3 ms·

Maybe I've lost my heart but it's hard for me to find fault with the way Nadella communicated MSFT's layoffs. They're a business, they need to reallocate capita

Maybe I've lost my heart but it's hard for me to find fault with the way Nadella communicated MSFT's layoffs. They're a business, they need to reallocate capital and headcount, he doesn't shed any crocodile tears, but they are providing above market severance benefits, end of transmission. If I have to be laid off I want it to go something like this.

okokwhatever 4y ago
It's called subjectivism for a reason.
pas 4y ago
The word layoff does not appear in that post. It's word salad for 2 paragraphs. It's bad writing, it's an even worse communique from a CEO. Start with the point. The point is that X percent of the workforce is to be let go. And that it has been already in the works for some time because some people have been let go that day. "some notifications happening today" = we already have a list and we'll go through it as fast as labor laws allow.
- _vbnz 4y ago
  I can't stand all the beating around the bush language. All stuff like "best wishes to those impacted by the course correction in our employee base". Like they aren't just numbers or human resources, it's real people losing their jobs and facing difficult situations with work visas, mortgages, etc. - the same people who have helped build the products they work on. It's isn't an unfortunate natural disaster but a deliberate decision made by executives, where in the majority of cases it's just that the rate of growth of profit has fallen - nowhere near severe losses and economic trouble.
- commandlinefan 4y ago
  > Start with the point. The point is that X percent of the workforce is to be let go If he did, he'd be criticized for being heartless. There's really no winning here, I can't blame them for phrasing things the way they do.
danaris 4y ago
Clear away all the words, and you're left with a massively profitable company putting thousands of people out of work just so that they can boost their stock price.
- travisgriggs 4y ago
  You are telling the truth, half the truth, and nothing but half the truth. “A massively profitable company putting thousands of people out of work so that they can boost their stock price which millions of people own (directly or indirectly).” A dumber variant: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. You thousand gotta go so us millions can get richer. My comment should not imply that I endorse this “fuller” point of view.
  - danaris 4y ago
    The number of people gaining any significant amount of wealth due to the increase in MS's quarterly stock price is minuscule. Just because "millions of people" have, through some indirect means, some small investment in MS doesn't mean there's anywhere near a proportionate gain as compared to the loss being suffered. This is especially true if those people don't sell their MS stock during that period to realize the gain, as there's plenty of chance that the price will fall again later.
coldpie 4y ago
> They're a business, they need to reallocate capital and headcount Consider this: no, they don't.
- linkjuice4all 4y ago
  To that point - didn't these companies and their investors "invest" in a bunch of human resources and then devalue them by either laying them off or giving the work of laid-off workers to the remaining resources? If executives at a company rented a bunch of store fronts expecting to increase their footprint and then said "we're bad at our jobs and didn't realize we weren't going to do anything with these store fronts" the investors would (presumably) ask them to leave or cut their performance bonuses. It's not like these companies don't have massive amounts of data (I'm looking at you Google) to analyze and estimate a market and determine if they needed the resources to begin with. Another thing I don't see mentioned often enough is the impact that this has on state governments. I can imagine that the people working in the California state government would be concerned if several large companies took a bunch of store fronts off the market and then just dumped them all in one fell swoop. Are these managers, executives, and presidents so bad at their job that they can't find anything to do with a bunch of talented employees that they spent time and money on-boarding?
- safety1st 4y ago
  I've considered it, and of all the possible takes, I think this is the worst one. It's simple: - They are chartered as a for-profit entity - FAANG workers who are making an average $200K or whatever don't need welfare. Like I'm all for class warfare, but not between the super rich and the very rich. I don't have any sympathy whatsoever for the $200K class when they get laid off - being worth this much money includes understanding how the game is played and preparing accordingly. So no, if you get laid off at this level, you are not working class, you are not an average American, the package MSFT gives you is above market and that is good enough. Let's save the extra help for people who actually need it.
  - recycledfood 4y ago
    [dead]

okokwhatever 4y ago

It's called subjectivism for a reason.

pas 4y ago

The word layoff does not appear in that post. It's word salad for 2 paragraphs. It's bad writing, it's an even worse communique from a CEO. Start with the point. The point is that X percent of the workforce is to be let go. And that it has been already in the works for some time because some people have been let go that day. "some notifications happening today" = we already have a list and we'll go through it as fast as labor laws allow.

_vbnz 4y ago
I can't stand all the beating around the bush language. All stuff like "best wishes to those impacted by the course correction in our employee base". Like they aren't just numbers or human resources, it's real people losing their jobs and facing difficult situations with work visas, mortgages, etc. - the same people who have helped build the products they work on. It's isn't an unfortunate natural disaster but a deliberate decision made by executives, where in the majority of cases it's just that the rate of growth of profit has fallen - nowhere near severe losses and economic trouble.
commandlinefan 4y ago
> Start with the point. The point is that X percent of the workforce is to be let go If he did, he'd be criticized for being heartless. There's really no winning here, I can't blame them for phrasing things the way they do.

danaris 4y ago

Clear away all the words, and you're left with a massively profitable company putting thousands of people out of work just so that they can boost their stock price.

travisgriggs 4y ago
You are telling the truth, half the truth, and nothing but half the truth. “A massively profitable company putting thousands of people out of work so that they can boost their stock price which millions of people own (directly or indirectly).” A dumber variant: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. You thousand gotta go so us millions can get richer. My comment should not imply that I endorse this “fuller” point of view.
- danaris 4y ago
  The number of people gaining any significant amount of wealth due to the increase in MS's quarterly stock price is minuscule. Just because "millions of people" have, through some indirect means, some small investment in MS doesn't mean there's anywhere near a proportionate gain as compared to the loss being suffered. This is especially true if those people don't sell their MS stock during that period to realize the gain, as there's plenty of chance that the price will fall again later.

coldpie 4y ago

> They're a business, they need to reallocate capital and headcount Consider this: no, they don't.

linkjuice4all 4y ago
To that point - didn't these companies and their investors "invest" in a bunch of human resources and then devalue them by either laying them off or giving the work of laid-off workers to the remaining resources? If executives at a company rented a bunch of store fronts expecting to increase their footprint and then said "we're bad at our jobs and didn't realize we weren't going to do anything with these store fronts" the investors would (presumably) ask them to leave or cut their performance bonuses. It's not like these companies don't have massive amounts of data (I'm looking at you Google) to analyze and estimate a market and determine if they needed the resources to begin with. Another thing I don't see mentioned often enough is the impact that this has on state governments. I can imagine that the people working in the California state government would be concerned if several large companies took a bunch of store fronts off the market and then just dumped them all in one fell swoop. Are these managers, executives, and presidents so bad at their job that they can't find anything to do with a bunch of talented employees that they spent time and money on-boarding?
safety1st 4y ago
I've considered it, and of all the possible takes, I think this is the worst one. It's simple: - They are chartered as a for-profit entity - FAANG workers who are making an average $200K or whatever don't need welfare. Like I'm all for class warfare, but not between the super rich and the very rich. I don't have any sympathy whatsoever for the $200K class when they get laid off - being worth this much money includes understanding how the game is played and preparing accordingly. So no, if you get laid off at this level, you are not working class, you are not an average American, the package MSFT gives you is above market and that is good enough. Let's save the extra help for people who actually need it.
- recycledfood 4y ago
  [dead]