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

Googler... ex-Googler

nerdy.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 1001 posts

Re: Googler... ex-Googler

#61

Post by danpalmer »

walterbell wrote: post #17

https://www.sfchronicle.com/tech/article/google-layoffs-andr... > Google laid off hundreds of employees from its platforms and devices unit, the team responsible for the Android operating system, Pixel phones and Chrome browser. The move, first reported by the Information, comes months after Google offered voluntary buyouts to all 20,000 employees in the division, signaling deeper structural changes at the tech giant…

Correction, they did not offer buyouts to the entire division, they offered the ability to apply for a buyout to US-only employees, and application did not guarantee you’d get it.

Re: Googler... ex-Googler

#62

Post by ricardobeat »

marcusb wrote: post #60
weinzierl wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I have been through layoffs where other people on my team, doing the same job I did approximately as well, got laid off. No explanation given for why them and not me. And it could happen to me at any time." Usually there is a hidden variable that you don't know. It is your salary. That is why it sometimes looks surprising when senior roles are cut that look extremely valuable to the company from the outset. Maybe th…

> Usually there is a hidden variable that you don't know. This is frequently the case. I've worked at big employers (comparable in level of corporate-ness to Google if not absolute size) where the layoff process, roughly was: 1. Aggregate layoff target gets set and apportioned amongst functional leaders, then targets cascaded down to the line manager level. 2. Managers fill out a stack ranking spreadsheet for their t…

For some perspective, the bulk of this is simply illegal in the Netherlands, likely other countries in the EU as well:

- layoff plans must be communicated ahead of time. Minimum 30 days notice, usually much more

- Needs to be negotiated with worker representatives (works council, syndicate if there is one)

- LIFO principle for layoffs, newest employees are let go first. Stack ranking not possible

- Any kind of discrimination is forbidden

- At a minimum, you get 2 months pay + accrued holidays

It's baffling to imagine that you could learn about your job disappearing from one day to the next, and be immediately left out in the cold.

Re: Googler... ex-Googler

#63

Post by klooney »

ricardobeat wrote: post #62
marcusb wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Usually there is a hidden variable that you don't know. This is frequently the case. I've worked at big employers (comparable in level of corporate-ness to Google if not absolute size) where the layoff process, roughly was: 1. Aggregate layoff target gets set and apportioned amongst functional leaders, then targets cascaded down to the line manager level. 2. Managers fill out a stack ranking spreadsheet for their t…

For some perspective, the bulk of this is simply illegal in the Netherlands, likely other countries in the EU as well: - layoff plans must be communicated ahead of time. Minimum 30 days notice, usually much more - Needs to be negotiated with worker representatives (works council, syndicate if there is one) - LIFO principle for layoffs, newest employees are let go first. Stack ranking not possible - Any kind of discri…

> LIFO principle for layoffs, newest employees are let go first. Stack ranking not possible

Newer employees often see this as incredibly unfair.

Re: Googler... ex-Googler

#64

Post by SR2Z »

klooney wrote: post #63
ricardobeat wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some perspective, the bulk of this is simply illegal in the Netherlands, likely other countries in the EU as well: - layoff plans must be communicated ahead of time. Minimum 30 days notice, usually much more - Needs to be negotiated with worker representatives (works council, syndicate if there is one) - LIFO principle for layoffs, newest employees are let go first. Stack ranking not possible - Any kind of discri…

> LIFO principle for layoffs, newest employees are let go first. Stack ranking not possible Newer employees often see this as incredibly unfair.

Because it is unfair. It just tends to benefit people employed today

Re: Googler... ex-Googler

#65

Post by amputect »

musicale wrote: post #4

Does Google (or whoever is making these decisions) think that layoffs are in the long-term best interest of the company? If so, are they correct? Or is it related to the possibility that Google may have to divest itself of Chrome due to anti-trust enforcement?

None of the people making these decisions care about the long-term best interest of the company. Sundar doesn't give a shit about Google's future, he is laser focused on what really matters to him and the people he reports to: the stock price. A big round of layoffs can juice the stock, and it's a nice way to keep the numbers going up in between industry events where they can show off deceptively edited product demos and knowingly lie about the capabilities of their current and future AI offerings.

To put it another way: Google doesn't want to be a software company anymore. Google does not care about making software, or products, or the people who make or use their products. Google wants to be a growth company where the stock price goes up by two-digit percentages every quarter. That is absolutely the only thing that Google cares about. Google has realized that the best way to make this happen is to commit securities fraud by lying to their investors about their products, and by drip-feeding layoffs to show that they're serious about their underlying financials. It's theater, playing pretend at being business people. The individual products are allowed to go about their business as long as they don't cost too much money, but Google doesn't want to make money by having good products that people love to use, Google wants to make money by being a hyper-growth unicorn again, and they will do anything at all to recapture that kind of growth even if they're slitting the throat of the company to do it.

Whether this attitude is good for Google or its users is left as an exercise to the reader.

Re: Googler... ex-Googler

#68

Post by lurking_swe »

ricardobeat wrote: post #62
marcusb wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Usually there is a hidden variable that you don't know. This is frequently the case. I've worked at big employers (comparable in level of corporate-ness to Google if not absolute size) where the layoff process, roughly was: 1. Aggregate layoff target gets set and apportioned amongst functional leaders, then targets cascaded down to the line manager level. 2. Managers fill out a stack ranking spreadsheet for their t…

For some perspective, the bulk of this is simply illegal in the Netherlands, likely other countries in the EU as well: - layoff plans must be communicated ahead of time. Minimum 30 days notice, usually much more - Needs to be negotiated with worker representatives (works council, syndicate if there is one) - LIFO principle for layoffs, newest employees are let go first. Stack ranking not possible - Any kind of discri…

it’s also a bit baffling that someone who’s been at the company longer than myself could have an advantage simply for being born before me, or for applying before me.

Is work performance not a key deciding factor? One could argue that’s absurd.

I don’t think the way it’s done in the U.S. is “right”, but i don’t think what you listed is right either.

Re: Googler... ex-Googler

#69

Post by lazide »

lurking_swe wrote: post #68
ricardobeat wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some perspective, the bulk of this is simply illegal in the Netherlands, likely other countries in the EU as well: - layoff plans must be communicated ahead of time. Minimum 30 days notice, usually much more - Needs to be negotiated with worker representatives (works council, syndicate if there is one) - LIFO principle for layoffs, newest employees are let go first. Stack ranking not possible - Any kind of discri…

it’s also a bit baffling that someone who’s been at the company longer than myself could have an advantage simply for being born before me, or for applying before me. Is work performance not a key deciding factor? One could argue that’s absurd. I don’t think the way it’s done in the U.S. is “right”, but i don’t think what you listed is right either.

Seniority based systems are ‘I got mine, f u’ or ‘politics in action’ depending on how you look at it.

More senior employees have usually figured out how to get leverage on the employer over time.

Non-seniority are usually ‘cheapest is best’, or ‘do what I say, or else’.

Both have pros and cons for everyone involved. There is always some system though, even if it’s emergent.

Re: Googler... ex-Googler

#70

Post by lazide »

SR2Z wrote: post #64
klooney wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> LIFO principle for layoffs, newest employees are let go first. Stack ranking not possible Newer employees often see this as incredibly unfair.

Because it is unfair. It just tends to benefit people employed today

The only fair system is a random lottery - which is also the most terrifying for everyone.
Post reply on HN