12 ms·

Super interesting seeing companies grow like wildfire and overspend as returns for investors skyrocket, and then as the market swings downward, they buoy their

Super interesting seeing companies grow like wildfire and overspend as returns for investors skyrocket, and then as the market swings downward, they buoy their stock prices a bit by just as quickly cutting heads. The inverted accountability scheme for leaders doing this is another perverse enabling factor; I've complained about this before, but that tends to lead to flames about why founders etc. can't have ownership of headcount and the fate of their companies etc. I'm not seeing a clear solution for this culture of toying with thousands of peoples' lives for a quick buck... well, aside from the (sadly) politically loaded move to unionize more white collar work and thus provide actual accountability. Why unions are a political matter is beyond me; IATSE uses their strength to ensure excellent benefits for their members in media/entertainment.

cj 4y ago
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 problem. These companies aren't firing people because they are making less money. They're firing people because they hired people before they actually needed them, in anticipation of future growth that didn't materialize.
- yourusername 4y ago
  Employment rules are not the same across the EU. You would have to specify the country. In NL if you fire more than 20 people in a 3 month period there is a specific set of rules you have to apply and it determines in what order you must fire people as part of a mass layoff and who you can even fire as part of a mass layoff.
- elil17 4y ago
  https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/human-resources/employment-contracts/redundancies/index_en.htm https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/human-resources/employ... tl;dr: There is a special process called collective redundancy which requires a 30 day notice given to the workers. There are also country-specific rules.
- KaiserPro 4y ago
  depends on which part of the EU. Uk (not EU but europe despite what it says) requires consultancy and a minimum compensation for being fired france its a bit more complex, but it sometimes requires the consent of the person being fired, so it can be very expensive.
- jonp888 4y ago
  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 similar skillset, they have to offer the existing staff the preferred chance to take the positions. I think there is also a culutural difference to think long term even when enjoying short term success, but perhaps that is also present in the US when comparing tech and non-tech companies.
  - denimnerd42 4y ago
    In the US the WARN notice requires 60 days. But that's why you see 2-3 month severances and no notice as it's considered an alternative.
  - outside1234 4y ago
    Can you explain #2 more? Are you saying that they must select employees that being laid off would have the lowest impact to?
- ghaff 4y ago
  So basically regulations that you shouldn't hire someone unless you're really really sure you're going to keep them around for a long time?
  - zirgs 4y ago
    Probation exists. And it's possible to hire contractors too. At-will is worse than contract work, because the contractor knows when he will be let go.
- freedom2099 4y ago
  I work in France… the company I work for is travel related… and we have thousands of employees. During the pandemic we did not let go a single person! We had 2 years of basically zero revenue and the most we did was offer very juicy severance package for people willing to go or to retire early!
jjtheblunt 4y ago
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?
- jen20 4y ago
  > 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.
  - jjtheblunt 4y ago
    those are great examples!
brookst 4y ago
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?
- ZiiS 4y ago
  The point is we all know how much these same companies will whine about skills shortages in a couple of years. Even if they cannot manage to make a cent off their work work and completely fail to train them or at least give them experience; they can very easily just write down the salaries till they do need them.
  - itsoktocry 4y ago
    >The point is we all know how much these same companies will whine about skills shortages in a couple of years. Is that the point? That implies the market is hot again (and I agree with you, it will be eventually) and people are working where they want to. If that's your prediction, what's the problem here? The solution is not to jump ship to Google, then, isn't it?
  - nine_k 4y ago
    But by hiring all these people a few years ago, didn't Amazon (and other large tech companies) give these people some valuable experience, beside a quite decent salary? I personally would prefer to be hired by a big tech company and then laid off, having received the salary, severance pay, and experience, than to never set my foot there. The in-between time sucks, of course.
    - blululu 4y ago
      Debatable, maybe some people like new grads would prefer it that way but a lot of these people already had experience and jobs before showing up at Amazon. Some may have moved, others turned down other offers, 6-12 months of 20% extra pay doesn’t justify the lurch. In general forcing employees to take on the lion’s share of risk is a jerk move without offering a similar share of profits.
eunos 4y ago
What I'd like to know is what were the leaderships (Google, Amazon, et al) thinking or expecting when they decided to mass hire.
- jvanderbot 4y ago
  "Make hay while the sun shines"
itsoktocry 4y ago
>I'm not seeing a clear solution for this culture of toying with thousands of peoples' lives for a quick buck A bit over-dramatic, no? Nothing to say about the employees who left their companies for Google to "make a quick buck"? Business expand and contract. Should Google be considered a retirement home? The people who took these jobs are smart men and women who will go on to work at other companies. This isn't new.
- throwaway6734 4y ago
  Seriously, these companies were and still are paying insane salaries. I have no sympathy.
  - KaiserPro 4y ago
    > I have no sympathy. with whom?
  - rayrey 4y ago
    Sympathy is between shit and syphilis in the dictionary
jrwoodruff 4y ago
It'd be neat to have a list of companies that use this strategy. It seems like all the big ones do?
0xbadcafebee 4y ago
There's no solution because, from society's perspective, there's no problem. The whole idea of capitalism involves competition and consistent growth, right? In any human society, that leads inevitably to war and conquest. It also means exploiting whatever resources are available, including human resources. Back in the day it was using colonial slaves to cheaply mine resources, deforesting for fuel/ships/etc, or hunting animals to extinction (food, oil, pelts, etc). Today it's using cheap labor in 3rd world countries, dumping chemicals in rivers, deforesting rainforest for cattle pasture. And when a competitor (foreign empire or corporation) threatens you, you basically work to either destroy or own the competition and their citizens/customers (although you might also simply make a backroom deal for peace). All for the wealth and glory of a corporation/CEO/board/Emperor/nation. Our companies are just acting as the new empires of global society. Have been for nearly a century, when the old empires began to crumble. Same humans, different maps & hats.
jaqalopes 4y ago
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.
- jxf 4y ago
  100%. This is the entire point of unions -- to represent the collective interests of the some segment of (or all) a company's workers.
  - subradios 4y ago
    Unfortunately when unions are weak, they are negative value - and when they are strong they are the UAW. Workers are not a firm, and structuring labor as it's own firm is known as contracting and or a guild.
- screwturner68 4y ago
  I'd love to see some apprentice programs in IT, it would at least give everyone a standard base of knowledge like what you are supposed to have in a union journeyman. Right now everybody with six months experience considers themselves senior, we have no standards and we all fight each other which isn't how a union works.
  - robjan 4y ago
    I used to work in a unionised engineering department. There were benefits, such as being hard to lay off large amounts of the workforce. There were also disadvantages, such as collective bargaining which meant high performers generally weren't rewarded and salaries were generally below market.
    - screwturner68 4y ago
      Yep, it's good with the bad. Another "good" as I get older is that seniority means something, it's harder to discriminate against the older guys and replace them with a 20 year old for half the price.
jackmott42 4y ago
Is this actually bad? Would it be better for those 18k jobs to never have been available at all?
michaelcampbell 4y ago
> Why unions are a political matter is beyond me; My take is because unions facilitate less profit for C-levels, who then buy/rent lobbyists to bribe, errr, "persuade" politicians to enact laws or regulations or whatever to keep unions out.

