6 ms·

These 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

These 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 ago
There 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.
  - phatfish 4y ago
    Surely companies should be expected to follow the law, rather than just saying "haha sue us, i bet you can't afford it"? Otherwise it's just an abuse of the legal system, not to say that doesn't happen of course. However as far as i remember, in the UK you can take an employer to an employment tribunal and you receive free legal representation. Although i do remember something about the Tories trying to remove or limit the legal representation, not sure if it happened.
  - danpalmer 4y ago
    Unfortunately this is where the law falls short, the maximum penalty for this is low. Good for protecting those on minimum wage from exploitation, but not great for holding higher paying employers to account.
- gruez 4y ago
  >The first is roughly why does a company with many billions in the bank need to lay off anyone. because it's a for-profit company, not a jobs program.
  - photonbeam 4y ago
    Then they should be more careful opening offices in foreign jurisdictions
  - voidfunc 4y ago
    The entitlement is off the charts. People have completely lost perspective on how money is made and where they fit into the money making machine.
    - pm90 4y ago
      Maybe? Or maybe you have lost perspective on what purpose money actually serves and whether a model that hyper prioritizes it over the well being of people might not be the best approach.
    - jwestbury 4y ago
      Counter-point: The money-making machine exists to serve people, not the other way around.
      - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
        Yes; but the shareholders - not the employees.
      - HDThoreaun 4y ago
        Serve the shareholders. Not employees, and certainly not the government of the UK.
    - UncleMeat 4y ago
      Corporation works to maximize benefit for shareholders at the expense of its employees: "What do you expect, this is capitalism working as intended." Employee works to maximize benefit for themselves at the expense of their employer: "Ugh, what entitlement."
- version_five 4y ago
  > The first is roughly why does a company with many billions in the bank need to lay off anyone. This shows an utter misunderstanding of how businesses or finances of any kind work and would completely discredit anyone who tried to use it as an argument.
  - pydry 4y ago
    It's completely reasonable. Google's motives for doing this are no more honorable than they were the last time they were caught setting up a wage fixing cartel: https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-google-others-settle-anti-poaching-lawsuit-for-415-million/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-google-others-...
  - newswasboring 4y ago
    Can you elaborate on your statement for dummies? (Only if your argument isn't companies exist only to maximize profit, that one I understand and reject).
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      Does it matter what you accept or reject? The business’s owners determine the goals of the business.
    - voidfunc 4y ago
      It doesn't matter what you accept of reject. The owners set the priorities not the workers or the general public.
      - pm90 4y ago
        The owners don’t operate in isolation, they live in society with other people.
        refurb 4y ago
        That’s true, but so far society had supported free markets. So why are you not the one that has to adopt to society?
- enlyth 4y ago
  It really depends though, if you work anywhere for less than two years, they can basically fire you (as a person) for no reason at any time. It's only after two years of continuous employment that you gain more rights.
- UncleEntity 4y ago
  Google folks are apparently awake and not amused. Sorry I implied your job isn’t a human right guaranteed for life.
- ilikehurdles 4y ago
  You’re right. This should be a teaching moment for innovative tech companies, to avoid growing a physical presence in most of Europe as much as possible. These employees will rarely be a source of innovation or high performance for the company. And contrary to reason, all the advanced social benefits somehow end up being a vine strangling your ability to compete than the ideal that frees you from worrying about basic needs in pursuit of higher goals.
  - pjc50 4y ago
    Everyone else in this thread is stating that a company has no higher goals than profit.
    - ExoticPearTree 4y ago
      Well, why else would you start a company?
      - nonethewiser 4y ago
        To pay taxes!
    - ilikehurdles 4y ago
      Building Tesla or OpenAI or Amazon or Google or Netflix or Moderna or Apple is a higher goal than merely surviving/putting food on your table.
  - pjmorris 4y ago
    > And contrary to reason, all the advanced social benefits somehow end up being a vine strangling your ability to compete than the ideal that frees you from worrying about basic needs in pursuit of higher goals. It's like the AI alignment problem, but between corporations and people.
    - nonethewiser 4y ago
      That’s a great analogy. Both of which boil down to the fundamental fact that we are flawed in the sense that we can’t perfectly turn our intentions into action.
- mkl95 4y ago
  > why does a company with many billions in the bank need to lay off anyone At big tech, efficiency matters more than people. It has always been the case, but it's more exacerbated lately. Google know they will probably never take Apple's #1 spot, but they want to get as close as possible.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  > The first is roughly why does a company with many billions in the bank need to lay off anyone. I suppose for the same reason as even if you have money in the bank I'm sure that you don't keep subscriptions and running costs that you've determined are no use to you or you think are not worth it.
