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

The Broken Microsoft Pact: Layoffs and Performance Management

danielsada.tech

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 105 posts

Re: The Broken Microsoft Pact: Layoffs and Performance Management

#71

Post by vachina »

geodel wrote: post #56

> For decades, Microsoft operated under an unspoken agreement with its employees—what I call “the pact.” The deal was simple: We’ll pay you 20-50% below market rate, but in exchange, you get stability, reasonable work-life balance, and most importantly, no layoffs. This seems more of employee's made up rule rather than Microsoft's. I worked in a company in early 2000s' and old timer's told me similar rule "that here…

Right? I’ve never seen any company have a “pact” to not do layoffs. The more they try to sell this the more wary I’m going to be, especially if it’s an American company.

Re: The Broken Microsoft Pact: Layoffs and Performance Management

#72

Post by Esophagus4 »

xivzgrev wrote: post #17

As a manager I’m going thru performance management myself. It’s a hard experience. What I learned is: you need to hold a high bar, because people can do anything to keep their job, and often not what you want them to do What you want is someone who is open to feedback, understands it, and takes effective action. Outside of that, there’s a whole gamut of people. Some get defensive. Some are politely open to feedback b…

Well said.

And what I’ve found is your team knows who is and who is not performing. And if you fail to do something about the low performer under the guise of being a nice person (or hoping they’ll eventually figure it out), your team will lose respect for you.

A team of high performers does not want to have to carry along a straggler, no matter how nice they are.

In my experience, I wish I’d made those hard decisions sooner in hindsight, rather than hoping they’d get where I wanted them to be.

It can create some weird unintended consequences though. Like if people know you regularly manage out low performers, they might be risk averse to try something difficult for fear of failing and losing their job. They need to be able to see exactly why someone didn’t make the cut.

It’s a difficult line, especially when complicated by blunt corporate incentives like stack ranking and PIP’ing the bottom 10%, etc where it can be less than clear sometimes.

Re: The Broken Microsoft Pact: Layoffs and Performance Management

#73

Post by marssaxman »

int_19h wrote: post #31
wbl wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What companies do you think are at that level?

Google, Facebook, Amazon. Amazon is in the same ballpark AFAIK, but the other two have noticeably better comp. The "Microsoft deal", such as it is, was that it's a place where you don't have to grind hard. This has changed now though.

It certainly didn't work that way for me, back in the late 2000s - my stint at Microsoft was the most exhausting grind of my career.

The common wisdom at the time was that different divisions of Microsoft had widely varying cultures, with as much difference as you'd expect to see between unrelated companies, so perhaps that was just DevDiv.

Re: The Broken Microsoft Pact: Layoffs and Performance Management

#74

Post by red-iron-pine »

Arainach wrote: post #37
armada651 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software developers have enjoyed decades of high demand for their skills and the companies that hired them have enjoyed decades of an abundance of capital against a low interest rate. You didn't need a union because you had leverage due to the demand for your skills and companies didn't need to be particularly efficient. This was a time where companies were hiring talented developers just to deny them to their compet…

You need a union when there's demand precisely because there will be down times.

and we're hitting that point. now. but the gist of the parent's arguement is that we didn't before.

also keep in mind that unions first popped up in places were people were, like, dying, or getting maimed: trains, mines, electrical, gasfitters, ironworkers. up until now programming has been easy money sitting indoors while sipping lattes.

Re: The Broken Microsoft Pact: Layoffs and Performance Management

#75

Post by monkaiju »

Arainach wrote: post #55
monkaiju wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're totally correct, but it wasn't _just_ Republicans. The Democrats are incredibly anti-labor. Even Biden, who was marketed as "most pro-labor president since FDR" forced the railroad workers back to work. Both parties are so in capital's pocket that, at least on labor issues, they are essentially the same.

They are absolutely not, and at this point anyone claiming as much is being malicious. Yes, Biden could have done better on railroads, but his administration: * Made millions more workers eligible for overtime pay * Installed union leaders on the NLRB (contrast to Republicans who fired members, defunded efforts, and gave access to NRLB data to Musk/Palantir/etc.) * Those new NLRB members issued the Cemex decision mak…

None of the little technocratic nonsense matters though if you blow it when workers are actually trying to directly exert their power. The power of the workers doesn't come from the NLRB or any of these government institutions, it comes from their ability to withold their labor, and when they do that it becomes clear that both parties are funded by the same oligarchs because both of them will step in and stop it.

