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

91–100 of 102 posts

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#91

Post by abledon »

bestouff wrote: post #13
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?

Maybe for some. The illusion they had of a nice job, especially with lots of money promised, made them take too big a credit for their house or whatever. And now they're doomed. You can always say this is their fault for not having foreseen that, but it probably wouldn't have happened to them if they had another, more regular job.

'doomed' really?

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#92

Post by jvanderbot »

finikytou wrote: post #90
jvanderbot wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

did you know in advance your job was cut??? because most people did not. some of those people left everything 1 month ago to build a new life in a new country. and for having done that a few times in my past it includes using some of your own money to move / sell things cheaper and obviously for people having to come back to lower wage country where it is harder to find a good job (because tech is not a huge sector l…

No doubt, I was lucky. Here's the luck factors:

1. I was saving for a house downpayment, so I put most my earnings right into the bank and had already minimized spending

2. They announced layoffs immediately, but then gave us time to finish work and transfer internally. If we couldn't transfer, they would lay us off after 6 weeks. This happened to me as I was a manager of a particular specialty and it was tough to transfer to a job I wanted. Furthermore, everyone around me was cut, so we could all work together and support eachother for 6 weeks.

3. My wife has a full time job so our income was reduced, not eliminated.

4. We had family nearby for any childcare problems, so I could focus on a new job hunt

5. I had friends and network nearby, so I could look for local jobs quickly and efficiently

6. I had a referral from an old co-worker, and that referral turned into my new job, which so far I love.

7. I had insisted on working remote from my hometown area, which has much lower cost of living (which helped with 4, 5), and made our situation much less dire

8. I got a lot of traction from a linkedin post during the 6 weeks job-hunt stage. This is just a function of my coworker network and I'm lucky to have those folks

I feel for those who didn't have these factors. I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to have to navigate visa issues on top of a lack of a local network and reduced / eliminated income. I definitely had home-court advantage in all this.

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#93

Post by notyourwork »

DangitBobby wrote: post #50
notyourwork wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You have decided they don't have a responsibility to their employees, but that doesn't make it true.

No, I personally did not decide this. Corporations decide this for themselves. Whether I agree or not has nothing to do with the reality of the current situation.

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#94

Post by ecf »

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…

> compensation of the workforce in check

This is the real take away, imo. It seems like a controlled, insider effort to combat wage growth.

I essentially didn’t get a pay raise after a year of stellar performance reviews because of inflation, and with these layoffs I’m no longer in a position of bargaining power to ask for more.

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#95

Post by jjtheblunt »

jen20 wrote: post #48
jjtheblunt wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment made me wonder something i don’t remember being discussed in these terms, but what about our markets and laws makes liquidity in employers and employees work poorly?

> but what about our markets and laws makes liquidity in employers and employees work poorly 1. The utter insanity of family medical insurance being tied to employment. 2. Non-compete agreements without full (or higher) compensation being valid. I’m sure there are others, but those two are a good start.

those are great examples!

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#96

Post by cableshaft »

elforce002 wrote: post #51

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…

To be fair, inflation numbers are going back down in the US, while countries that aren't raising their interest rates (or at least not as aggressively as the US is) still have much higher inflation, double digits in some cases. So it does seem to be working, as shitty as it is.

I don't think all these companies really need to lay people off though, they're just using 'everyone else is doing it' as an excuse to get away with it and juice up their stock price.

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#97

Post by outside1234 »

robswc wrote: post #66
jaqalopes wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Couldn't this potentially make it so those jobs never existed in the first place? Seems companies would be less willing to hire if it becomes harder to let employees go. What is the incentive to take risk? The reason Europe is almost out of the tech race entirely is in large part due to European companies not taking risks.

I think there needs to be some sort of counterbalance. We probably don't need full UAW style unions, but we need some sort of collective voice and power so that there can actually be a conversation with management.

I think Germany's work councils could be a good starting point to work from.

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#98

Post by outside1234 »

jonp888 wrote: post #25
cj wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do mass layoffs work in places like the EU? I know it's much more difficult to fire people in the EU, but is there an exception if it's done as part of a layoff? The only real solution I can think of is regulatory in nature (e.g. requiring paying out 6 months pay during a layoff, which might make companies think twice before "hiring ahead of growth") Because let's face it, "hiring ahead of growth" is the real pro…

Some of the differences in Germany would be: 1. The minimium notice period for termination of employment is between 1 and 3 months. 2. The employer must select which employees to lay off depending on social factors(age, do they have young children or other dependents, are they disabled etc.) and not based on performance ratings. 3. If the company is laying off staff, but also at the same time hiring people with a sim…

Can you explain #2 more? Are you saying that they must select employees that being laid off would have the lowest impact to?

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#99

Post by robswc »

outside1234 wrote: post #97
robswc wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't this potentially make it so those jobs never existed in the first place? Seems companies would be less willing to hire if it becomes harder to let employees go. What is the incentive to take risk? The reason Europe is almost out of the tech race entirely is in large part due to European companies not taking risks.

I think there needs to be some sort of counterbalance. We probably don't need full UAW style unions, but we need some sort of collective voice and power so that there can actually be a conversation with management. I think Germany's work councils could be a good starting point to work from.

>so that there can actually be a conversation with management

What conversations do you need to have? Genuine question.

Re: Amazon job cuts: Read the memos

#100

Post by DangitBobby »

notyourwork wrote: post #93
DangitBobby wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have decided they don't have a responsibility to their employees, but that doesn't make it true.

No, I personally did not decide this. Corporations decide this for themselves. Whether I agree or not has nothing to do with the reality of the current situation.

Again, declaring things to be reality does not make them so.
Post reply on HN