  - cmiles74 4y ago
    When I cancel a subscription to Disney+, no one loses their job. I think that's an important distinction.
    - mytailorisrich 4y ago
      It's completely irrelevant. And, yes, reducing you spending does lead to job losses.
      - cmiles74 4y ago
        I strongly disagree; my reduction in spending doesn't lead to job losses at any particular company. Perhaps if said company is providing such little service that many people choose to reduce their spending by all spending less on the same company, job losses would result. In this case we're talking about a lot of people at a pretty far remove from the employees being laid off. This is very different from what is happening at Google UK. So much so that I don't believe the comparison is at all useful.
        luckylion 4y ago
        > I strongly disagree; my reduction in spending doesn't lead to job losses at any particular company. It'll lead to fractional joblosses based on the amount you reduce your spending. Are you upset because Google is bigger than you and if you and they do the same relative actions, their absolute numbers will be much bigger? If you dump your trash in the park, it'll be barely noticeable. If Google does it, it's no longer a park. Yes, but it's still the same thing, you're just a lot smaller than Google.
UncleMeat 4y ago
It isn't negative feedback. It is an organized process established in the UK for handling layoffs. The UK workers didn't just say "don't fire us." They offered a ton of different options that, based on actual data, would have produced the same savings as the proposed layoffs. These included things like voluntary layoffs. All of these proposals were rejected. It sucks to have a corporation say "okay we'll have a discussion and come to a solution that achieves our goals while also maximizing your goals" and then turn around and say "nah, we are just going to do it our way with no changes." In the US there are little protections so the company just gets to say "you are all fired" but the policies are supposed to be different in some other countries. Since the end result was that Google just picks however they want it feels like crap that the UK folks had to wait 2.5 months to figure out who was going to be fired with no influence at all in the process.
- gruez 4y ago
  >The UK workers didn't just say "don't fire us." They offered a ton of different options that, based on actual data, would have produced the same savings as the proposed layoffs. These included things like voluntary layoffs. All of these proposals were rejected. What were the specific list of proposals? The only one you mentioned (voluntary layoffs) is a bad idea because it leads the most talented people to leave.
  - VikingCoder 4y ago
    You know what else leads to the most talented people to leave? When the company stops listening to the employees.
    - charlieyu1 4y ago
      Keeping deadweights leads to most talented people leaving.
      - VikingCoder 4y ago
        Yeah, there should be a process where people are evaluated by their peers to measure their performance and impact. The input from people who have demonstrated high impact should weigh more heavily. Oh wait, Google already has that. If that's not working well, that's its own problem. These layoffs were somewhat indiscriminate, with high-performing people getting fired.
tom_ 4y ago
There's a specific process: https://www.gov.uk/redundancy-your-rights/consultation https://www.gov.uk/redundancy-your-rights/consultation - plenty of opportunities for disputes to arise. We can trust the union will want to make a fuss, and Google will want the opposite, but the article is a bit light on details. I can't imagine many development staff would be in a union? - though maybe some are. And even if not, some might be sympathetic if Google are being a bit careless about their legal obligations to the people being made redundant.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Eumenes 4y ago
Instead of 'walking out', how about they get a new job? Thats the ultimate form of protest. Google employees have been told for years that they are the smartest people in the world. The puff pieces on Business Insider and major news outlets saying its harder to get a job at NASA or get accepted into MIT have really inflated these peoples egos. Lots of normal and low ego people at Google, but the place certainly radiates snobbery.
- stuaxo 4y ago
  This is a ridiculous thing to say when the market will be saturated since all companies are letting people go. They are walking out because unlike the US there is a process to this, the company is supposed to listen when it's employees make alternative suggestions to save costs.
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    The market is far from being saturated, plenty of places are hiring. Just not at crazy wages. Companies are now correcting the overhiring spree they did in the pandemic boom.
  - Eumenes 4y ago
    There are 1000s of open jobs. Working at G00g isn't a human right.
- AraceliHarker 4y ago
  The story behind the Google employees’ strike is not so much about whether they will lose their jobs or not, but about their anger at the management that refuses to listen to anything they have to say.
stuaxo 4y ago
The laws is that there is a consultation period, this is so that the company can listen to other ways of resolving the problem. Of course, the companies just pay lip service to this.
hiddencost 4y ago
In the situation where the workers refuse to work en masse. It's called a strike. They're quite common.
agilob 4y ago
>Sundar Pichai previously said he takes "full responsibility" for the decisions which lead to mass layoffs, and has now been accused of hiring sprees for "vanity". The same way CEOs say "I take personal responsibility for this layoff". Thoughts and prayers.