Re: The Broken Microsoft Pact: Layoffs and Performance Management

#76

Post by msteffen »

> This creates a system where companies find it easier to fire good employees in bulk than to fire bad employees individually. The legal protections meant to prevent arbitrary termination end up enabling exactly that

I have some passing familiarity with how (California) law firms approach firing, which this article gave me cause to consider:

- they do fire unproductive people aggressively (law firms bill by the hour and attorneys are very expensive to employ, so it’s very obvious and financially meaningful to the business when someone isn’t contributing)

- when they fire someone, they’re very secretive about it. The person stays on the firm’s website for months, and if you call HR, they’ll say that the person still works there (they probably do, in some narrow technical sense). This makes it somewhat easier for the person to get a new job.

Also this a nit but the legal protections aren’t meant to prevent arbitrary termination, which is pretty explicitly legal. They’re meant to prevent discrimination.

Re: The Broken Microsoft Pact: Layoffs and Performance Management

#77

Post by tuna74 »

hackthemack wrote: post #24

I wish people were not so adverse to unions. The company will never be your friend. You will almost never have much leverage over what the company wants to do. The information you have will most likely be very asymmetrical to what the company has insight into, putting you at a disadvantage. Unions are imperfect. Unions will have its own inside politics. You will pay a union fee. I think humans are fundamentally flawe…

Companies with CBAs can downsize as well. Union or no union does not really matter.

Re: The Broken Microsoft Pact: Layoffs and Performance Management

#78

Post by [deleted] »

monkaiju wrote: post #75
Arainach wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are absolutely not, and at this point anyone claiming as much is being malicious. Yes, Biden could have done better on railroads, but his administration: * Made millions more workers eligible for overtime pay * Installed union leaders on the NLRB (contrast to Republicans who fired members, defunded efforts, and gave access to NRLB data to Musk/Palantir/etc.) * Those new NLRB members issued the Cemex decision mak…

None of the little technocratic nonsense matters though if you blow it when workers are actually trying to directly exert their power. The power of the workers doesn't come from the NLRB or any of these government institutions, it comes from their ability to withold their labor, and when they do that it becomes clear that both parties are funded by the same oligarchs because both of them will step in and stop it.

[deleted]

Re: The Broken Microsoft Pact: Layoffs and Performance Management

#79

Post by tqi »

monkaiju wrote: post #75
Arainach wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are absolutely not, and at this point anyone claiming as much is being malicious. Yes, Biden could have done better on railroads, but his administration: * Made millions more workers eligible for overtime pay * Installed union leaders on the NLRB (contrast to Republicans who fired members, defunded efforts, and gave access to NRLB data to Musk/Palantir/etc.) * Those new NLRB members issued the Cemex decision mak…

None of the little technocratic nonsense matters though if you blow it when workers are actually trying to directly exert their power. The power of the workers doesn't come from the NLRB or any of these government institutions, it comes from their ability to withold their labor, and when they do that it becomes clear that both parties are funded by the same oligarchs because both of them will step in and stop it.

So that makes rhem "essentially the same??"

Re: The Broken Microsoft Pact: Layoffs and Performance Management

#80

Post by wenc »

sarchertech wrote: post #69
wenc wrote: post #21

Most financial advisors tell you to keep a rainy day fund with a 3-6 month runway. Given what's been happening in the tech industry and the economy at large, I now keep a 1-year emergency fund in a money-market fund at 4% (Fidelity SPAXX). I'm probably losing out on some growth (SP500 grew 11% over the past year, despite the massive drop in April 2025), but at least I have liquidity in case I get laid off. That's the…

If you only have a little more than a year in total assets that probably makes sense. But if you have much more than that, there’s no reason to keep an entire year in such a low return investment. Money in say an S&P500 ETF can be liquid in 1-3 days.

SP500 can go down a lot and stay down for a long time.

We went through this in 2022 when most stocks were down 20% for a year. SP500 is not a low risk short term investment.

How would you feel if your rainy day fund lost 20% of its value?

Post reply on HN