SpaceX to lay off 10% of Workforce

Post by roedog » Sat, Jan 12, 2019, 7:35 PM UTC

ricardobeat wrote: post #293

consumer451 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's odd is why SpaceX is cutting staff with the new development underway on the larger rockets and the satellite business. I'm curious about how they're going to increase development while cutting staff. The oddness diminishes when you look at their open jobs listing [1], as it looks that they have >300 open positions. [1] https://www.spacex.com/careers/list

At <5% of the employee count, those hires might barely cover churn.

Post by pbhjpbhj » Sat, Jan 12, 2019, 7:41 PM UTC

pavelrub wrote: post #355

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your analysis is incomplete. Some of the ways to achieve goal X are via layoffs, some aren't. You cut some possible routes to X, but you add more routes. Not all routes are equal. Cutting a particular employee might mean that a vital convergent point is no longer possible to enter, meaning all routes now lead to failure. Some of the optimal routes to X may require that management get paid a fair wage (rather than 40+…

Not at all. The only observation I'm making is that {ways without layoffs} ⊆ {ways without layoffs} U {ways with layoffs}. Everything you can do in a universe where layoffs are outlawed you can also do in a universe where they aren't. The difference is that in the former universe you have less options, and therefore less paths to success. None of that means or implies that layoffs are always the "best" option.

Post by chucksmash » Sat, Jan 12, 2019, 7:45 PM UTC

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #424

stupidcar wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, maybe not. Consider it in terms of your own workplace: if you worked on a team of 10, and one person got laid off, would that seem so huge? I think the question is whether this round of layoffs is in response to an acute cash flow issue or just part of long-term financial prudency. They fact that they waited until after Christmas and are providing 8 weeks of pay and benefits makes me hopeful that it's the latt…

8 weeks of pay as severance is insultingly horrible, even for very junior employees. If a company hopes to grow and be taken seriously as a professional workplace, you have to do much, much better than 8 weeks pay & benefits for severance. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Always negotiate severance up front as part of any job offer, and consider 4-6 months as an absolute minimum for junior or mid-level empl…

Post by kerbalspacepro » Sat, Jan 12, 2019, 8:04 PM UTC

johnfn wrote: post #478

unethical_ban wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So cut from the top down, period? Cut the people with the vision and strategy of the company, until nothing but the assemblers and forklift drivers are left? I believe in worker rights, and the ability of a person to live in relative economic security. But should a company not EVER be able to restructure when it realizes it has too many workers, or too broad a mission? Is 2 months pay and medical not a decent send-of…

> Cut the people with the vision and strategy of the company, The vision and strategy that lead directly to layoffs? Seems like a reasonable thing to me.

Post by cal5k » Sat, Jan 12, 2019, 8:16 PM UTC

mirsadm wrote: post #477

ecshafer wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5% is insane, I would never work for a company that regularly laid off that many people. Firing under performers is one thing, but to systematically clear house is toxic. How are you supposed to build a career if one of your coworkers/friends is canned every year, so everyone is wondering what year is theirs? So people overwork themselves to make sure it doesn't happen to them. You need to show your employees safety,…

Personally I would be leaving any company that was laying off 5% of people immediately. That sends a signal that they are underperforming and it would destroy morale. Doing it every year is obscene.