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  What else do people think taking full responsibility means? It doesn’t mean they can somehow prevent the action they are taking responsibility for, nor does it mean they are going to inflict some symbolic hardship on themselves in response. It basically just means “I deserve the blame.” To which people puzzlingly reply as if they are trying to escape blame.
barrysteve 4y ago
Working in the UK you come to realize, these feedback processes and their denial, are both usually expected and part and parcel of the negotiation dance.
swarnie 4y ago
> In London While ultimately hollow, we have far more robust employment laws than US counterparts. Legally mandated advice, negotiatations, worker councils and voting are all things i've experienced in my short time being de-employed constantly
throwaw12 4y ago
> These people seem out of touch. Why? This is basic capitalism, every party cares about their interests. On one side you have companies laying off people to increase profits (some of them have billions in their account), on the other side people walking out to prevent future scenarios for their own interest > 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.” Imagine a scenario where everyone walks out from that company, would it change the mind of management?
- ExoticPearTree 4y ago
  > Imagine a scenario where everyone walks out from that company, would it change the mind of management? In no scenario this will happen. People have competing interests, and very few actually care what happens job-wise to his/her colleague.
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  Cares about their interest. Yes. Expects Google to do things differently… out of touch. For the exact reason you cite - Google will act out its best interest.
jrochkind1 4y ago
Being in the USA my whole life, I was curious what they meant by "redundancy process", if there were laws in the UK governing layoffs that we might not be used to in free-for-all USA. But here's all I found, from [1], basically: > Your employer needs to show they have a redundancy process. They can decide what the process is, but it should always include a meeting with you to talk about: > * why you’re being made redundant > * the next steps in their process > …Your employer’s process has to explain: how they’ll choose people for redundancy; how long the decision will take; what meetings you can go to and when; how you can appeal if you’re chosen for redundancy… > …You should get invited to at least 1 meeting between you and your employer. Your meeting should happen before your employer has made their final decision about who will be made redundant… > …You might be able to challenge your redundancy by making a claim for ‘unfair dismissal’ if your employer hasn’t told you these things That, which is apparently legally required, is definitely not something that is guaranteed to happen in the USA, or really probably ever happens quite like that. (internal appeals process for a layoff? Unheard of in the USA). I don't know if this law was followed or not by Google; or if this website I found is completely accureate, or if there are additional UK customary practices we should know about. (The OP article was not great, actual reporting would be including something on if Google broke the UK law or not). Perhaps someone from the UK could give us some context? But it doesn't seem like "these people are out of touch", it seems like possibly the commenter is out of touch with law and practice in the UK (and Europe)? I suppose someone, perhaps the person I'm replying to, could say, who cares about this process, what difference does it make, in the end the employer still gets to lay off who they want, their decision, nothing in that process needs to change their minds, and people still won't be happy. That may be; I'm still curious for a report from a worker in the UK of how this works out in practice. I could see that process making people feel like they had a bit more dignity even when getting laid off, which is not nothing. In general, I agree with the workers that it would be better if the decision of who to layoff is not solely the employers, but the employees actually do have a say in it. The legal process above is not necessarily that. To get that, you usually need a union, and this is one of the things union contracts often cover. [1] https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/redundancy/check-your-rights-if-youre-made-redundant/check-if-you-can-challenge-your-redundancy/fair-redundancy-process/ https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/redundancy/check-your...

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 ago

There 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.
- phatfish 4y ago
  Surely companies should be expected to follow the law, rather than just saying "haha sue us, i bet you can't afford it"? Otherwise it's just an abuse of the legal system, not to say that doesn't happen of course. However as far as i remember, in the UK you can take an employer to an employment tribunal and you receive free legal representation. Although i do remember something about the Tories trying to remove or limit the legal representation, not sure if it happened.
- danpalmer 4y ago
  Unfortunately this is where the law falls short, the maximum penalty for this is low. Good for protecting those on minimum wage from exploitation, but not great for holding higher paying employers to account.
gruez 4y ago
>The first is roughly why does a company with many billions in the bank need to lay off anyone. because it's a for-profit company, not a jobs program.
- photonbeam 4y ago
  Then they should be more careful opening offices in foreign jurisdictions
- voidfunc 4y ago
  The entitlement is off the charts. People have completely lost perspective on how money is made and where they fit into the money making machine.
  - pm90 4y ago
    Maybe? Or maybe you have lost perspective on what purpose money actually serves and whether a model that hyper prioritizes it over the well being of people might not be the best approach.
