11 ms·

I need to see these "I take full responsibility" people actually punished. At the very least, this sentence needs to be removed from their mouths. Alphabet had

• HDThoreaun 4y ago
  Punished for what? This is all going to plan. Big tech gambled that the pandemic would create huge opportunities and it hasn’t totally panned out. They always planned to lay people off in that situation.
  • rvnx 4y ago
    This, punished for what ? In many big US companies, people are chilling as the revenue per employee is very high. Additionally, the low interest rates situation pushed tech valuations higher, and these employees benefited from the situation by getting a higher salary and relaxing job (see videos from Twitter or Meta employees). A lot profited from the scheme and are just sad that paradise is not forever with free wine, massages, sports and buffets at work and that downturns occasionally happens.
• phpisthebest 4y ago
  I agree they need to stop with the rhetoric... but I am sure we are not going to agree with why or what the end result of that change be The statement should read "We saw the "day in the life" video, we know you were not doing enough work so now we are reducing head count because clearly you have too much free time"
  • quelltext 4y ago
    Do you really think that? Also, if so, do you really think that reducing force means reducing force were it's appropriate (triming true fat)? All the companies are doing is to take the opportunity to save cost because everyone does, and because these companies can obviously survive. They hired to keep in line with trends and now they fire for the same reason.
    • phpisthebest 4y ago
      >>Do you really think that? Yes, employers are not babysitters, nor charities. There seems to have been a large number of bloat position where people simply mess around all day, an maybe attend a few meetings were they talk about working.... then pass the results of that meeting to another group to actually do work... This is not a new concept, "middle management" style problems except in this case instead of have 5 people managers for every 1 worker, you end up with 5 "project managers" for ever 1 worker... same result too many people talking about work and not enough people actually doing work >>Also, if so, do you really think that reducing force means reducing force were it's appropriate (triming true fat)? Maybe, maybe not. Organizations are often prevented from simply trimming "true fat" due to regulations and other things that means layoffs have to occur in a more broad way. Overtime it will even out but the initial cut will probably not be that precise.
      • saagarjha 4y ago
        > There seems to have been a large number of bloat position where people simply mess around all day, an maybe attend a few meetings were they talk about working.... then pass the results of that meeting to another group to actually do work... And you ascertained that from…a video on TikTok?
        • phpisthebest 4y ago
          That was one example in a long line of data points
• Eisenstein 4y ago
  I guess it depends on what they were hired for. If they were on a team for a project that is no longer viable, should they be kept on and given busywork?
  • saidinesh5 4y ago
    If they have cleared out Google's 6-7-8 rounds of interviews.. they can always be trained to move to/start into new projects no?
    • Someone 4y ago
      That requires there to be enough new projects.
      • saidinesh5 4y ago
        The thing that bums me out about all this is that Google used to be a company where so many great products/projects came out of their 20% time. They used to hire "generalists" so they can be of use in wide segments of their company. Now they are laying people off while still being a profitable company. Something definitely changed in their company's DNA.
      • asvitkine 4y ago
        Not necessarily entirely new projects, could be existing efforts that would just be new to those employees. Doubling down and investing in the areas that matter...
      • crote 4y ago
        Google hired 10.000 people in Q2 2022 alone. Despite claiming to have a hiring freeze, they hired even more people in Q3. It looks to me like they were hiring people without even considering whether there was work for them after accounting for the upcoming project culling, leading to the current need to fire 12k people. If they did their hiring freeze properly, they could have probably avoided a significant fraction of these firings.
• oxfordmale 4y ago
  "I take full responsibility for punching you in the nether regions. I hope you have a lovely day." Taking full responsibility typically implies a negative impact on the person offering this. However, this has yet to be the case in tech layoffs. I would prefer they were honest. CEOs simply overhired to take maximum financial advantage of COVID, and now they no longer need the people who helped them achieve record profits. However, it doesn't read as well in a corporate PR announcement to claim you milked COVID as much as you could.
  • itsoktocry 4y ago
    >CEOs simply overhired to take maximum financial advantage of COVID What does this even mean? Are you implying these people would have been better off not being hired?
    • oneeyedpigeon 4y ago
      Presumably at least some of them left a job to join Google. They now have no job, but might still have one had they not moved. It may very well be a tiny proportion of the total, of course.
