Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 102 posts

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#51

Post by elforce002 »

Interesting. I cannot separate what the Feds said regarding inflation tbh. On one side, the government was gloating over the fact of low unemployment numbers, on the other side, you have the Feds saying with no shame whatsoever they need to low inflation numbers by raising interest rates and orquestrate moves to layoff people with the objective to lower the demand for goods and services.

This looks like a coordinated "attack" where companies and government colluded against the common folk. There's a win-win for them. Companies will start reducing salaries since there'll be more supply of workers, and the government will say "we promise to lower inflation" as campaign slogan.

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#53

Post by jaqalopes »

eganist wrote: post #3

Super interesting seeing companies grow like wildfire and overspend as returns for investors skyrocket, and then as the market swings downward, they buoy their stock prices a bit by just as quickly cutting heads. The inverted accountability scheme for leaders doing this is another perverse enabling factor; I've complained about this before, but that tends to lead to flames about why founders etc. can't have ownership…

Unionization is the correct response here. The incentives of company leaders simply don't account for workers' desire to not lose their jobs. The only way to change this is for workers to change said incentives--by organizing. Of course, easy for me to say as a freelancer. I'm definitely not trying to say unionizing tech would be easy. But it certainly is simple, at least conceptually.

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#55

Post by nine_k »

ZiiS wrote: post #10
brookst wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think these people would have been better off if tech had carried net fewer heads the past couple of years? Having an extra 100k employed for two years is worse than those jobs just never existing?

The point is we all know how much these same companies will whine about skills shortages in a couple of years. Even if they cannot manage to make a cent off their work work and completely fail to train them or at least give them experience; they can very easily just write down the salaries till they do need them.

But by hiring all these people a few years ago, didn't Amazon (and other large tech companies) give these people some valuable experience, beside a quite decent salary?

I personally would prefer to be hired by a big tech company and then laid off, having received the salary, severance pay, and experience, than to never set my foot there.

The in-between time sucks, of course.

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#56

Post by ljm »

notyourwork wrote: post #49
ljm wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From Amazon's point of view, this doesn't seem too far removed from their annual firing quotas which I think is already an onerous practice. From the hyper-scale startup point of view, it's blatantly unsustainable and frankly irresponsible to play fast-and-loose with people's careers by hiring them and then making the position redundant, sometimes within less than a year; even six months in some cases that I've known…

Irresponsible for who? Corporations are in the business of their own interests. Employees are a resource to furthering a businesses goals. They aren’t a charity that owes individuals anything. If you think that you’re being naive about what we call at-will employment.

At-will employment being something specific to the US and not the world that exists outside of it...we don't all share the same view on employment (and employment rights for that matter) that the US does.

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#57

Post by pastacacioepepe »

lp4vn wrote: post #44

Nobody can convince me that big corps are not taking part this "trend" of firing people with the purpose of rehiring them later and keep the compensation of the workforce in check. As many comments have already pointed out, all these companies are sitting on a huge cushion of money, and if you have money the best moment to invest is during a crisis. Companies realized a long time ago that they should find ways of low…

That's an interesting point of view. It would make economical sense for big corps to act as a labor market cartel, and the fact that they are all laying off together is a suspicious coincidence.

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#58

Post by jxf »

jaqalopes wrote: post #53
eganist wrote: post #3

Super interesting seeing companies grow like wildfire and overspend as returns for investors skyrocket, and then as the market swings downward, they buoy their stock prices a bit by just as quickly cutting heads. The inverted accountability scheme for leaders doing this is another perverse enabling factor; I've complained about this before, but that tends to lead to flames about why founders etc. can't have ownership…

Unionization is the correct response here. The incentives of company leaders simply don't account for workers' desire to not lose their jobs. The only way to change this is for workers to change said incentives--by organizing. Of course, easy for me to say as a freelancer. I'm definitely not trying to say unionizing tech would be easy. But it certainly is simple, at least conceptually.

100%. This is the entire point of unions -- to represent the collective interests of the some segment of (or all) a company's workers.

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#59

Post by blululu »

nine_k wrote: post #55
ZiiS wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is we all know how much these same companies will whine about skills shortages in a couple of years. Even if they cannot manage to make a cent off their work work and completely fail to train them or at least give them experience; they can very easily just write down the salaries till they do need them.

But by hiring all these people a few years ago, didn't Amazon (and other large tech companies) give these people some valuable experience, beside a quite decent salary? I personally would prefer to be hired by a big tech company and then laid off, having received the salary, severance pay, and experience, than to never set my foot there. The in-between time sucks, of course.

Debatable, maybe some people like new grads would prefer it that way but a lot of these people already had experience and jobs before showing up at Amazon. Some may have moved, others turned down other offers, 6-12 months of 20% extra pay doesn’t justify the lurch. In general forcing employees to take on the lion’s share of risk is a jerk move without offering a similar share of profits.

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#60

Post by Bilal_io »

jvanderbot wrote: post #14
brookst wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think these people would have been better off if tech had carried net fewer heads the past couple of years? Having an extra 100k employed for two years is worse than those jobs just never existing?

Aside from the money, I'm quite glad my job was cut, in hindsight, but only because Amazon handled it so well: They gave us time to sort out a new position. I'm already much more excited about my new gig, and for the right reason (not $). I'm not sure a union would have helped there, but I'm not opposed. Amazon tried to make hay while the sun was shining, and it didn't work out for all depts. It happens.

Looking at unions from a personal lense can make them seem unnecessary and maybe even negative to some people. However their purpose in my opinion is to benefit the collective of members as a whole.

I have nothing to back up this claim, but it seems like selfishness is what caused reduction of unions in the US. And for the same selfishness it's tough to organize people and kickstart a new union.

Post reply on HN