7 ms·

Maybe, maybe not. Consider it in terms of your own workplace: if you worked on a team of 10, and one person got laid off, would that seem so huge? I think the q

Maybe, maybe not. Consider it in terms of your own workplace: if you worked on a team of 10, and one person got laid off, would that seem so huge? I think the question is whether this round of layoffs is in response to an acute cash flow issue or just part of long-term financial prudency. They fact that they waited until after Christmas and are providing 8 weeks of pay and benefits makes me hopeful that it's the latter. Also, given that Falcon 9 is now essentially "done", I expect there probably is a fair bit of internal capacity that's accumulated during its development which can be cut. For example, SpaceX is famous for building a lot of components in house, but perhaps they'll move more to using subcontractors for Falcon 9 parts. That might free up money to spend on R&D. The challenge will be to become leaner and save money in the core launch business without compromising standards. It'll only take a couple of accidents to trash their reputation.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
10% is huge by any measure.
- fma 8y ago
  I work for GM (for now). 15% layoffs were announced before Christmas... No one knows when the ax will drop. Rumor is Monday or Tuesday. Moral is low and the office has been pretty damn quiet. Meanwhile we just raises earnings forecast today...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    Which is kinda just how capitalism "works". In certain circumstances, once the means of production are created [most of] the workers are no longer needed, but the means being privately held (by a narrow group of owners) means they alone can benefit going forward. You can make a feast together and share it; or you can make a feast together, kick out most of the helpers and gorge yourself. Capitalism says the second option is better because you get to have more.
    - roenxi 8y ago
      Strictly speaking, Capitalism says that the Capitalists get to choose which option they go with. In a system with healthy incentives, we might expect Option 1 to be the sensible capitalist equilibrium, because capital needs to be maintained and the builders/maintainers become the same people. Don't forget that, in theory, the workers can become capitalists themselves if they aren't getting a good share of the benefits. In my view usually when they don't it is because of government interference (eg, the pre-Uber situation in taxis, or how regulation tends to entrench existing players).
      - ambicapter 8y ago
        You don't "become" capitalist, a capitalist has capital, and if you don't have any capital, you're not a capitalist.
        CryptoPunk 8y ago
        Anyone saving/investing a portion of their income is becoming a capitalist.
        FakeComments 8y ago
        I disagree. As an example, someone who switches from working as a landscaper to running a landscaping business has switched from a worker role to a capitalist role — even though they likely spent less money doing so than a software engineer worker owns. Being a “capitalist” is defined by capitalizing ventures, not the mere volume of capital. I would argue that the reason society has become so disequitable is that we’ve made it difficult to transition between worker and small capitalist — that is to say, that we’ve undermined small and lifestyle businesses.
    - CryptoPunk 8y ago
      >>but the means being privately held (by a narrow group of owners) means they alone can benefit going forward. No, capital expanding has social benefits in reducing consumer prices, which increases purchasing power.
  - tyfon 8y ago
    The forecast increase is probably a direct result of the layoff and they needed it to "meet the quarter". I have the quarterly cycle. I find it extremely bad for both the society and companies when nobody takes the long term view.
    - fma 8y ago
      No... It was part of the 2018 announcement. 2018 was better than expected so they revised 2019 forecast. "Early Friday, GM said 2018 EPS will exceed previous guidance of $5.80-$6.20. It also expects to surpass an earlier view of adjusted automotive free cash flow of $4 billion."
- catmanjan 8y ago
  By that logic no company with less than 11 people should ever fire anyone...
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    To be fair, a firing in an 11-man company can be a pretty big deal.
  - hannasanarion 8y ago
    Pretty much, yeah. In an 11 person company, each individual is basically a whole department. That one person might be your only marketer, or your only frontend developer, or your only accountant. That's a really big deal.
  - cyberferret 8y ago
    Firing one person in a 10 person company could mean that you lose your entire accounting/finance skillset in one fell swoop. Or your sole developer. It is a big deal in terms of intellectual property and skill pool within your organisation. Down stream impact of how to cope with that loss is another factor. Fire your book keeper and does your remaining engineering team have to spend 10% of their time doing invoices and reconciling bank accounts?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - wongarsu 8y ago
      It could also mean firing that one developer who vastly underperforms, but you still have 5 other skilled developers because developing happens to be what your company does.
- rb666 8y ago
  Really? Look around you next time you're in the office, could you really not lose at least 1 of those 9 slackers around you?
  - Fomite 8y ago
    I mean, if nothing else, 'decimate' has the meaning it has for a reason.
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      Its gravitas comes from indiscriminate killing, not from the number.
  - mango7283 8y ago
    And if you can't find a slacker, that means you must be the slacker, I suppose!