cj 4y ago

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 problem. These companies aren't firing people because they are making less money. They're firing people because they hired people before they actually needed them, in anticipation of future growth that didn't materialize.

yourusername 4y ago
Employment rules are not the same across the EU. You would have to specify the country. In NL if you fire more than 20 people in a 3 month period there is a specific set of rules you have to apply and it determines in what order you must fire people as part of a mass layoff and who you can even fire as part of a mass layoff.
elil17 4y ago
https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/human-resources/employment-contracts/redundancies/index_en.htm https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/human-resources/employ... tl;dr: There is a special process called collective redundancy which requires a 30 day notice given to the workers. There are also country-specific rules.
KaiserPro 4y ago
depends on which part of the EU. Uk (not EU but europe despite what it says) requires consultancy and a minimum compensation for being fired france its a bit more complex, but it sometimes requires the consent of the person being fired, so it can be very expensive.
jonp888 4y ago
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 similar skillset, they have to offer the existing staff the preferred chance to take the positions. I think there is also a culutural difference to think long term even when enjoying short term success, but perhaps that is also present in the US when comparing tech and non-tech companies.
- denimnerd42 4y ago
  In the US the WARN notice requires 60 days. But that's why you see 2-3 month severances and no notice as it's considered an alternative.
- outside1234 4y ago
  Can you explain #2 more? Are you saying that they must select employees that being laid off would have the lowest impact to?
ghaff 4y ago
So basically regulations that you shouldn't hire someone unless you're really really sure you're going to keep them around for a long time?
- zirgs 4y ago
  Probation exists. And it's possible to hire contractors too. At-will is worse than contract work, because the contractor knows when he will be let go.
freedom2099 4y ago
I work in France… the company I work for is travel related… and we have thousands of employees. During the pandemic we did not let go a single person! We had 2 years of basically zero revenue and the most we did was offer very juicy severance package for people willing to go or to retire early!

jjtheblunt 4y ago

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?

jen20 4y ago
> 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.
- jjtheblunt 4y ago
  those are great examples!

brookst 4y ago

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?

