1bs did they lay off?

> It makes no sense to lay off H1Bs only to immediately re-hire them afterwards.

"It doesn't make sense to lay off programmers only to immediately rehire them afterwards", yet that has been happening for the past 4 years in every company.

It does if you stop seeing them as labels like 'H1Bs' or 'Programmers' and start seeing them as human beings with particular skills and strengths and weaknesses or members of particular teams (who get grown or cut at the very high-level whims of directors or VPs, without any regard for who is on them.)

Laying someone, or a team off happens for any one of a million reasons, most of which have fuck all to do with their immigration status.

You're mixing a combination of prejudice with a poor understanding of how businesses actually operate. When some corporate shithead chooses which team to cut in half, they aren't looking at the immigration status ratio in them. And for these mass layoffs, the team's direct and next level managers have next to zero say in them.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#332

Post by zzrrt »

renticulous wrote: post #312
xboxnolifes wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

temporary contractor != employee. Many people expect employees should get some of the surplus, or at least get to keep working when the company is claiming they're financially secure.

I suspect you'll say the company owes them nothing in the US, which is true, but companies aren't/weren't always this stingy (or lying about financial strength), and you could have just said so without this strained analogy.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#333

Post by kqr »

mplanchard wrote: post #281
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #260

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…

That's interesting. Do you know what the fraction was of sprints that ended without all the work items associated with them being completed?

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#334

Post by dinkumthinkum »

pjmlp wrote: post #193
dinkumthinkum wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but compare the salaries to the US and then factor in taxes.

And healthcare, public transport, vacations, sick leave, maternity and paternity leave, layoff notice, layoff package, .... Personally the salary isn't worth it.

Most tech companies give paternity/maternity leave. There is the WARN act and most companies provide severance. Are the packages always great? No, but I don't think equivalent in Europe are that much better. Public transport? That's your preference and lifestyle, I don't think that factors in here. Most tech companies provide decent insurance and don't require being part of some socialized wait-list system. And the salaries are quite a bit higher and without the Byzantine level of taxes. I think you might want to analyze it a little more.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#335

Post by bakugo »

vkou wrote: post #331
bakugo wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When tech companies lay off large amounts of workers like this, they often immediately replace them with H1Bs. These layoffs are almost always cost-cutting measures, not caused by lack of work - the work is still there and still has to be done, they just don't want to pay expensive white people to do it. https://www.newsweek.com/microsoft-layoffs-h1b-visa-applicat... It makes no sense to lay off H1Bs only to immediat…

Thank link does not provide any evidence that no h1bs were laid off. How many non-h1bs did they hire in that fiscal year? How many h1bs did they lay off? > It makes no sense to lay off H1Bs only to immediately re-hire them afterwards. "It doesn't make sense to lay off programmers only to immediately rehire them afterwards", yet that has been happening for the past 4 years in every company. It does if you stop seeing…

I'm sure they don't look directly at immigration status when deciding who to lay off, but they do look at their expected pay and benefits, which just so happen to be strongly correlated with immigration status more often than not.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#336

Post by vkou »

bakugo wrote: post #335
vkou wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank link does not provide any evidence that no h1bs were laid off. How many non-h1bs did they hire in that fiscal year? How many h1bs did they lay off? > It makes no sense to lay off H1Bs only to immediately re-hire them afterwards. "It doesn't make sense to lay off programmers only to immediately rehire them afterwards", yet that has been happening for the past 4 years in every company. It does if you stop seeing…

I'm sure they don't look directly at immigration status when deciding who to lay off, but they do look at their expected pay and benefits, which just so happen to be strongly correlated with immigration status more often than not.

The expected pay and benefits of anyone in a FAANG firm have everything to do with their level. Within levels, the bands are fairly narrow.

An L5 SWE performing at S gets paid about the same, and receives the exact same benefits, regardless of their status.

Actually, scratch that, the H1B is often awarded an extra benefit - sponsorship and legal fees for converting to a green card.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#337

Post by darksim905 »

suddenlybananas wrote: post #266
darksim905 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On and off for the past year or so, the commercials from TD Bank have been * More Human as they've slowly laid off people due to the AML fines they've been dealing with in the U.S. and replacing folks with either AI, more Indian/Canadian/Ireland talent.

You can't really complain that the Toronto Dominion Bank is hiring Canadians.

Given the structure and size of the organization, I can. For every 2 or more folks that lose a job on the U.S side, they may hire one person, or none. And, as I understand it, with the disparity in exchange rates and currency and such, Canadians are getting shafted financially and make anywhere from .25 to .50 less compared to U.S. talent. They are being pushed (forced?) to RTO for no reason beyond 'real estate has to go up/we invested in TD tower'.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#338

Post by suddenlybananas »

darksim905 wrote: post #337
suddenlybananas wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't really complain that the Toronto Dominion Bank is hiring Canadians.

Given the structure and size of the organization, I can. For every 2 or more folks that lose a job on the U.S side, they may hire one person, or none. And, as I understand it, with the disparity in exchange rates and currency and such, Canadians are getting shafted financially and make anywhere from .25 to .50 less compared to U.S. talent. They are being pushed (forced?) to RTO for no reason beyond 'real estate has t…

It's a Canadian company, its entirely natural they prioritize Canadians, it's not outsourcing.

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#339

Post by mplanchard »

kqr wrote: post #333
mplanchard wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's interesting. Do you know what the fraction was of sprints that ended without all the work items associated with them being completed?

At least for our team, quite low. We had a very comfortable buffer, which allowed us to deliver in time to coordinate with the rest of the org. It may not have been a bad strategy overall from the top-down perspective, but it wasn’t a lot of fun as an IC

Re: Cisco workforce reductions

#340

Post by senordevnyc »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #328
senordevnyc wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My argument is that it’s not wage theft by any legal definition.

And yes, obviously a contract can be declared void, but have consumer protection agencies started going after companies for not vesting immediately after a layoff? If not, then I don’t see how that’s relevant.

Post reply on HN