  - jon-wood 8y ago
    You must be fun to work with. I’ve worked in 10 person companies, and it’s the sort of place where there’s nowhere to hide. By extension you generally won’t find slackers in a small company.
- RachelF 8y ago
  Good ol' Roman army strategy of "Decimation", in 1 in 10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(Roman_army) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(Roman_army)
  - onetimemanytime 8y ago
    "SpaceX decimates its WorForce" would have been just as correct but then Swat Teams might have moved in :). On topic, probably just cutting out the fat (I'm sure most companies can fire 10% and a month later very few would notice the difference). But then, why not move them to R&D? I doubt SpaceX has cash problems to fire (more or less) essential workers.
    - wolco 8y ago
      As long as the company is planning on doing 10% less than most will not notice. 10% usually means 10% to 40% of company productivity is affected shortterm. 10% leave, 5% wanted to get fired but didn't, 25% will think they are next and change how they work (some positive some negative). It is usually a signal for top performers to start moving on. In this case the story is spacex is growing conflicts with the layoffs.
- computerex 8y ago
  I am not sure why you're getting downvoted. Imagine if Apple/iPhone lost 10% of its growth, people would start panicking. Context is extremely important. 10% of a dollar is not a lot of money, but 10% of a billion USD would be many times what I'd need for the rest of my life.
takeda 8y ago
Waiting until after Christmas is indeed nice, but the 8 weeks is actually mandated by law. California WARN act applies to any site that has at least 70 employees and lays of at least 50. When this is triggered, the employer needs to provide at least 60 days notice.
- mdorazio 8y ago
  WARN only applies to notice, not to severance pay. As far as I know, even in a mass layoff situation in CA like this, they are not required to provide any compensation. You could look at it as "hey we're going to fire you in 60 days per WARN, so just stop working now and we'll pay you for that time" but it's not quite the same - they could just notify them, make them work the 8 weeks and not provide any actual severance pay.
  - sjburt 8y ago
    Likely they would rather send people home and pay them than risk theft or sabotage.
    - paulie_a 8y ago
      While there have been cases of that the average person is going to fullfil their obligation and collect the check. Any manager that really is concerned about theft and sabotage in that scenario should not be a manager. Employees steal and sometimes sabotage while gainfully employed too. Everyday the company is already risking that.
      - garmaine 8y ago
        > While there have been cases of that the average person is going to fullfil their obligation and collect the check. It only takes one. Risk to the company is much bigger when you’re building rockets than your typical software shop, too.
        paulie_a 8y ago
wolco 8y ago
It is more like you work at a company with 10 people. One person is fired but that person happens to be hr. The remaining 9 somehow get payroll done but someone is always short.
mlthoughts2018 8y ago
8 weeks of pay as severance is insultingly horrible, even for very junior employees. If a company hopes to grow and be taken seriously as a professional workplace, you have to do much, much better than 8 weeks pay & benefits for severance. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Always negotiate severance up front as part of any job offer, and consider 4-6 months as an absolute minimum for junior or mid-level employees, and at least 12 months of pay for senior employees. Simply turn down job offers when a company won’t offer this and take a longer time to find an offer at one of the (many) companies that will. Most companies will negotiate severance with you but you have to ask and make it clear that in-writing severance details to serve as protection against unexpected unemployment from layoffs is a dealbreaker for you. Most candidates won’t negotiate this, which is why most companies don’t have to offer it except to the few special case people that require it. If we all, as candidates, unilaterally make it impossible to hire us without adequate severance, we’ll all be better off.. instead of just the minority of candidates who put forward the effort to negotiate it and aren’t afraid to turn down offers that don’t include defined severance agreements.
- chucksmash 8y ago
  > I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Always negotiate severance up front as part of any job offer, and consider 4-6 months as an absolute minimum for junior or mid-level employees, and at least 12 months of pay for senior employees. Simply turn down job offers when a company won’t offer this and take a longer time to find an offer at one of the (many) companies that will. Have you put this into practice? It'd be a nice contingency to have in place but seems like it'd put a damper on the tone of the negotiations ("I'm already thinking about being let go and want to make it really expensive for you to do so").
  - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
    Yes, I have absolutely put this into practice. I have encountered companies that have blanket policies about either low or no severance, and I simply reject any offer or request to continue negotiations without severance. This has certainly made job searches take longer and certainly left me feeling frustrated after investing time in take-home tests, on-site interviews and negotiations, only to learn that severance agreements weren’t possible in some cases. But I gained a lot of experience regarding how to negotiate it and talk about it, and ultimately found that most companies are perfectly happy to negotiate it as part of the job offer.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

