13 ms·
Google workers in London stage walkout over job cuts
- iandanforth 4y agoThe article doesn't mention any specific concerns. Anyone have more info?
- papercrane 4y agoThe union that organized the protest have a press release: https://www.unitetheunion.org/news-events/news/2023/april/google-kings-cross-hq-protest-over-sackings-and-union-busting/ https://www.unitetheunion.org/news-events/news/2023/april/go... It seems the primary complaint is that Google is having one-on-one meetings and not allowing employees to have a union representative with them, or any support person at all unless they have a doctors note. There's other complaints as well around how the company is handling reimbursement of legal expenses for laid off employees who want to get legal advice before signing the settlement agreement.
- pjc50 4y agoThis should be higher up since it has vital context.
- sklargh 4y agoAn effective strategy to avoid layoffs at European offices is to cause just enough friction to get HR to give up and divert the firing to lower-rights countries (i.e. USA).
- nonethewiser 4y agoI don’t think that’s how it works
- sokoloff 4y agoThere's a short-term effect there that might be positive, but a long-term effect that would be negative. There's a reason that a lot of companies won't hire in France or other specific locales where the difficulty in getting out of an employment relationship is so high that it makes it undesirable to get into that relationship in the first place.
- theGnuMe 4y agoYes but you do actually want access to the French market so you will likely need employees in France.
- alephnerd 4y agoYou hire the bare minimum. Also, the French market is within the EU/EEA, so there's always Switzerland right next door (plus CH also supports German and Italian markets so you can merge your DACH, Francophone, and Italian operations in one country).
- figassis 4y agoI always thought that, redundancies aside, bare minimum was the only way to hire. So why should France want a company to hire 100x more engineers than it needs (and can/will fire at the slightest earnings glitch). This goes for all countries.
- sokoloff 4y agoDoes France not have income taxes? Taxing the income of Google engineers seems fairly attractive to me.
- nordsieck 4y ago> I always thought that, redundancies aside, bare minimum was the only way to hire. So why should France want a company to hire 100x more engineers than it needs (and can/will fire at the slightest earnings glitch). Some jobs are location dependent (e.g. plumber). Some jobs are location independent (e.g. software engineer). While it's true that globally, a company will hire a minimum number of total jobs, most countries would prefer that as many high paying, location independent jobs be done within their borders.
- mytailorisrich 4y agoIn the UK, there is nothing they can do against layoffs. The only thing is that if the planned layoffs impact more than 20 people (from memory) there must be a consultation. This only makes the process one month longer. I am also expecting that Google is paying more than the legal minimum to laid off people, which is really the only thing worth trying to negotiate.
- charlieyu1 4y agoThat’s why wages are low in UK compared to USA.
- robswc 4y agoIt seems an especially bad time to signal to companies that investing and innovating in Europe is more difficult.
- ilikehurdles 4y agoThat’s why European divisions of major companies exist for two reasons today: 1. An executive’s or senior director’s résumé fodder 2. GDPR compliance Innovation is attracted to free and efficient markets.
- refurb 4y agoHaving been involved finances at a multi-national, i doubt this works. Each country is it’s own free standing company with it’s own P&L. And combined profit is what rolls up into annual reports. I highly doubt a company like Google would let a country ride with poor profit dragging down earnings per share. And on top, they arent going to risk US revenue (likely several multiples of most countries in Europe) by firing people they actually need just to avoid laying people off in another country. It’s cheaper to just do the bare minimum of whatever the country requires for lay offs and be more careful hiring next time to avoid layoffs in the future.
- chpatrick 4y ago[flagged]
- nonethewiser 4y agoThat seems like the worst time to apply leverage on your employer.
- chitowneats 4y ago"You can't fire me! I quit!"
- nonethewiser 4y agoThese people seem out of touch. > "It has been difficult for those involved. We have a redundancy process for a reason, so that employees can make their voice heard," they said. "But it feels as if our concerns have fallen on deaf ears." They’re doing layoffs. In what scenario does negative feedback from employees change the minds of management? “Oh shit we didn’t know this negatively impacted you all. My bad.”
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago>These people seem out of touch. Earning wages way above average does do that to some people. In my home country I'd estimate 3/4 tech workers are completely out of touch with the harsh reality most people live in, and because of this, nobody will shed a tear for highly paid tech workers loosing their jobs. They'll be fine though, they'll find other jobs.
- danpalmer 4y agoThere have been several layers to the criticism. The first is roughly why does a company with many billions in the bank need to lay off anyone. However, assuming that layoffs do need to happen, there has been a lot more criticism of how they were conducted. In the UK there is, in summary, a right to a fair process – where _roles_ are eliminated, not _people_. That when there aren't enough roles for the people left, they are selected for layoffs in a fair way with transparency on how choices were made. And finally, that when someone is laid off, that they are treated with respect and, for example, allowed legal representation in their meetings with the company. Unfortunately there have been issues with all of these steps in the UK redundancy process. I don't want to go into detail in public, but there are multiple, very specific points on which employees feel that necessary standards have not been met.
- jsiepkes 4y ago> In the UK there is, in summary, a right to a fair process – where _roles_ are eliminated, not _people_. That when there aren't enough roles for the people left, they are selected for layoffs in a fair way with transparency on how choices were made. So go to court? I highly doubt Google is susceptible to a walk out or a strike.
- rvz 4y agoEngineers not affected, again /s The realization that the decade long near zero interest rate and quantative easing experiment is now a thing of the past with the market correcting off of that overhiring Covid mania. The tiniest violin for those walking the plank.