    • oxfordmale 4y ago
      During Covid, there was an increased demand for certain online services. As a result, companies hired additional permanent staff members to meet the extra demand. Instead, they could have chosen to hire these people on temporary contracts. Hiring staff on a temporary contract would have been more transparent. In the end, this is a business decision, and it is fair enough. However, claiming responsibility while knowing full well they would make the exact same decision again in the future is a different matter.
      • bfeynman 4y ago
        I think your view is very simplistic and reductionist on how tech companies work. They are not not factories, they did not over hire to get boots on ground for support. They were hiring and creating brand new things with glee as stock and revenue soared.
• Mandatum 4y ago
  This is what happens when you work for a public company. You're working for shareholders. You're working for MBA's. You're working for data analysts and economists. Your colleagues aren't these people, but the person who decides whether or not you have a job? That's not your colleagues.
• przemelek 4y ago
  But it sounds better than "Sorry for terminating your positions but we need to keep our finances in check not to loose share values, and we are accountable for shareholders" (edited from "Sorry for terminating your positions but we need to keep our finances in check not to loose share values, and according to law it is only thing we are force to do")
  • Rexxar 4y ago
    Which law ?
    • przemelek 4y ago
      Public company is accountable to shareholders, in case if share prices will go down shareholders will want to know why, and some activist investor may go to the court complaining that company was able to have better financial results it should not work on some stuff and should fire people.
• Rezwoodly 4y ago
  Elon musk set a precedent - you can treat your employees (serfs) like shit and get away with it. Layoffs, perks being removed, the tone has generally shifted to "look we have free coffee" to "we own you, be glad to have a job, oh and you might not actually have a job after all". This is a change of winds, instead of pandering to engineers companies are trying to debase us and remind us where we are in the totem pole.its not about revenues, its about power.
  • ipython 4y ago
    Oh, please. Elon has nothing to do with this. Workers have had the shaft for centuries. Tech workers have been treated with kid gloves compared to the “real” world.
    • microtonal 4y ago
      Tech workers have been treated with kid gloves compared to the “real” world. Depends on where you live. In many European countries you cannot just fire someone, e.g. you have to show that the company is in a financially difficult situation or a structural decline in revenue. If your revenue growth looks like this: https://www.statista.com/statistics/267606/quarterly-revenue-of-google/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/267606/quarterly-revenue... You need other reasons (e.g. wrong behavior). Otherwise, you just find another position in the same company.
    • itsoktocry 4y ago
      >Tech workers have been treated with kid gloves compared to the “real” world. This is my reaction reading this thread. It's astonishing. This same crowd is typically anti-union, cheers on coal mine closures (learn to code!), want to throw finance people in jail, wants all car dealerships to disappear..the list goes on and on. They never seem to realize these business consist of normal people, most making salaries significantly lower than SV. But high paid software engineers lose their jobs and the same people want a revolution? I'm sorry to say, but the tech crowd doesn't have many labour allies in the "real" world anymore.
      • 4y ago
• mrtksn 4y ago
  A CEO taking responsibility for firing people always reminds me of Gavin Belson's speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u48vYSLvKNQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u48vYSLvKNQ Did ever a journalist tried to ask how they took responsibility? Had they faced difficulties in their lives or careers or they couldn't concentrate on Succession's finale and had to rewind? Maybe taking responsibility actually means they did something very positive for the company within the rules of the game and expect a bonus? Are they referring to the events as a mistake they made or are they saying that they were able to grab the talent pool and didn't miss the opportunity? After all, CEOs and workers have different responsibilities. Hiring and firing for the opportunity and change in conditions is CEOs job and maybe he takes responsibility for properly executing it? Maybe this is the money shot of a CEO reminding the investors that the upside from these actions are solely on him and wants a proper compensation?
  • nothrowaways 4y ago
    It is so funny Gavin also started his speech with "I have a difficult announcement"
    • mrtksn 4y ago
      The Silicon Valley is an amazing documentary, gets so many things right :)
      • Mezzie 4y ago
        I want to see the SWOT analysis for this firing decision.
• jstx1 4y ago
  > I need to see these "I take full responsibility" people actually punished. At the very least, this sentence needs to be removed from their mouths. There's some infantile obsession with this phrase in every layoff thread. "I take full responsibility" is partly a polite way to say that they aren't blaming anyone else for what's happening, it partly means "I'm the one making this decision" and it's partly ceremony for the sake of appearances - if you're outraged that the CEO of a multi-billion dollar company is using this language, that's a problem with you, not with them. It's like being indignant when a friend or a colleague replies with "I'm fine, thanks" when they aren't fine, or when they say "I can't complain" when they're in fact capable of complaining - it's perfectly normal language for the situation and it's understandable to anyone who has developed the skill of not taking every word literally.
