3 ms·
Google: DoubleClick Employees Must Re-Apply For Their Own Jobs
- kkshin 19y agoI think all companies should do the same in any acquisition, and especially in ones such as this where you are basically buying the user base and not necessarily the technology/people.
- tonyvt2005 19y agoIt's sad but unfortunately it's reality in most cases.
- Prrometheus 19y agoYes, but Google should be careful not to alienate the people that end up staying. It is necessary for the success of their company that they maintain the Google culture, but the danger is that they seem like a callous giant company who doesn't care about the new people.
- samwise 19y agogood move. This is what i would want to hear if i was a Google investor. Cut The Fat.
- fiaz 19y agoYour inappropriate use of the word "here" for "hear" I can tolerate. But your referral to human beings as "fat" that are easily "cut" is inexcusable. Please keep this in mind as there are many people in the near future that are going to be losing their jobs as the US economy spins out of control (which I hope it doesn't).
- samwise 19y agoSo,i would assume that you would rather have us assigning superficial jobs to employees just to give the impression of a healthy economy. It's that kinda of think that i believe will render America unable to compete globally and ultimately will do more harm than our temporary slump. also, it's really lame to down mod someone, just because you don't agree with them.
- fiaz 19y agoDon't confuse what I said. I'm merely objecting to the inappropriateness of referring to human beings as "fat". My second statement in the above comment was to get you to realize that real people are going to be facing tough times and that they are going to suffer in a VERY real way. Lightly referring to others as "fat" is unnecessary; it's a matter of politeness to those individuals. Btw, I agree with what you are suggesting overall. I just don't agree with the way it is expressed. Perhaps this discussion has no place here, and for that I apologize to all.
- tom_rath 19y agoPeople aren't "the fat", redundant jobs are. Jobs aren't people.
- kevr 19y agoI understand your point (and the points above) but it's those 'redundant jobs' that built the company into a viable purchase for Google. How can they value it at $3.1Bn then ditch the very machine that created that value?
- tomh 19y agoIsn't the value in replacing the competitor's product with your own? As the article said, all that they really prize is the user base. It's not like that's the first time they have paid for a possible competitor in order to assimilate them and wipe out their product (I'm thinking Dodgeball, Dulance, etc), it's just on a larger scale.
- tom_rath 19y agoIt's the removal of redundancies which can make a merger greater than the sum of its parts. Why should Google maintain a separate set of HR, sales and administration departments when it already has those in place?
- deleted 19y ago[deleted]
- microcentury 19y agoMy troll sense is tingling.
- deleted 19y ago[deleted]
- bluelu 19y agoWild wild west. Works only in the US though :-).
- hollerith 19y agoWhich is a big reason why US GDP per capita is 25% higher than any other country with a sizable population.
- 1gor 19y ago>...For Their Own Jobs I'm afraid they are not their own.
- sabat 19y ago"They're called 'Effeciency Experts' but you're really interviewing for your own job!" "So ... what would you say ... ya DO here?" "I already told you! I deal with the goddamned customers so the programmers don't have to! I have people skills! What's the matter with you people?!"