10% is huge by any measure.

fma 8y ago
I work for GM (for now). 15% layoffs were announced before Christmas... No one knows when the ax will drop. Rumor is Monday or Tuesday. Moral is low and the office has been pretty damn quiet. Meanwhile we just raises earnings forecast today...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  Which is kinda just how capitalism "works". In certain circumstances, once the means of production are created [most of] the workers are no longer needed, but the means being privately held (by a narrow group of owners) means they alone can benefit going forward. You can make a feast together and share it; or you can make a feast together, kick out most of the helpers and gorge yourself. Capitalism says the second option is better because you get to have more.
  - roenxi 8y ago
    Strictly speaking, Capitalism says that the Capitalists get to choose which option they go with. In a system with healthy incentives, we might expect Option 1 to be the sensible capitalist equilibrium, because capital needs to be maintained and the builders/maintainers become the same people. Don't forget that, in theory, the workers can become capitalists themselves if they aren't getting a good share of the benefits. In my view usually when they don't it is because of government interference (eg, the pre-Uber situation in taxis, or how regulation tends to entrench existing players).
    - ambicapter 8y ago
      You don't "become" capitalist, a capitalist has capital, and if you don't have any capital, you're not a capitalist.
      - CryptoPunk 8y ago
        Anyone saving/investing a portion of their income is becoming a capitalist.
      - FakeComments 8y ago
        I disagree. As an example, someone who switches from working as a landscaper to running a landscaping business has switched from a worker role to a capitalist role — even though they likely spent less money doing so than a software engineer worker owns. Being a “capitalist” is defined by capitalizing ventures, not the mere volume of capital. I would argue that the reason society has become so disequitable is that we’ve made it difficult to transition between worker and small capitalist — that is to say, that we’ve undermined small and lifestyle businesses.
  - CryptoPunk 8y ago
    >>but the means being privately held (by a narrow group of owners) means they alone can benefit going forward. No, capital expanding has social benefits in reducing consumer prices, which increases purchasing power.
- tyfon 8y ago
  The forecast increase is probably a direct result of the layoff and they needed it to "meet the quarter". I have the quarterly cycle. I find it extremely bad for both the society and companies when nobody takes the long term view.
  - fma 8y ago
    No... It was part of the 2018 announcement. 2018 was better than expected so they revised 2019 forecast. "Early Friday, GM said 2018 EPS will exceed previous guidance of $5.80-$6.20. It also expects to surpass an earlier view of adjusted automotive free cash flow of $4 billion."
catmanjan 8y ago
By that logic no company with less than 11 people should ever fire anyone...
- whatshisface 8y ago
  To be fair, a firing in an 11-man company can be a pretty big deal.
- hannasanarion 8y ago
  Pretty much, yeah. In an 11 person company, each individual is basically a whole department. That one person might be your only marketer, or your only frontend developer, or your only accountant. That's a really big deal.
- cyberferret 8y ago
  Firing one person in a 10 person company could mean that you lose your entire accounting/finance skillset in one fell swoop. Or your sole developer. It is a big deal in terms of intellectual property and skill pool within your organisation. Down stream impact of how to cope with that loss is another factor. Fire your book keeper and does your remaining engineering team have to spend 10% of their time doing invoices and reconciling bank accounts?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - wongarsu 8y ago
    It could also mean firing that one developer who vastly underperforms, but you still have 5 other skilled developers because developing happens to be what your company does.
rb666 8y ago
Really? Look around you next time you're in the office, could you really not lose at least 1 of those 9 slackers around you?
- Fomite 8y ago
  I mean, if nothing else, 'decimate' has the meaning it has for a reason.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Its gravitas comes from indiscriminate killing, not from the number.
- mango7283 8y ago
  And if you can't find a slacker, that means you must be the slacker, I suppose!
- jon-wood 8y ago
  You must be fun to work with. I’ve worked in 10 person companies, and it’s the sort of place where there’s nowhere to hide. By extension you generally won’t find slackers in a small company.
RachelF 8y ago
Good ol' Roman army strategy of "Decimation", in 1 in 10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(Roman_army) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(Roman_army)
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  "SpaceX decimates its WorForce" would have been just as correct but then Swat Teams might have moved in :). On topic, probably just cutting out the fat (I'm sure most companies can fire 10% and a month later very few would notice the difference). But then, why not move them to R&D? I doubt SpaceX has cash problems to fire (more or less) essential workers.
  - wolco 8y ago
    As long as the company is planning on doing 10% less than most will not notice. 10% usually means 10% to 40% of company productivity is affected shortterm. 10% leave, 5% wanted to get fired but didn't, 25% will think they are next and change how they work (some positive some negative). It is usually a signal for top performers to start moving on. In this case the story is spacex is growing conflicts with the layoffs.
computerex 8y ago
I am not sure why you're getting downvoted. Imagine if Apple/iPhone lost 10% of its growth, people would start panicking. Context is extremely important. 10% of a dollar is not a lot of money, but 10% of a billion USD would be many times what I'd need for the rest of my life.

