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

Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 199 posts

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#71

Post by mytailorisrich »

danpalmer wrote: post #18
nonethewiser wrote: post #12

These people seem out of touch. > "It has been difficult for those involved. We have a redundancy process for a reason, so that employees can make their voice heard," they said. "But it feels as if our concerns have fallen on deaf ears." They’re doing layoffs. In what scenario does negative feedback from employees change the minds of management? “Oh shit we didn’t know this negatively impacted you all. My bad.”

There have been several layers to the criticism. The first is roughly why does a company with many billions in the bank need to lay off anyone. However, assuming that layoffs do need to happen, there has been a lot more criticism of how they were conducted. In the UK there is, in summary, a right to a fair process – where _roles_ are eliminated, not _people_. That when there aren't enough roles for the people left, t…

> The first is roughly why does a company with many billions in the bank need to lay off anyone.

I suppose for the same reason as even if you have money in the bank I'm sure that you don't keep subscriptions and running costs that you've determined are no use to you or you think are not worth it.

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#72

Post by danpalmer »

jsiepkes wrote: post #32
danpalmer wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been several layers to the criticism. The first is roughly why does a company with many billions in the bank need to lay off anyone. However, assuming that layoffs do need to happen, there has been a lot more criticism of how they were conducted. In the UK there is, in summary, a right to a fair process – where _roles_ are eliminated, not _people_. That when there aren't enough roles for the people left, t…

> In the UK there is, in summary, a right to a fair process – where _roles_ are eliminated, not _people_. That when there aren't enough roles for the people left, they are selected for layoffs in a fair way with transparency on how choices were made. So go to court? I highly doubt Google is susceptible to a walk out or a strike.

Unfortunately this is where the law falls short, the maximum penalty for this is low. Good for protecting those on minimum wage from exploitation, but not great for holding higher paying employers to account.

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#73

Post by samwillis »

version_five wrote: post #38
danpalmer wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been several layers to the criticism. The first is roughly why does a company with many billions in the bank need to lay off anyone. However, assuming that layoffs do need to happen, there has been a lot more criticism of how they were conducted. In the UK there is, in summary, a right to a fair process – where _roles_ are eliminated, not _people_. That when there aren't enough roles for the people left, t…

> The first is roughly why does a company with many billions in the bank need to lay off anyone. This shows an utter misunderstanding of how businesses or finances of any kind work and would completely discredit anyone who tried to use it as an argument.

Just because that's how most large business operate doesn't mean we should blindly except it as "just how it's done". Everyone has a right to complain about how an organisation is run, and entitled to push them to put employees before maximising profit.

Personally I think society could benefit from being a little more people focussed rather than profit driven.

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#74

Post by UncleMeat »

gruez wrote: post #36
danpalmer wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been several layers to the criticism. The first is roughly why does a company with many billions in the bank need to lay off anyone. However, assuming that layoffs do need to happen, there has been a lot more criticism of how they were conducted. In the UK there is, in summary, a right to a fair process – where _roles_ are eliminated, not _people_. That when there aren't enough roles for the people left, t…

>The first is roughly why does a company with many billions in the bank need to lay off anyone. because it's a for-profit company, not a jobs program.

In some countries, corporations are seen to be in service of both their employees and their investors.

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#75

Post by pm90 »

voidfunc wrote: post #62
gruez wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The first is roughly why does a company with many billions in the bank need to lay off anyone. because it's a for-profit company, not a jobs program.

The entitlement is off the charts. People have completely lost perspective on how money is made and where they fit into the money making machine.

Maybe? Or maybe you have lost perspective on what purpose money actually serves and whether a model that hyper prioritizes it over the well being of people might not be the best approach.

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#76

Post by rhaway84773 »

newswasboring wrote: post #49
version_five wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The first is roughly why does a company with many billions in the bank need to lay off anyone. This shows an utter misunderstanding of how businesses or finances of any kind work and would completely discredit anyone who tried to use it as an argument.

Can you elaborate on your statement for dummies? (Only if your argument isn't companies exist only to maximize profit, that one I understand and reject).

The idea that companies only exist to make money for the owners/shareholders is not a law of nature. Heck it’s not even a very old idea but is probably about 50 years old.

The fact that so many commenters here seem to think it’s akin to a law of nature is an absolutely fascinating study in the effectiveness of propaganda.

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#77

Post by IanCal »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #33
stuaxo wrote: post #31

Memories of working for Glu London after they got taken over by EA. We had the consultation process, of course it was a foregone conclusion. As others mentioned, in the UK (for now) you eliminate roles, not people - this means you can't just shift a role to another cheaper country. I was training someone to do exactly my job in China, but it somehow wasn't the same role. The team I was in wasn't treated as badly as s…

> As others mentioned, in the UK (for now) you eliminate roles, not people - this means you can't just shift a role to another cheaper country. Of course you can. If you shift a role from the UK office to the Bangalore office you have made that role redundant in the UK and can layoff the employee...

It's not that simple. There are two points to this

1. There's explicit legislation around moving a role to another company (TUPE regulations) 2. Just because the role goes doesn't mean that that employee needs to leave. You may instead want to let a different employee go and shift the one whose role has disappeared over.

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#78

Post by fsniper »

It's strange to see US based workers to bash on Europe based workers who push back for their rights. Even if you don't see any "rights" to fight back, isn't it to your own benefit that someone else is fighting for more rights/better conditions? Why would you sit back and accept to be the scapegoat for conditions that you didn't cause or you didn't have any say over at the first place? The companies are laying of people, because? They are not earning as much as someone says so, while sitting on cash reserves?

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#79

Post by danpalmer »

gruez wrote: post #41
UncleMeat wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't negative feedback. It is an organized process established in the UK for handling layoffs. The UK workers didn't just say "don't fire us." They offered a ton of different options that, based on actual data, would have produced the same savings as the proposed layoffs. These included things like voluntary layoffs. All of these proposals were rejected. It sucks to have a corporation say "okay we'll have a discu…

>The UK workers didn't just say "don't fire us." They offered a ton of different options that, based on actual data, would have produced the same savings as the proposed layoffs. These included things like voluntary layoffs. All of these proposals were rejected. What were the specific list of proposals? The only one you mentioned (voluntary layoffs) is a bad idea because it leads the most talented people to leave.

> What were the specific list of proposals? The only one you mentioned (voluntary layoffs) is a bad idea because it leads the most talented people to leave.

Roughly, voluntary redundancies, pay cuts, unpaid sabbaticals, job trades, and various other implementation details.

They also presented a range of options for those at risk of, for example, deportation, including those at risk of deportation to face legal consequences at home or conscription. None of these suggestions were accepted.

Re: Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts

#80

Post by pm90 »

voidfunc wrote: post #65
newswasboring wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate on your statement for dummies? (Only if your argument isn't companies exist only to maximize profit, that one I understand and reject).

It doesn't matter what you accept of reject. The owners set the priorities not the workers or the general public.

The owners don’t operate in isolation, they live in society with other people.
Post reply on HN