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

Amazon confirms 14,000 job losses in corporate division

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 537 posts

Re: Amazon confirms 14,000 job losses in corporate division

#521

Post by ben_w »

JustExAWS wrote: post #287
pjc50 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As an employee you don't have financial risk tied to the company, you get a regular paycheck. But if you are an investor you take a risk that the money you invest can one day just vanish with zero return. I would like people who cannot distinguish between an income stream and a capital value to learn what an "annuity" is. Employees have very significant financial risk tied to the company because it's their main sou…

I have been an employee for 30 years across 10 jobs - one of which was Amazon from 2020-2023. I never once considered my “main source of income” my current job. My main source of income was my ability to get a job. I always stayed ready to look for a job at a moments notice and it has never taken me more than a month to get a job when I was looking. In fact, ten days after getting my “take severance package and leave…

> I’m no special snowflake. I keep my resume updated, my network strong, skills in sync with the market, 9-12 months in savings in the bank.

This is extremely unusual in general, not at all typical.

Here, on Hacker News, we have an unusually high proportion of high earners, and I'd guess a lot of FIRE people like me (and I infer, you), but the median US person has $8k, about 3 months, of savings: https://www.fool.com/money/research/average-savings-account-...

I could not guess either the income nor the savings distribution of those 14k Amazon departures. Also, reports suggest most of these people will have a chance to find a different role within Amazon.

Re: Amazon confirms 14,000 job losses in corporate division

#522

Post by dccoolgai »

gruez wrote: post #456
madamelic wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They absolutely didn't. It's within Amazon's legal rights to cut as many employees as they like for any reason (besides a protected one). With that said, I would consider doing layoffs after a profitable quarter to be anti-social / anti-culture. It creates fear and uncertainty in the organization which will cause people to move to 'cash checks until I am fired then I'll leverage this to get a job somewhere else' vers…

>With that said, I would consider doing layoffs after a profitable quarter to be anti-social / anti-culture. It creates fear and uncertainty in the organization which will cause people to move to 'cash checks until I am fired then I'll leverage this to get a job somewhere else' versus trying hard to make the company their career where they put down roots. So going back to the textile mill example above, what should t…

Train them to run and maintain the new machines? Find a new business opportunity and have them work on that? All of the above with an optional buyout?

Re: Amazon confirms 14,000 job losses in corporate division

#523

Post by schnable »

HacklesRaised wrote: post #222
schnable wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Continually AI is used to justify layoffs that seem like simple corrections to overhiring.

I always wonder if the people responsible for the over-hiring are on the block? My personal experience suggests not.

I think it depends on the company. I don't know how bad of a problem it is for big businesses like Amazon. Sure there's some lost profits and a write-down with the layoff, but it's not like Amazon hasn't been successful and profitable in the meantime. The overhiring may be justifiable as a defensive strategy.

I was at a smaller public company that overhired during COVID then struggled with profits (among other things). CEO and leadership lost a ton of money due to the share price drops from COVID peaks and CEO was ultimately pushed out.

Re: Amazon confirms 14,000 job losses in corporate division

#524

Post by fooqux »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #493
gruez wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Oh no, they might only make $15 billion instead of $18 billion next quarter? Exactly. It's a for-profit company, not a charity or a jobs program.

At what point do we stop defending capitalism and realize that it's sucking society dry?

Lots of people realized it long ago. Hell, the Monopoly board game was meant as a cautionary tale. The fact that it's been repurposed as a way for MB to rake in tons of cash says something, I think.

Re: Amazon confirms 14,000 job losses in corporate division

#525

Post by FeloniousHam »

Jensson wrote: post #479
_DeadFred_ wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The owner of the employer company just experienced a vacation in space, renting an entire European country for a wedding, etc. Some employees are going to experience losing their housing. Losing their health benefits while sick. Children will be moved from their friends/schools. Some will lose their careers as they won't find new related work quick enough and will have to take whatever they can get for their next job…

Those are unrelated, the same would happen regardless if it was owned by millions via their pension plans or a few billionaires, both are equally greedy and immediately move their investments for 1% higher returns, the CEO's at these companies are servants to that inhuman level of greed that comes from dissociated masses of people being owners.

And said greed (by both founder and shareholders) produced a company that so enriched them BY BEING FAVORED BY BILLIONS(!) of customers worldwide to provide access to range goods with a convenience, price, and speed experienced only by the wealthy just a few years earlier :).

Ugh, Capitalism.

Re: Amazon confirms 14,000 job losses in corporate division

#526

Post by pseudalopex »

gruez wrote: post #440
pseudalopex wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Firing is when employer terminates someone for cause, i.e. employee did something wrong or didn't meet expectations. This meaning is present in many people's minds. It is not present in many people's minds or any dictionary I saw ever. to remove someone from their job, either because they have done something wrong or badly, or as a way of saving the cost of employing them[1] The act or an instance of dismissing som…

counterpoint: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fire#Verb 4. (transitive, employment) To terminate the employment contract of (an employee), especially for cause (such as misconduct, incompetence, or poor performance).