- stuaxo 4y agoMemories of working for Glu London after they got taken over by EA. We had the consultation process, of course it was a foregone conclusion. As others mentioned, in the UK (for now) you eliminate roles, not people - this means you can't just shift a role to another cheaper country. I was training someone to do exactly my job in China, but it somehow wasn't the same role. The team I was in wasn't treated as badly as some of them. I remember when the guy came in, who we later found out was going to cut everyone - got instant business psychopath vibes.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago> As others mentioned, in the UK (for now) you eliminate roles, not people - this means you can't just shift a role to another cheaper country. Of course you can. If you shift a role from the UK office to the Bangalore office you have made that role redundant in the UK and can layoff the employee...
- IanCal 4y agoIt's not that simple. There are two points to this 1. There's explicit legislation around moving a role to another company (TUPE regulations) 2. Just because the role goes doesn't mean that that employee needs to leave. You may instead want to let a different employee go and shift the one whose role has disappeared over.
- mytailorisrich 4y agoNitpick. In practice, your employer do away with your role. You're made redundant. It's a simple downsizing.
- IanCal 4y agoIt's not a nitpick it's a key difference between removing a role and removing a person specifically. I've definitely seen roles go and people move internally while other people go. It's an important legal distinction.
- say_it_as_it_is 4y agoAnd that's how you identify the next round of layoffs
- Overtonwindow 4y agoI think this only scratches the surface. China has a social credit system. Who's to say that these major corporations do not have a employee rating system? Speak out about layoffs? Your rating goes down. Agree to come back to the office? Your rating goes up. How much longer before these types of internal valuations work their way into a database for other companies can see? Take it one step further: what if you apply for a job, and that job knew that you had walked out in protest at your last job, organized to create a union, or maybe refused to come back to the office because you wanted to work from home. What impact would that knowledge have on your chances of gainful employment? Corporations can cancel people too...
- say_it_as_it_is 4y agoMortgage underwriters could also consider one's activism as a contributor of credit risk and decide not to lend to them. They may be more likely to lose their job, falling into arrears.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- expertentipp 4y agoMake the management implement sliding average of unbalanced binary tree to proceed with layoffs.
- localplume 4y ago[dead]
- fsniper 4y agoIt's strange to see US based workers to bash on Europe based workers who push back for their rights. Even if you don't see any "rights" to fight back, isn't it to your own benefit that someone else is fighting for more rights/better conditions? Why would you sit back and accept to be the scapegoat for conditions that you didn't cause or you didn't have any say over at the first place? The companies are laying of people, because? They are not earning as much as someone says so, while sitting on cash reserves?
- pm90 4y agoI’ve heard it described as “Americans think of themselves as temporary poor future billionaires”. Not all Americans, but this is why you see so many simping for the rich even when its not in their own interests.
- robswc 4y ago>even when its not in their own interests It is not in our interest to emulate Europe when it comes to tech.
- robswc 4y agoB/c the cold hard truth is that people would rather the 3-4x salaries. https://jobs.theguardian.com/job/8512191/head-of-cyber-security https://jobs.theguardian.com/job/8512191/head-of-cyber-secur... You have the head of cyber security making almost 1/2 as much as many CS grads right out of college. People can and will say they want more rights... but if that were _really_ true you would see tons of tech workers breaking down the door to get into Europe. As it stands, the complete opposite is happening.
- fsniper 4y agoHow is that at all related? US paying more is not mutually exclusive to people in Europe to fight for better conditions/their rights? Do you consider this to cause US to pay less and in turn lost income? Sorry to break it to you, but it's already happening and not at all related to what happens in Europe, but to US's own incompetency on responsible economics.
- Overtonwindow 4y agoI am so confused by the state of business and employees today. Why don't people just quit? So many of these employees at places like google, treat their job like it's a marriage. Are the benefits really that good?
- bananapub 4y agothe thread below is really peak HN - a beautiful mix of people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about (having not read the article or union press release or looked into UK employment law) alongside sociopaths suggesting employees should never demand anything or act as a group.
- rejectfinite 4y agoCould not have said it better myself. Then when the axe comes for them, they want Google to "do no evil". Well, government regulations do that in the EU and UK... its not up to individual companies.
- HDThoreaun 4y agoOf course employees should fight for their interests. But the way they're doing it here just strikes me as naive and without leverage they're unlikely to be successful.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- randyrand 4y agoSeems like this would greatly increase the risk of everyone being fired.
- AraceliHarker 4y agoThe Google headquarters at King’s Cross, designed by the renowned architects Thomas Heatherwick and Bjarke Ingels, is a dazzling edifice of glass and steel, a symbol of the company’s prosperity and ambition. But behind its shiny facade, there is a storm of layoffs and discontent, a stark contrast to the image of success and innovation that Google wants to project.
- rejectfinite 4y agoUS workers law meets EU-ish laws lol good luck US easy to teel in this thread, so cutthrouat. Like they should be happy just to have a job... Here you need 3months
- reisender 4y agoThat is their right, of course. Could this be a sign that it is tough in the SWE job market at the moment?! Usually moving on from Google would have been a non-issue to find a new job.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago>Could this be a sign that it is tough in the SWE job market at the moment?! No. There's plenty of companies hiring everywhere. SWEs will not be unemployed. It's probably tough only if you expect to still make post-pandemic boom Google TC and perks at Google WLB. Which is why it's wise to avoid lifestyle inflation. If you ever land a lucrative job during a boom, don't expect it to last forever and start buying Ferraris and max out your loans. Be humble and wise with your spending so you can whither any storm.
- Foomf 4y agoWhat is "TC"?
- 7thaccount 4y agoWise words for sure. That sports car is almost never as rewarding as you think it'll be, but not stressing about money surely is.