5 ms·

(Along with 7,000 people who still need to work for a living.) Maybe I shouldn’t complain, though; laying off management alongside labor should be normalized.

giantg2 4y ago
In theory, it should be prioritized since they are the largest overhead and are often times responsible for inefficiencies or getting into a bad position.
toyg 4y ago
> laying off management alongside labor should be normalized. In fact, it should probably be put into law: any layoff round of over 1000 people should require any direct supervisor to be laid off, recursively up to the CEO.
- DoneWithAllThat 4y ago
  This is perhaps the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard. The goal of layoffs is to make the company stronger and survive, not kill it.
  - beebeepka 4y ago
    Interesting implications! Care to elaborate? Edit: Downvoted for expecting to hear more about how management never, ever, makes mistakes. Nice, real nice
  - lp0_on_fire 4y ago
    "Some of you may lose your jobs but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make to save the company" is weak sauce to the thousands of people at Disney who had no influence over their corporate policy and will be out of a job. Managers and executives are first in line for bonuses and praise so it follows that they are first in line for the chopping block. See: executive pay rates vs rank-and-file employee pay over the past 40+ years. You want increased reward? You get increased risk.
    - hex4def6 4y ago
      You are thinking of layoffs as a failure or punishment. It's not. To understand it, you need to think of it from the businesses perspective. People are capital equipment that consume money and output productivity in a particular area. There is a cost to hiring (recruiting, onboarding, training) and firing (severance, reallocation of responsibilities) these people, which is why corporations are not run like an Uber-style demand-based gig for the most part. There is "stickiness" to hiring someone. However, when the required productivity or capital availability changes (external forces, bad forecasting, change in market conditions), as a company you decide whether the pain of changing the labor force is worth it. These may be the result of bad bets or dumb luck, but that doesn't matter. The goal is to adjust the companies' production to its ability to finance those production machines (people). Imagine you're in the photocopying business, and you lease photocopiers from Xerox. Depending on demand, you may want to increase the number that you lease. Or maybe the market is in a economic downturn, and people are photocopying less. You try run the numbers and decide if paying the penalty for breaking the lease on x machines is worth it vs. paying the monthly fee for them. That's the simple calculus.
      - lp0_on_fire 4y ago
        You may as well have responded with "let them eat cake". You can try to reason your way out of the position with your simple calculus but at the end of the day people are more than just a line item on a budget.
      - ElevenLathe 4y ago
        To summarize: It's not a punishment for your boss to treat you like a disused photocopier.
      - JohnFen 4y ago
        > You are thinking of layoffs as a failure or punishment. It's not. It doesn't matter if that's the intent or not. If you're being laid off, the effect is identical to being punished. And most people will internalize it as failure.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  Companies are not improved by successive rounds of 997 people being laid off with whatever the zombie minimum waiting period in-between is.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - toyg 4y ago
    There is the law and there is the spirit of the law. I'm sure a motivated lawmaker could write something a bit more ironclad than a one-line HN post.
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      I’m equally sure that wherever the line is placed in law, companies will often elect to run right up to, but not over, the line. This will often be worse for employees than just getting it over with.
      - toyg 4y ago
        I sincerely disagree. Even just slowing down the churn rate would give more employees a chance to find other jobs without a "can't make rent" gun pointed at their heads. It would also avoid flooding the market of this or that sector, which exacerbates all problems around joblessness. Policy doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to push in directions different from naked market forces.
- VirusNewbie 4y ago
  Maybe. I can certainly see a scenario where a vp/manager disagrees with growth in a new product area, is then proven right, but still must eliminate positions. Should they still be fired? Non rhetorical, I can see the case either way.
  - toyg 4y ago
    No, he should just find other, less-stupid jobs for the people who were hired to do something stupid.
outworlder 4y ago
> Maybe I shouldn’t complain, though; laying off management alongside labor should be normalized. If that includes C-level, I'm all for it. By definition, they have failed.
- dehrmann 4y ago
  You have to look at the circumstances. If you were an airline laying off pilots in April 2020, no, this wasn't a C-level failure. Sometimes, the layoffs were because of bad C-level decisions, and leadership should take a hard look at how did performed and if they should still be there. And sometimes, even if leadership screwed up, the uncertainty if they leave isn't worth it.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  I understand people feel differently, and layoffs can certainly be extremely disruptive to those affected, but I don't consider them a mark of "failure" of management. What's better, to get hired, paid a great salary and gain experience and knowledge for a couple years, and then get laid off with 4 months severance+benefits, or never get hired at all? To be clear, I think there are some fair arguments (not necessarily ones I agree with) for "never get hired at all", but just be clear, that is what you are arguing for.
  - snozolli 4y ago
    and then get laid off with 4 months severance+benefits And a black mark on your record that every HR drone will pick up on like a bloodhound.
    - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
      The thing that's "safer" about getting laid off when there are huge rounds throughout many different companies is that it is actually even more accurate to say that it had 0 to do with job performance. True, obviously companies use layoffs to get rid of low performers, but there are just numerous cases where companies are canning entire divisions, e.g. the Alexa-device-focused teams at Amazon or the metaverse team at Disney. I highly doubt these most recent layoffs will be treated as much of a black mark.

giantg2 4y ago

In theory, it should be prioritized since they are the largest overhead and are often times responsible for inefficiencies or getting into a bad position.

toyg 4y ago

> laying off management alongside labor should be normalized. In fact, it should probably be put into law: any layoff round of over 1000 people should require any direct supervisor to be laid off, recursively up to the CEO.