  • LaGrange 4y ago
    > There's some infantile obsession with this phrase in every layoff thread. "I take full responsibility" is partly a polite way to say that they aren't blaming anyone else for what's happening, it partly means "I'm the one making this decision" and it's partly ceremony for the sake of appearances Yes, we know, on the left we have a word for doing that, it's called "lying." > if you're outraged that the CEO of a multi-billion dollar company is using this language, that's a problem with you, not with them. The point of the comment is that we _should_ make it a _them_ problem. > It's like being indignant when a friend or a colleague replies with "I'm fine, thanks" when they aren't fine, or when they say "I can't complain" when they're in fact capable of complaining - it's perfectly normal language for the situation and it's understandable to anyone who has developed the skill of not taking every word literally. Yeah, sorry, but if someone does white lies and can't communicate, they ain't a friend.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  • gmd63 4y ago
    The point being made is that there are no negative consequences to being responsible, so it's an empty statement. It doesn't even mean anything. They're making the decision because they're being rewarded for it by maintaining a certain level of profitability in the financial reporting game.
• NewEntryHN 4y ago
  It's not a charity you know. If they fire those many people, it's because they're confident they can go on without them. There are countries in which the law is more protective of employees, and you can't fire them unless you have serious economic reasons, which is a good thing. But in a country like the US where this isn't the case, I wouldn't shift the moral responsibility to the company itself. Its goal is to make money.
  • TomSwirly 4y ago
    A person whose only interest is money is a psychopath. If a company's only interest is money, it is effectively a psychopath too - a potentially immortal, tremendously powerful psychopath. We shouldn't say, "Oh, psychopaths are psychopathic, that's just the way it is." We need to fight back.
    • Neil44 4y ago
      Companies aren't really people. You wouldn't call a rock falling from a cliff a psychopath, you just don't stand near cliffs.
      • TeMPOraL 4y ago
        Except the companies are less like rocks, and more like quasi-sentient AIs that run this planet.
        • Neil44 4y ago
          They're part of the universe in the same way as rocks trees and gravity. Rocks and trees are not iherently good or bad except in our minds. They just 'are'. Same with companies. If a rock is falling you get out of the way using the agency available to you, if you fail you die. So it has always been so it will always be. To project qualities onto things that they don't really have, to expect the rock to swerve around you because of your internal system of beliefs is a recipie for stress, confusion and ultimately unhappiness.
• AuthorizedCust 4y ago
  So basically, if a company has enough in the piggy bank, its main purpose is to become a mass supplier of make-work jobs? Sounds like communism to me.
• treeman79 4y ago
  Should companies keep paying people they don’t need or want ?
  • flanked-evergl 4y ago
    No, but they also don't have to bullshit people by saying "I take full responsibility" when the responsiblity is shared between them and the employees that are now sacked. Nobody insists they say this, and it is just bullshit. I think it is fine that google fired them, but just own up. Instead of: > The fact that these changes will impact the lives of Googlers weighs heavily on me, and I take full responsibility for the decisions that led us here. Just say: > The fact that these changes will impact the lives of Googlers weighs heavily on me, and I admit that decisions I made have led us here. But even this is probably wrong, because while the CEO is the top executive, he does not make decisions in a vacuum or operate in a vacuum. To be fair though I think that his statement is fine in some specific sense of the word responsibility, i.e. sense 1.b.2 from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/responsible https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/responsible > being the cause or explanation It is just that in every other sense of the word it is not really accurate.
• __alexs 4y ago
  I think the disconnect we feel with these people supposedly taking responsibility is actually that while the impact of these mistakes is real, their degree of control over this outcome was basically zero. The problem with the statement is not that there is no action to go with the words, it's that actually they are not responsible for this outcome in any meaningful way which in some ways is worse.
  • tsimionescu 4y ago
    Those employees didn't fire themselves, nor was this the decision of their direct managers. The CEOs are absolutely responsible, and doing mass layoffs while a company is growing should be (and is, in much of the world) illegal.
• fahadkhan 4y ago
  "I take full responsibility" Translates to "I accept it's my fault but I am still going to sack you."