takeda 8y ago

Waiting until after Christmas is indeed nice, but the 8 weeks is actually mandated by law. California WARN act applies to any site that has at least 70 employees and lays of at least 50. When this is triggered, the employer needs to provide at least 60 days notice.

mdorazio 8y ago
WARN only applies to notice, not to severance pay. As far as I know, even in a mass layoff situation in CA like this, they are not required to provide any compensation. You could look at it as "hey we're going to fire you in 60 days per WARN, so just stop working now and we'll pay you for that time" but it's not quite the same - they could just notify them, make them work the 8 weeks and not provide any actual severance pay.
- sjburt 8y ago
  Likely they would rather send people home and pay them than risk theft or sabotage.
  - paulie_a 8y ago
    While there have been cases of that the average person is going to fullfil their obligation and collect the check. Any manager that really is concerned about theft and sabotage in that scenario should not be a manager. Employees steal and sometimes sabotage while gainfully employed too. Everyday the company is already risking that.
    - garmaine 8y ago
      > While there have been cases of that the average person is going to fullfil their obligation and collect the check. It only takes one. Risk to the company is much bigger when you’re building rockets than your typical software shop, too.
      - paulie_a 8y ago

wolco 8y ago

It is more like you work at a company with 10 people. One person is fired but that person happens to be hr. The remaining 9 somehow get payroll done but someone is always short.

mlthoughts2018 8y ago

8 weeks of pay as severance is insultingly horrible, even for very junior employees. If a company hopes to grow and be taken seriously as a professional workplace, you have to do much, much better than 8 weeks pay & benefits for severance. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Always negotiate severance up front as part of any job offer, and consider 4-6 months as an absolute minimum for junior or mid-level employees, and at least 12 months of pay for senior employees. Simply turn down job offers when a company won’t offer this and take a longer time to find an offer at one of the (many) companies that will. Most companies will negotiate severance with you but you have to ask and make it clear that in-writing severance details to serve as protection against unexpected unemployment from layoffs is a dealbreaker for you. Most candidates won’t negotiate this, which is why most companies don’t have to offer it except to the few special case people that require it. If we all, as candidates, unilaterally make it impossible to hire us without adequate severance, we’ll all be better off.. instead of just the minority of candidates who put forward the effort to negotiate it and aren’t afraid to turn down offers that don’t include defined severance agreements.

chucksmash 8y ago
> I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Always negotiate severance up front as part of any job offer, and consider 4-6 months as an absolute minimum for junior or mid-level employees, and at least 12 months of pay for senior employees. Simply turn down job offers when a company won’t offer this and take a longer time to find an offer at one of the (many) companies that will. Have you put this into practice? It'd be a nice contingency to have in place but seems like it'd put a damper on the tone of the negotiations ("I'm already thinking about being let go and want to make it really expensive for you to do so").
- mlthoughts2018 8y ago
  Yes, I have absolutely put this into practice. I have encountered companies that have blanket policies about either low or no severance, and I simply reject any offer or request to continue negotiations without severance. This has certainly made job searches take longer and certainly left me feeling frustrated after investing time in take-home tests, on-site interviews and negotiations, only to learn that severance agreements weren’t possible in some cases. But I gained a lot of experience regarding how to negotiate it and talk about it, and ultimately found that most companies are perfectly happy to negotiate it as part of the job offer.