4 ms·

So this was not enough? https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCWorld/status/1532044561807179779 https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCWorld/status/15320445618071797...

that_guy_iain 4y ago
Well, that happened yesterday and is probably part of their process of reducing numbers by 10%. It's better if they quit than if they're laid off.
- alkonaut 4y ago
  Except if yo lay off 10% you get to cut (at least some of) the 10% you want to get rid off. And if you rely on persuading people to quit by reducing satisfaction, you'll get rid of a large chunk of the 10% best employees instead.
  - that_guy_iain 4y ago
    Not really. The people who will flee because of this will also flee because of layoffs and look for somewhere more secure. And everyone is acting like the best employees are going to be the ones quitting. Nah, the best employees are highly engaged employees not ones that are technically talented but will flee just because they have to go to an office. Your most technically talented employees are often not your best employees nor your most valuable. They're important and expensive, but the person in ops that gets paid a low salary but knows the ins and outs of everything and knows how to troubleshoot everything to the point that stuff is fixed is vital. A software developer who is really smart can and will be replaced. There will be HR people working on retention of top employees as we speak. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/m-and-a/our-insights/talent-retention-and-selection-in-m-and-a https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/m-and-a/our-insi... gives an insight into this when it comes to M&As
    - watwut 4y ago
      "Highly engaged employees" do actually leave when management does things like "intentionally trying to alienate and push employees away". People who are highly engaged want to be highly engaged and don't like changes that lowers engagement. Changes designed to alienate employees are alienating highly engaged employees as much as they alienate everyone else. Except that, if you are already alienated, you are used to it. When you used to be engaged, you perceive the change as very negative. Also, have you ever worked in a company affected by consultants like you suggest? They don't have capability to recognize or motivate good people .
    - shmatt 4y ago
      The best employees at passing the average SV engineering interview loop will indeed leave. You better bet there is some amount of dead weight/low rated employees who have been interviewing around for there own reasons and haven't been getting any decent offers, so they just rest and vest. They'll happily return to office while the high performers get some $700k offer elsewhere This is exactly why Netflix decides to pay very nicely for you to quit, if you reach out to your manager about that. They don't want you to stay an extra year trying to pass hard interview loops elsewhere
    - bryanlarsen 4y ago
      We had a great discussion about "The Elves Leave Middle Earth – Sodas Are No Longer Free" a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31573108 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31573108 It talks about employees that were very productive and happy hitting a stumbling block and suddenly realizing that "hey, this isn't the same place it used to be", and then leaving. Saying "no work from home" and "10% layoffs" are much bigger triggers for this than getting rid of free sodas.
    - alkonaut 4y ago
      > Your most technically talented employees are often not your best employees nor your most valuable. They're important and expensive, but the person in ops that gets paid a low salary but knows the ins and outs of everything and knows how to troubleshoot everything to the point that stuff is fixed is vital Sounds like that ops guy should be paid more...
  - chasd00 4y ago
    It would seem to me any time a 10% layoff is announced you can expect another 10% to leave over the next year. Smart people will see the writing on the wall and they always have a couple recruiters in their back pocket. Employers would want to layoff the bottom 10% obviously but they're going to shed serious talent too as they get the full court press from recruiters.
    - halfmatthalfcat 4y ago
      What is the writing on the wall, specifically, for Tesla though? They're ramping up two new factories and have a massive product lineup outlook. Electric is the future and, while this recession will last a couple years, will be the winning strategy long term. It's hard not to be long Tesla and take this financial turbulence as that, turbulence.
      - lapcat 4y ago
        > It's hard not to be long Tesla and take this financial turbulence as that, turbulence. This is an investor perspective though, not an employee perspective. When it comes to jobs, "just sit and wait" is not necessarily the best strategy.
      - michaelt 4y ago
        Well, it depends on the details. Sometimes large layoffs mean absolutely nothing - for example, if a company lays off a loss-making division that's nothing to do with your work. If you work on advertising for Facebook and they lay off the entire VR headset division, your job might remain entirely secure. Sometimes layoffs mean the company is short of money - that products aren't bringing in enough revenue to cover costs, and investors aren't looking to pump in more cash. This might mean there will be further rounds of layoffs in the near future; subsequent layoffs might be less generous; and there might be a freeze on raises or promotions, no matter how well you perform. On the other hand, I've known people get big promotions at failing companies, as their superiors leave for greener pastures. So your employer being in decline doesn't always mean freezes on promotions! Some layoffs mean the bosses think bad hires have been made - that the company has too many indolent employees putting in just enough effort to not get fired. Maybe that colleague everybody knows is useless will finally get fired. On the other hand, if the bosses think people like you are dead weight, that might not bode well for your career. Sometimes layoffs mean the company has changed strategy and areas that were seen as money-makers (like adding new features to the product) are now seen as cost centers. This may indicate there will be less work developing new greenfield code and worrying about chasing the cutting edge. If you're near the end of your career that might be fine; if you're early in your career, it might mean this isn't the place to keep your skills up-to-date.
- watwut 4y ago
  > It's better if they quit than if they're laid off. For who?
  - toqy 4y ago
    The company, because of unemployment benefits, is what I assume they are saying. You're not eligible if you just quit, you are if you're laid off / fired.
- breadbreadbread 4y ago
  * better for the company

that_guy_iain 4y ago

Well, that happened yesterday and is probably part of their process of reducing numbers by 10%. It's better if they quit than if they're laid off.