• mattbrewsbytes 4y ago
  The larger these tech companies get the more they behave like old tech, like IBM. When a company is publicly traded, shareholders are more important than employees. Silicon Valley and startups are too ingrained with the "IPO/acquisition or bust" mentality and post IPO employees want RSU's or stock grants as part of "total comp". You say you want a revolution? One where the people at the top are accountable? One where pay is more equitable from the bottom line employee up to CEO? Then people should be starting workers cooperatives[0] and not corporations with a goal of an IPO. Employees having democratic control of their own company, its projects, profits, pay scales, maybe voting in the c-suite executives, what countries they'll do business with, etc. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative
  • spacephysics 4y ago
    This assumes democracy, giving everyone an equal vote, will have a net benefit outcome. I do not believe this is the case. Companies are closer to an autocracy or tribunal (board of trustees, etc) With everyone having a vote, either nothing will get done because it will be unorganized and the company will have no coherent vision or direction Or, there will be an autocracy that inevitably forms, with someone ending up at the top and directing what’s to be voted on, to only give the illusion of power of the people. Furthermore, if you’ve started a company, I don’t see why the people you’ve hired should take the company away from the original owner. That would be corporate “eminent domain” It would have disastrous effects of companies high tailing it out of the US, and we’d end up cratering our economy. A less extreme example of this is raising corporate taxes. The reality is, a company is going to try and reduce their tax liability as much as possible (like every person should do, really) If the cost of moving a company for a better tax rate outweighs the cost of the move, they’ll do it. So raising corporate taxes will most likely have such an effect, taking jobs out of areas and moving them to a different state or country. One caveat is if the whole modern world agrees to raise corporate taxes, but then there exists other potential problems
    • mattbrewsbytes 4y ago
      > Furthermore, if you’ve started a company, I don’t see why the people you’ve hired should take the company away from the original owner. Did you read up on worker cooperatives at all? The concept is it is worker managed at its inception. I used the word democracy to convey that concept simply but it can be structured however the people that form it want it structured. It could be electing people onto committees that determine roadmaps, comp structure, etc. and they rotate out to other roles in the company per some rules the workers set up. It could be rules like total comp for highest paid must never exceed 8x of lowest paid and profits are shared, etc. The ego centric "I started the company so I say what goes (and I get richest)" pyramid/triangle structure will eventually (if successful) lead to a giant megacorp that does layoffs of 12k people. Or gets bought out by a billionaire that layoffs 75% of staff. People on HN complain about these layoffs but then come in hot about total comp comparisons, RSU's, or complain about these large companies doing business with countries with rap sheets of human rights violations. You can't have it both ways.
• roncesvalles 4y ago
  Layoffs are not about saving money. It's all theatre to appease the powers that be. "What explains why so many companies are laying large numbers of their workforce off? The answer is simple: copycat behavior."[1] [1] https://news.stanford.edu/2022/12/05/explains-recent-tech-layoffs-worried/ https://news.stanford.edu/2022/12/05/explains-recent-tech-la...
  • ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    Thank you, this is a great link. > "The tech industry layoffs are basically an instance of social contagion, in which companies imitate what others are doing. If you look for reasons for why companies do layoffs, the reason is that everybody else is doing it. Layoffs are the result of imitative behavior and are not particularly evidence-based. I’ve had people say to me that they know layoffs are harmful to company well-being, let alone the well-being of employees, and don’t accomplish much, but everybody is doing layoffs and their board is asking why they aren’t doing layoffs also." For most business people I come across, 80% of decisions of behaviour is imitating what other business people do. There is no rigourous fundamentals behind most of it
  • kris_wayton 4y ago
    I think there's also some amount of "Other companies are laying off, and we secretly kind of like the idea of ranking and yanking, even if we don't need layoffs. So we'll use that already socialized economically driven layoff thing as cover."
    • ibejoeb 4y ago
      Yes, exactly. I don't buy this "contagious" notion. It's simply a change in acceptable behavior. Everyone else is doing this objectionable thing, so suddenly it isn't as objectionable, relatively. It's like looting. If you take any one looter out of the environment, it's unlikely that he would act. But when the crowd of a thousand gets going, well, he doesn't want to be left with nothing while everyone else is gaining. Gotta strike while the iron's hot.
• Neil44 4y ago
  If Googe doesn't need these people any more who would it benefit to keep them around? Google isn't social security and in any case who wants to work in a job where it doesn't really matter what you do because you're not really needed and just given busywork. It's just not a good way forward. Getting all angry over a specific phrase which is clearly meant to take any responsibility or implication away from those being let go seems like a pointless wase of energy.