OK. The meaning appeared in 1 dictionary I saw ever now. And it said firing was not termination for cause solely.

Re: Amazon confirms 14,000 job losses in corporate division

#527

Post by stillworks »

nilkn wrote: post #266
Covenant0028 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My theory is that when an organization descends into a cycle of repetitive downsizings, it inevitably leads to people focusing more on protecting their jobs than on business value. By the process of natural selection, the people who survive such rounds of firings are the ones with the political skills to survive them. Some of those guys will be star performers, but most will simply be politicians. Over time, this pro…

My company’s been through layoffs/reorgs every 3–6 months for three years. One thing is true: performance management happens faster. Many chronic low performers were laid off, and a few “too many cooks” problems were resolved. Those benefits are real and genuine. But it’s a mistake to assume the remainder is automatically high‑performer‑only. Three patterns I’ve seen: 1) People with options leave first. If you can fi…

At companies where decimation is a given... IME 3 or variations of 3 predominantly are already in play.

The most nefarious kind I saw was to use tenure capital towards influencing peers (above and below) into over-engineering complexity to improve longevity (or simply to flex on the basis of tenure) and this is a game-able closed loop. The longer one has been in a position is in a position to stay even longer via influence and no-one questions.

The up-levels explain this as "trust" which probably is slop/laziness or pure lack of time due to how busy the up-levels are managing up the chain (and working towards their own longevity)

The below-levels probably are afraid to question/oppose strongly due to obvious reasons. This becomes worse if the tenured person in question is already a "celebrated hero" or "10x-er".

Re: Amazon confirms 14,000 job losses in corporate division

#528

Post by madamelic »

gruez wrote: post #456
madamelic wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They absolutely didn't. It's within Amazon's legal rights to cut as many employees as they like for any reason (besides a protected one). With that said, I would consider doing layoffs after a profitable quarter to be anti-social / anti-culture. It creates fear and uncertainty in the organization which will cause people to move to 'cash checks until I am fired then I'll leverage this to get a job somewhere else' vers…

>With that said, I would consider doing layoffs after a profitable quarter to be anti-social / anti-culture. It creates fear and uncertainty in the organization which will cause people to move to 'cash checks until I am fired then I'll leverage this to get a job somewhere else' versus trying hard to make the company their career where they put down roots. So going back to the textile mill example above, what should t…

They should cut people when they have a down quarter, a project fails and there is no where for those people to transfer to, or poor performance.

Tossing people out as a giant tech company after a profitable quarter is non-sense. They have money to be innovative, why are they choosing not to push that back into more attempts at products.

People expect bad news if the company gets bad news. If a company cuts after good news, people are going to lose faith in either their truthfulness (ie: are they cooking the books), their loyalty to employees, or both.

Re: Amazon confirms 14,000 job losses in corporate division

#529

Post by forgotTheLast »

VerminOctopus1 wrote: post #281
evertedsphere wrote: post #6

Our thoughts and prayers are with everyone affected by this unfortunate corporate-involved job loss incident at this time.

Reports suggest there was an interaction that occurred between HR and some 13,000 staff, ultimately resulting in job losses. The staff were noted to be “behaving suspiciously “. Investigations are underway.

Rumours say a resignation letter was recovered from a bush nearby. We have Starbuck's ex-VP of HR with us in the studio tonight to help us make sense of the situation, and talk to us about their new book "Layoffs for Dummies".

Re: Amazon confirms 14,000 job losses in corporate division

#530

Post by _DeadFred_ »

FeloniousHam wrote: post #525
Jensson wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are unrelated, the same would happen regardless if it was owned by millions via their pension plans or a few billionaires, both are equally greedy and immediately move their investments for 1% higher returns, the CEO's at these companies are servants to that inhuman level of greed that comes from dissociated masses of people being owners.

And said greed (by both founder and shareholders) produced a company that so enriched them BY BEING FAVORED BY BILLIONS(!) of customers worldwide to provide access to range goods with a convenience, price, and speed experienced only by the wealthy just a few years earlier :). Ugh, Capitalism.

Yes the wealthy, famous for their love of cheap 'from China to the landfill' goods and life risking fake fuses, counterfeit Calvin Klein underwear, and supplements spiked with hidden drugs or that are just plain toxic.

Ugh capitalism is right.

https://www.cspi.org/article/fda-alert-supplements-amazon-po... https://www.consumerreports.org/health/fda-finds-hidden-drug... https://kagi.com/search?q=amazon+fake+fuses

Post reply on HN