5 ms·

does this imply the lay-offs were a product of collusion at the executive level across the entire sector? If anyone could find evidence of that it would be extr

does this imply the lay-offs were a product of collusion at the executive level across the entire sector? If anyone could find evidence of that it would be extremely news-worthy. If I might adorn my hat of tin-foil for a second; at a big corp I used to work at, I heard execs predicting this outcome back in early 2022 in combination with being incredibly relaxed about the employment market being extremely hot at the time.

pm90 4y ago
It would be difficult to prove active collusion, its more like institutionalized collusion, and I doubt that's a crime. e.g. the same consulting firms are hired by all companies, and they will give the same advice when dealing with falling revenues, plunging stock prices etc.
- Quarrelsome 4y ago
  > It would be difficult to prove active collusion Unless an IT admin stumbles across some interesting emails...
  - shagie 4y ago
    A story I heard long ago when I was a contractor at Sun about the default settings for bounced email in sendmail (this was likely the early 90s when it happened - I heard it in '97). At one time, messages that bounced were sent to postmaster - possibly in hopes back then (when things were smaller) that the postmaster would know who it should have been sent to and pass the email on. One of the night shift sysadmins who was responsible for postmaster at Sun got an email that was misaddressed between a few manager+ level people for what would be considered constructed dismissal of a number of people. The following day, the people mentioned in that email found a printout on their chairs. ... and a change request when in to only include the headers(?) of the email message to postmaster rather than the body.
  - rachelbladdow 4y ago
    [flagged]
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  Nobody needs to collude or conspire when interests align.
  - Quarrelsome 4y ago
    that's not necessarily true, as timing still can matter.
  - piva00 4y ago
    Interests and incentives align perfectly: make more money at the top (stock goes up after a layoff if the company isn't going bankrupt), crush employee's power and morale, afraid employees either work harder or quit. The price for that is just some more attrition and losing a bit of culture, both things that aren't priced in for their bonuses/stocks and so the C-level couldn't care less.
- treis 4y ago
  Also, it doesn't make a lick of sense. Growing head count 50% over 2 years and then pulling back 5-10% isn't breaking the back of workers. It sucks for the 5-10% but big tech still has much more demand for workers than they have except for like 6 months of their existence.
  - pm90 4y ago
    Its going to be interesting to see how this plays out. Right now, they've taken away or trimmed many benefits and increased expectations around performance. Will a change in hiring make them change the benefits structure, or will this be the new normal? In particular, if there is a large backlog of workers looking for jobs after several quarters of reduced hiring, it will likely allow them to revisit compensation. It all depends on how exactly this pans out.
- Pulcinella 4y ago
  Also, Powell has said the Federal Reserve is trying to increase unemployment and decrease wages so it’s unlikely to be prosecuted even if there was evidence of intentional and active collusion considering corporations and the government are aligned on this.
cmrdporcupine 4y ago
I mean, it's not the first time that SV execs have colluded. See also infamous Eric Schmidt / Steve Jobs non-poaching agreement that leaked. But I also don't think explicit collusion is actually necessary. Once one does it, the others can follow without fear of losing staff to the others. Meta and Twitter started the fire, the others can just toss in some logs. So it has the effective material results as if there was a conspiracy, without the need for it.
- Quarrelsome 4y ago
  > Once one does it, the others can follow without fear of losing staff to the others. I agree but at the same time there was noise from the boardroom throughout the industry even BEFORE these layoffs at Meta, that this was coming. I'm not convinced that Twitter is necessarily as relevant a data point given they were actually burning cash at the time and its understandable that a new (and possibly even reluctant) owner might want to rectify that.
dylan604 4y ago
doesn't imply that to me. this is not the first market down turn. this is not the first time companies have shed employees in anticipation of a market down turn. this is also not the first time to use this type of situation to unload less desirable employees. it also provides for companies with cover with the unions (especially those just formed). no collusion necessary to be familiar with history
- Quarrelsome 4y ago
  > to unload less desirable employees I don't think that has necessarily happened. I've seen people write that Google's firings at least feel somewhat arbitrary.
  - jungturk 4y ago
    The metric they're less desirable against might not be an obvious one?
martythemaniak 4y ago
It may look like collusion, but in fact tech leadership (VCs/Founders/execs/CEOs) makes wildebeast look like lone wolves. I've seen very little evidence of independent thinking with that crowd, which is funny because a lot of them will identify as some flavour of libertarian or heterodox. Basically, don't attribute to malice etc...
johnrob 4y ago
Didn’t Nash (mathematician) prove that collusion is possible without explicit coordination (a form of game theory perhaps)?
roncesvalles 4y ago
Why collude in private when you can copy in public? It's not as if all the layoffs happened on exactly the same day.
samstave 4y ago
Never forget when all the FAANG execs were colluding about employee pay and non-poaching agreements... They denied it and it was later proven out.
adra 4y ago
Prisoners dilemma. Who needs to say it when everyone knows it's in everyone's interests to play the game. I feel that a lot of these layoffs are really the result of delusional hiring euphoria vs malicious anti-employee strategies, but I wouldn't say that companies would avoid "needless" spending when they could be adjusted for a no-net-los outcome.

pm90 4y ago

It would be difficult to prove active collusion, its more like institutionalized collusion, and I doubt that's a crime. e.g. the same consulting firms are hired by all companies, and they will give the same advice when dealing with falling revenues, plunging stock prices etc.