  • 4764764 4y ago
    [flagged]
• i_like_apis 4y ago
  Punished for what? This is about miscalculating business needs and failing to create a culture of work ethic, leading to a situation where people need to be let go. That is not a crime. It’s just business.
  • crote 4y ago
    Well, management should be punished for miscalculating business needs and failing to create a culture of work ethic, leading to a situation where people need to be let go. It's their job to properly manage the business. They did not do their job properly, leading to the current mass firing. Of course it isn't a crime, but it does mean they are doing their job poorly. In virtually every single role that will have repercussions, so why does management get off scot-free?
    • pbalau 4y ago
      > Well, management should be punished for miscalculating business needs and failing to create a culture of work ethic, leading to a situation where people need to be let go. So, management should be punished for giving 12k people jobs in the first place.
• mcv 4y ago
  > I need to see these "I take full responsibility" people actually punished. Yeah, I think by "responsibility" he means "profit". He takes full profit of the decisions that took them there.
• shin_lao 4y ago
  These companies are over bloated and it seems he can't write "well most of you aren't doing anything useful so we are using the downturn to fire you" so they BS their way through. Nothing to do with current revenue.
• 4764764 4y ago
  [flagged]
  • saidinesh5 4y ago
    But they already have their (new?) stack ranking system to take care of dead weight no? If they themselves say they hire/pay "very talented people", and still layoff so many people while still being very profitable company, what would you infer from that?
• m00dy 4y ago
  Fed wants to shed some blood and companies now play by the book. That's it.
• kybernetyk 4y ago
  >Sorry, but these antics require revolution. Maybe it just requires people not buying that rosy corporate lingo BS in the first place.
• blastonico 4y ago
  Gavin Belson feelings. Silicon Valley (the TV series) should be re-categorized as documentary.
• threatofrain 4y ago
  Due to how the US works, it is the prerogative of the company to let workers go even if they are experiencing utmost prosperity. The CEO using language to take responsibility is an example of professional language. Contrast this to Elon who has the prerogative to let workers go while also shitting on their reputation.
• em500 4y ago
  > I need to see these "I take full responsibility" people actually punished. Sundar Pichai has an estimated net worth of 1.3bln. There is no lawful way to "punish" a billionaire unless they've done something very illegal.
• dbjijk 4y ago
  I'm reading these comments and feel the need to speak some truths. Come on everyone, have we not stopped drinking that koolaid yet ? Are we still that naive ? The ONLY loyalty of a company is to its shareholders. The SOLE PURPOSE of a company is to increase profits for its shareholders. And you know it. Yes they sit on plenty of money. It's not your money, it's not the employees money, it's the shareholders money. And they want more of it. All the rest, the products, the messaging, whatever, is all just the means to reach that singular goal, increase profits for shareholders. The current news cycle warning for recenssions and though times allows large companies to push through this kind of workforce reductions with less pushback than they would get in order times, and it is the perfect way to increase profitability. Stock is up 2.3% already. PS: I feel bad for everyone suffering from this. Losing a job is a personal drama for everyone involved.
  • bigcloud1299 4y ago
    Let’s have different point of view. Google has probably cost shareholder billions of dollars through over comp, through employee benefits (pampering). Their profits have consistently shrunk. So does google really care about shareholders? Or has it been lucky decade for all tech giants due to low interest rates. This decade will tell.
    • dbjijk 4y ago
      I agree, it has definitely been a "lucky decade" in more than one way. Now that the cost of money is non-zero, I expect to see changes in multiple regards.
• tempsy 4y ago
  high salaries are only possible because no one is unionized what you’re describing is what if employees were all unionized and had more protections
• RGamma 4y ago
  Neoliberalism is a hell of a drug. Well put.
• prepend 4y ago
  I’m not a fan of the “eat the rich” slogan because it’s not a good solution. But I understand the sentiment of wanting to torture and destroy people who are directly responsible for these “we wanted $70B and only got $67B so we’re firing you while smiling and offering hugs” events. I hope those laid off get new positions so it’s not a life threatening situation. I think most of us are capable and lucky enough to choose where we work. People who choose to work for Google and other organizations like them need to do so with eyes open. Both as potential victims as well as supporting and bearing responsibility for Google actions. This is independent for working for an adtech company (or sugar company or bomb company or whatnot).