DoneWithAllThat 4y ago
This is perhaps the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard. The goal of layoffs is to make the company stronger and survive, not kill it.
- beebeepka 4y ago
  Interesting implications! Care to elaborate? Edit: Downvoted for expecting to hear more about how management never, ever, makes mistakes. Nice, real nice
- lp0_on_fire 4y ago
  "Some of you may lose your jobs but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make to save the company" is weak sauce to the thousands of people at Disney who had no influence over their corporate policy and will be out of a job. Managers and executives are first in line for bonuses and praise so it follows that they are first in line for the chopping block. See: executive pay rates vs rank-and-file employee pay over the past 40+ years. You want increased reward? You get increased risk.
  - hex4def6 4y ago
    You are thinking of layoffs as a failure or punishment. It's not. To understand it, you need to think of it from the businesses perspective. People are capital equipment that consume money and output productivity in a particular area. There is a cost to hiring (recruiting, onboarding, training) and firing (severance, reallocation of responsibilities) these people, which is why corporations are not run like an Uber-style demand-based gig for the most part. There is "stickiness" to hiring someone. However, when the required productivity or capital availability changes (external forces, bad forecasting, change in market conditions), as a company you decide whether the pain of changing the labor force is worth it. These may be the result of bad bets or dumb luck, but that doesn't matter. The goal is to adjust the companies' production to its ability to finance those production machines (people). Imagine you're in the photocopying business, and you lease photocopiers from Xerox. Depending on demand, you may want to increase the number that you lease. Or maybe the market is in a economic downturn, and people are photocopying less. You try run the numbers and decide if paying the penalty for breaking the lease on x machines is worth it vs. paying the monthly fee for them. That's the simple calculus.
    - lp0_on_fire 4y ago
      You may as well have responded with "let them eat cake". You can try to reason your way out of the position with your simple calculus but at the end of the day people are more than just a line item on a budget.
    - ElevenLathe 4y ago
      To summarize: It's not a punishment for your boss to treat you like a disused photocopier.
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      > You are thinking of layoffs as a failure or punishment. It's not. It doesn't matter if that's the intent or not. If you're being laid off, the effect is identical to being punished. And most people will internalize it as failure.
sokoloff 4y ago
Companies are not improved by successive rounds of 997 people being laid off with whatever the zombie minimum waiting period in-between is.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- toyg 4y ago
  There is the law and there is the spirit of the law. I'm sure a motivated lawmaker could write something a bit more ironclad than a one-line HN post.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    I’m equally sure that wherever the line is placed in law, companies will often elect to run right up to, but not over, the line. This will often be worse for employees than just getting it over with.
    - toyg 4y ago
      I sincerely disagree. Even just slowing down the churn rate would give more employees a chance to find other jobs without a "can't make rent" gun pointed at their heads. It would also avoid flooding the market of this or that sector, which exacerbates all problems around joblessness. Policy doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to push in directions different from naked market forces.
VirusNewbie 4y ago
Maybe. I can certainly see a scenario where a vp/manager disagrees with growth in a new product area, is then proven right, but still must eliminate positions. Should they still be fired? Non rhetorical, I can see the case either way.
- toyg 4y ago
  No, he should just find other, less-stupid jobs for the people who were hired to do something stupid.

outworlder 4y ago

> Maybe I shouldn’t complain, though; laying off management alongside labor should be normalized. If that includes C-level, I'm all for it. By definition, they have failed.

dehrmann 4y ago
You have to look at the circumstances. If you were an airline laying off pilots in April 2020, no, this wasn't a C-level failure. Sometimes, the layoffs were because of bad C-level decisions, and leadership should take a hard look at how did performed and if they should still be there. And sometimes, even if leadership screwed up, the uncertainty if they leave isn't worth it.
hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
I understand people feel differently, and layoffs can certainly be extremely disruptive to those affected, but I don't consider them a mark of "failure" of management. What's better, to get hired, paid a great salary and gain experience and knowledge for a couple years, and then get laid off with 4 months severance+benefits, or never get hired at all? To be clear, I think there are some fair arguments (not necessarily ones I agree with) for "never get hired at all", but just be clear, that is what you are arguing for.
- snozolli 4y ago
  and then get laid off with 4 months severance+benefits And a black mark on your record that every HR drone will pick up on like a bloodhound.
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    The thing that's "safer" about getting laid off when there are huge rounds throughout many different companies is that it is actually even more accurate to say that it had 0 to do with job performance. True, obviously companies use layoffs to get rid of low performers, but there are just numerous cases where companies are canning entire divisions, e.g. the Alexa-device-focused teams at Amazon or the metaverse team at Disney. I highly doubt these most recent layoffs will be treated as much of a black mark.