Quarrelsome 4y ago
> It would be difficult to prove active collusion Unless an IT admin stumbles across some interesting emails...
- shagie 4y ago
  A story I heard long ago when I was a contractor at Sun about the default settings for bounced email in sendmail (this was likely the early 90s when it happened - I heard it in '97). At one time, messages that bounced were sent to postmaster - possibly in hopes back then (when things were smaller) that the postmaster would know who it should have been sent to and pass the email on. One of the night shift sysadmins who was responsible for postmaster at Sun got an email that was misaddressed between a few manager+ level people for what would be considered constructed dismissal of a number of people. The following day, the people mentioned in that email found a printout on their chairs. ... and a change request when in to only include the headers(?) of the email message to postmaster rather than the body.
- rachelbladdow 4y ago
  [flagged]
dsfyu404ed 4y ago
Nobody needs to collude or conspire when interests align.
- Quarrelsome 4y ago
  that's not necessarily true, as timing still can matter.
- piva00 4y ago
  Interests and incentives align perfectly: make more money at the top (stock goes up after a layoff if the company isn't going bankrupt), crush employee's power and morale, afraid employees either work harder or quit. The price for that is just some more attrition and losing a bit of culture, both things that aren't priced in for their bonuses/stocks and so the C-level couldn't care less.
treis 4y ago
Also, it doesn't make a lick of sense. Growing head count 50% over 2 years and then pulling back 5-10% isn't breaking the back of workers. It sucks for the 5-10% but big tech still has much more demand for workers than they have except for like 6 months of their existence.
- pm90 4y ago
  Its going to be interesting to see how this plays out. Right now, they've taken away or trimmed many benefits and increased expectations around performance. Will a change in hiring make them change the benefits structure, or will this be the new normal? In particular, if there is a large backlog of workers looking for jobs after several quarters of reduced hiring, it will likely allow them to revisit compensation. It all depends on how exactly this pans out.
Pulcinella 4y ago
Also, Powell has said the Federal Reserve is trying to increase unemployment and decrease wages so it’s unlikely to be prosecuted even if there was evidence of intentional and active collusion considering corporations and the government are aligned on this.

cmrdporcupine 4y ago

I mean, it's not the first time that SV execs have colluded. See also infamous Eric Schmidt / Steve Jobs non-poaching agreement that leaked. But I also don't think explicit collusion is actually necessary. Once one does it, the others can follow without fear of losing staff to the others. Meta and Twitter started the fire, the others can just toss in some logs. So it has the effective material results as if there was a conspiracy, without the need for it.

Quarrelsome 4y ago
> Once one does it, the others can follow without fear of losing staff to the others. I agree but at the same time there was noise from the boardroom throughout the industry even BEFORE these layoffs at Meta, that this was coming. I'm not convinced that Twitter is necessarily as relevant a data point given they were actually burning cash at the time and its understandable that a new (and possibly even reluctant) owner might want to rectify that.

dylan604 4y ago

doesn't imply that to me. this is not the first market down turn. this is not the first time companies have shed employees in anticipation of a market down turn. this is also not the first time to use this type of situation to unload less desirable employees. it also provides for companies with cover with the unions (especially those just formed). no collusion necessary to be familiar with history

Quarrelsome 4y ago
> to unload less desirable employees I don't think that has necessarily happened. I've seen people write that Google's firings at least feel somewhat arbitrary.
- jungturk 4y ago
  The metric they're less desirable against might not be an obvious one?

martythemaniak 4y ago

It may look like collusion, but in fact tech leadership (VCs/Founders/execs/CEOs) makes wildebeast look like lone wolves. I've seen very little evidence of independent thinking with that crowd, which is funny because a lot of them will identify as some flavour of libertarian or heterodox. Basically, don't attribute to malice etc...

johnrob 4y ago

Didn’t Nash (mathematician) prove that collusion is possible without explicit coordination (a form of game theory perhaps)?

roncesvalles 4y ago

Why collude in private when you can copy in public? It's not as if all the layoffs happened on exactly the same day.

samstave 4y ago

Never forget when all the FAANG execs were colluding about employee pay and non-poaching agreements... They denied it and it was later proven out.

adra 4y ago

Prisoners dilemma. Who needs to say it when everyone knows it's in everyone's interests to play the game. I feel that a lot of these layoffs are really the result of delusional hiring euphoria vs malicious anti-employee strategies, but I wouldn't say that companies would avoid "needless" spending when they could be adjusted for a no-net-los outcome.