alkonaut 4y ago
Except if yo lay off 10% you get to cut (at least some of) the 10% you want to get rid off. And if you rely on persuading people to quit by reducing satisfaction, you'll get rid of a large chunk of the 10% best employees instead.
- that_guy_iain 4y ago
  Not really. The people who will flee because of this will also flee because of layoffs and look for somewhere more secure. And everyone is acting like the best employees are going to be the ones quitting. Nah, the best employees are highly engaged employees not ones that are technically talented but will flee just because they have to go to an office. Your most technically talented employees are often not your best employees nor your most valuable. They're important and expensive, but the person in ops that gets paid a low salary but knows the ins and outs of everything and knows how to troubleshoot everything to the point that stuff is fixed is vital. A software developer who is really smart can and will be replaced. There will be HR people working on retention of top employees as we speak. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/m-and-a/our-insights/talent-retention-and-selection-in-m-and-a https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/m-and-a/our-insi... gives an insight into this when it comes to M&As
  - watwut 4y ago
    "Highly engaged employees" do actually leave when management does things like "intentionally trying to alienate and push employees away". People who are highly engaged want to be highly engaged and don't like changes that lowers engagement. Changes designed to alienate employees are alienating highly engaged employees as much as they alienate everyone else. Except that, if you are already alienated, you are used to it. When you used to be engaged, you perceive the change as very negative. Also, have you ever worked in a company affected by consultants like you suggest? They don't have capability to recognize or motivate good people .
  - shmatt 4y ago
    The best employees at passing the average SV engineering interview loop will indeed leave. You better bet there is some amount of dead weight/low rated employees who have been interviewing around for there own reasons and haven't been getting any decent offers, so they just rest and vest. They'll happily return to office while the high performers get some $700k offer elsewhere This is exactly why Netflix decides to pay very nicely for you to quit, if you reach out to your manager about that. They don't want you to stay an extra year trying to pass hard interview loops elsewhere
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    We had a great discussion about "The Elves Leave Middle Earth – Sodas Are No Longer Free" a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31573108 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31573108 It talks about employees that were very productive and happy hitting a stumbling block and suddenly realizing that "hey, this isn't the same place it used to be", and then leaving. Saying "no work from home" and "10% layoffs" are much bigger triggers for this than getting rid of free sodas.
  - alkonaut 4y ago
    > Your most technically talented employees are often not your best employees nor your most valuable. They're important and expensive, but the person in ops that gets paid a low salary but knows the ins and outs of everything and knows how to troubleshoot everything to the point that stuff is fixed is vital Sounds like that ops guy should be paid more...
- chasd00 4y ago
  It would seem to me any time a 10% layoff is announced you can expect another 10% to leave over the next year. Smart people will see the writing on the wall and they always have a couple recruiters in their back pocket. Employers would want to layoff the bottom 10% obviously but they're going to shed serious talent too as they get the full court press from recruiters.
  - halfmatthalfcat 4y ago
    What is the writing on the wall, specifically, for Tesla though? They're ramping up two new factories and have a massive product lineup outlook. Electric is the future and, while this recession will last a couple years, will be the winning strategy long term. It's hard not to be long Tesla and take this financial turbulence as that, turbulence.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      > It's hard not to be long Tesla and take this financial turbulence as that, turbulence. This is an investor perspective though, not an employee perspective. When it comes to jobs, "just sit and wait" is not necessarily the best strategy.
    - michaelt 4y ago
      Well, it depends on the details. Sometimes large layoffs mean absolutely nothing - for example, if a company lays off a loss-making division that's nothing to do with your work. If you work on advertising for Facebook and they lay off the entire VR headset division, your job might remain entirely secure. Sometimes layoffs mean the company is short of money - that products aren't bringing in enough revenue to cover costs, and investors aren't looking to pump in more cash. This might mean there will be further rounds of layoffs in the near future; subsequent layoffs might be less generous; and there might be a freeze on raises or promotions, no matter how well you perform. On the other hand, I've known people get big promotions at failing companies, as their superiors leave for greener pastures. So your employer being in decline doesn't always mean freezes on promotions! Some layoffs mean the bosses think bad hires have been made - that the company has too many indolent employees putting in just enough effort to not get fired. Maybe that colleague everybody knows is useless will finally get fired. On the other hand, if the bosses think people like you are dead weight, that might not bode well for your career. Sometimes layoffs mean the company has changed strategy and areas that were seen as money-makers (like adding new features to the product) are now seen as cost centers. This may indicate there will be less work developing new greenfield code and worrying about chasing the cutting edge. If you're near the end of your career that might be fine; if you're early in your career, it might mean this isn't the place to keep your skills up-to-date.
watwut 4y ago
> It's better if they quit than if they're laid off. For who?
- toqy 4y ago
  The company, because of unemployment benefits, is what I assume they are saying. You're not eligible if you just quit, you are if you're laid off / fired.
breadbreadbread 4y ago
* better for the company