  • heresie-dabord 4y ago
    Revolution is an extreme outcome in reaction to a system of determined abuse. A "good solution" would probably look like taking better care of people and reducing the polarisation of wealth particularly in a business community that is earning billions in profit. > "We’ll be offering 6 months of healthcare" This tells us something of the desperation that workers face. > "The fact that these changes will impact the lives of Googlers weighs heavily on me, and I take full responsibility for the decisions that led us here." Hello, I'm your rhetorical assistant Clippy, it looks like you are laying off thousands of people from your profitable, influential business without any good economic reason. Personally, I think the top of your managment pyramid could take a pay cut if you really care.
• sumitkumar 4y ago
  It is not about the saving from the 6B in salaries. It is about how much the leadership at Alphabet is hoping that the stock will rebound because of this decision in a month.
• efficax 4y ago
  layoffs are herd behavior among tech execs right now. nobody really knows why they have to do it but everyone else is and wall street likes it. it’s irrational, hurts morale, has little impact on the bottom line, it’s just stupid.
• brushfoot 4y ago
  > I need to see these "I take full responsibility" people actually punished. "These people" don't deserve punishment any more than a developer who had to make a tough decision does. It's the same situation at a different level with more visibility. Management has its own set of challenges. > that's "only" 6 billion dollars to keep those "great" people that they "love" working It wouldn't be fair to them to keep them employed if doing so meant weighing down the company, which could eventually cost everyone else their job. Better to have strong companies that continue to adjust to fit people's needs and let workers move among them. > these antics require revolution Revolution to what economic system, exactly? I don't want to live in a world where companies are forced to keep workers in unproductive jobs out of a misplaced sense of goodwill. That sinks the ship for everybody.
  • phtrivier 4y ago
    > Management has its own set of challenges True, and it comes with its own set of perks, too. However, the wording of "taking responsibility for the decisions that led us there" seems to imply that Sundar Pichai agrees that _he_ personally made some _bad_ decisions, and that the _logical_ conclusion is to pass the helm ? Fun fact: in France, a running gag for political jokes is that the sentence "I take full responsibility for xxxx" is almost mechanically expected to be followed by some form of "..., and therefore I resign", because of this spectacular historical precedent [1]. > J'assume pleinement la responsabilité de cet echec, et j'en tire les conclusion, en me retirant de la vie politique. > I take full responsibility for this failure, and as a consequence, leave political life. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msObVR8EDYk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msObVR8EDYk
• pnt12 4y ago
  We can criticize but this will never change. A CEO is the face of a company, everything they say publically is basically a PR stunt. - They won't say the company is falling apart until the insolvency, it's some new strategy or refocus. - They won't say they sold the company for money, it's a new chance to reach out to more people. - They won't say they laid off people to increase profits, it's all for some other reason. We cannot stop this without some draconian laws, but let's criticize it and increase awareness, so that other people aren't fooled by it.
• spacephysics 4y ago
  I understand the frustration with the PR corporate speak, but that’s to be expected of one of the largest companies in the world. Cash on hand isn’t a reason to keep people. They probably recognize there’s unhealthy parts of the organization, and this is a restructuring opportunity. It sucks from the employees side. employee at will goes two ways, and saying that this is bounds for a “revolution” seems a bit far stretched. Yeah it’s shit, and sucks for anyone who looses a job regardless of severance. Typically at this scale, it’s not on the individual as to why he/she got fired. But your rhetoric reminds me of a mid-century revolutionary calling to overthrow the Provisional government. Let history be a teacher as to the consequences of that.
• pyrrhotech 4y ago
  You are not entitled to your multi-six figure job, and no one should feel bad for you if the company decides you are an excess. If you are not creating enough value to justify your presence, the company has every right and frankly society should demand that you be let go, otherwise you are wasting all of our finite resources. Sure, Google should have been a bit more cautious in their hiring during the unsustainable COVID bubble conditions, but at least they are correcting the mistake now. This sort of attitude is exactly what makes left coast limousine liberal tech workers so insufferable to the rest of the country. Thanks for living up to the stereotype
  • rqtwteye 4y ago
    “If you are not creating enough value to justify your presence, the company has every right and frankly society should demand that you be let go” That’s not how it works for probably 99% of employees. You do the job management gives to you and have almost no influence on whether you create value or not.
• wp_efexx 4y ago
  [flagged]
• jasondigitized 4y ago
  Having just gone through this yesterday I can tell you that while some of this has to do with $$$, these layoffs/reductions are also used to quickly recalibrate the team by removing low performers and cultural misfits.
• lwhi 4y ago
  I'm not sure. As much as I like and admire the spirit of your comment; the game is capitalism. Just because you can afford something, surely you would sanction doing it unless there's need?
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]