ZiiS 4y ago
The point is we all know how much these same companies will whine about skills shortages in a couple of years. Even if they cannot manage to make a cent off their work work and completely fail to train them or at least give them experience; they can very easily just write down the salaries till they do need them.
- itsoktocry 4y ago
  >The point is we all know how much these same companies will whine about skills shortages in a couple of years. Is that the point? That implies the market is hot again (and I agree with you, it will be eventually) and people are working where they want to. If that's your prediction, what's the problem here? The solution is not to jump ship to Google, then, isn't it?
- nine_k 4y ago
  But by hiring all these people a few years ago, didn't Amazon (and other large tech companies) give these people some valuable experience, beside a quite decent salary? I personally would prefer to be hired by a big tech company and then laid off, having received the salary, severance pay, and experience, than to never set my foot there. The in-between time sucks, of course.
  - blululu 4y ago
    Debatable, maybe some people like new grads would prefer it that way but a lot of these people already had experience and jobs before showing up at Amazon. Some may have moved, others turned down other offers, 6-12 months of 20% extra pay doesn’t justify the lurch. In general forcing employees to take on the lion’s share of risk is a jerk move without offering a similar share of profits.

eunos 4y ago

What I'd like to know is what were the leaderships (Google, Amazon, et al) thinking or expecting when they decided to mass hire.

jvanderbot 4y ago
"Make hay while the sun shines"

itsoktocry 4y ago

>I'm not seeing a clear solution for this culture of toying with thousands of peoples' lives for a quick buck A bit over-dramatic, no? Nothing to say about the employees who left their companies for Google to "make a quick buck"? Business expand and contract. Should Google be considered a retirement home? The people who took these jobs are smart men and women who will go on to work at other companies. This isn't new.

throwaway6734 4y ago
Seriously, these companies were and still are paying insane salaries. I have no sympathy.
- KaiserPro 4y ago
  > I have no sympathy. with whom?
- rayrey 4y ago
  Sympathy is between shit and syphilis in the dictionary

jrwoodruff 4y ago

It'd be neat to have a list of companies that use this strategy. It seems like all the big ones do?

0xbadcafebee 4y ago

There's no solution because, from society's perspective, there's no problem. The whole idea of capitalism involves competition and consistent growth, right? In any human society, that leads inevitably to war and conquest. It also means exploiting whatever resources are available, including human resources. Back in the day it was using colonial slaves to cheaply mine resources, deforesting for fuel/ships/etc, or hunting animals to extinction (food, oil, pelts, etc). Today it's using cheap labor in 3rd world countries, dumping chemicals in rivers, deforesting rainforest for cattle pasture. And when a competitor (foreign empire or corporation) threatens you, you basically work to either destroy or own the competition and their citizens/customers (although you might also simply make a backroom deal for peace). All for the wealth and glory of a corporation/CEO/board/Emperor/nation. Our companies are just acting as the new empires of global society. Have been for nearly a century, when the old empires began to crumble. Same humans, different maps & hats.

jaqalopes 4y ago

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.

jxf 4y ago
100%. This is the entire point of unions -- to represent the collective interests of the some segment of (or all) a company's workers.
- subradios 4y ago
  Unfortunately when unions are weak, they are negative value - and when they are strong they are the UAW. Workers are not a firm, and structuring labor as it's own firm is known as contracting and or a guild.
screwturner68 4y ago
I'd love to see some apprentice programs in IT, it would at least give everyone a standard base of knowledge like what you are supposed to have in a union journeyman. Right now everybody with six months experience considers themselves senior, we have no standards and we all fight each other which isn't how a union works.
- robjan 4y ago
  I used to work in a unionised engineering department. There were benefits, such as being hard to lay off large amounts of the workforce. There were also disadvantages, such as collective bargaining which meant high performers generally weren't rewarded and salaries were generally below market.
  - screwturner68 4y ago
    Yep, it's good with the bad. Another "good" as I get older is that seniority means something, it's harder to discriminate against the older guys and replace them with a 20 year old for half the price.

jackmott42 4y ago

Is this actually bad? Would it be better for those 18k jobs to never have been available at all?

michaelcampbell 4y ago

> Why unions are a political matter is beyond me; My take is because unions facilitate less profit for C-levels, who then buy/rent lobbyists to bribe, errr, "persuade" politicians to enact laws or regulations or whatever to keep unions out.