  - jwestbury 4y ago
    Counter-point: The money-making machine exists to serve people, not the other way around.
    - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
      Yes; but the shareholders - not the employees.
    - HDThoreaun 4y ago
      Serve the shareholders. Not employees, and certainly not the government of the UK.
  - UncleMeat 4y ago
    Corporation works to maximize benefit for shareholders at the expense of its employees: "What do you expect, this is capitalism working as intended." Employee works to maximize benefit for themselves at the expense of their employer: "Ugh, what entitlement."
version_five 4y ago
> The first is roughly why does a company with many billions in the bank need to lay off anyone. This shows an utter misunderstanding of how businesses or finances of any kind work and would completely discredit anyone who tried to use it as an argument.
- pydry 4y ago
  It's completely reasonable. Google's motives for doing this are no more honorable than they were the last time they were caught setting up a wage fixing cartel: https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-google-others-settle-anti-poaching-lawsuit-for-415-million/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-google-others-...
- newswasboring 4y ago
  Can you elaborate on your statement for dummies? (Only if your argument isn't companies exist only to maximize profit, that one I understand and reject).
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    Does it matter what you accept or reject? The business’s owners determine the goals of the business.
  - voidfunc 4y ago
    It doesn't matter what you accept of reject. The owners set the priorities not the workers or the general public.
    - pm90 4y ago
      The owners don’t operate in isolation, they live in society with other people.
      - refurb 4y ago
        That’s true, but so far society had supported free markets. So why are you not the one that has to adopt to society?
enlyth 4y ago
It really depends though, if you work anywhere for less than two years, they can basically fire you (as a person) for no reason at any time. It's only after two years of continuous employment that you gain more rights.
UncleEntity 4y ago
Google folks are apparently awake and not amused. Sorry I implied your job isn’t a human right guaranteed for life.
ilikehurdles 4y ago
You’re right. This should be a teaching moment for innovative tech companies, to avoid growing a physical presence in most of Europe as much as possible. These employees will rarely be a source of innovation or high performance for the company. And contrary to reason, all the advanced social benefits somehow end up being a vine strangling your ability to compete than the ideal that frees you from worrying about basic needs in pursuit of higher goals.
- pjc50 4y ago
  Everyone else in this thread is stating that a company has no higher goals than profit.
  - ExoticPearTree 4y ago
    Well, why else would you start a company?
    - nonethewiser 4y ago
      To pay taxes!
  - ilikehurdles 4y ago
    Building Tesla or OpenAI or Amazon or Google or Netflix or Moderna or Apple is a higher goal than merely surviving/putting food on your table.
- pjmorris 4y ago
  > And contrary to reason, all the advanced social benefits somehow end up being a vine strangling your ability to compete than the ideal that frees you from worrying about basic needs in pursuit of higher goals. It's like the AI alignment problem, but between corporations and people.
  - nonethewiser 4y ago
    That’s a great analogy. Both of which boil down to the fundamental fact that we are flawed in the sense that we can’t perfectly turn our intentions into action.
mkl95 4y ago
> why does a company with many billions in the bank need to lay off anyone At big tech, efficiency matters more than people. It has always been the case, but it's more exacerbated lately. Google know they will probably never take Apple's #1 spot, but they want to get as close as possible.
mytailorisrich 4y ago
> The first is roughly why does a company with many billions in the bank need to lay off anyone. I suppose for the same reason as even if you have money in the bank I'm sure that you don't keep subscriptions and running costs that you've determined are no use to you or you think are not worth it.
- cmiles74 4y ago
  When I cancel a subscription to Disney+, no one loses their job. I think that's an important distinction.
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    It's completely irrelevant. And, yes, reducing you spending does lead to job losses.
    - cmiles74 4y ago
      I strongly disagree; my reduction in spending doesn't lead to job losses at any particular company. Perhaps if said company is providing such little service that many people choose to reduce their spending by all spending less on the same company, job losses would result. In this case we're talking about a lot of people at a pretty far remove from the employees being laid off. This is very different from what is happening at Google UK. So much so that I don't believe the comparison is at all useful.
      - luckylion 4y ago
        > I strongly disagree; my reduction in spending doesn't lead to job losses at any particular company. It'll lead to fractional joblosses based on the amount you reduce your spending. Are you upset because Google is bigger than you and if you and they do the same relative actions, their absolute numbers will be much bigger? If you dump your trash in the park, it'll be barely noticeable. If Google does it, it's no longer a park. Yes, but it's still the same thing, you're just a lot smaller than Google.

UncleMeat 4y ago

It isn't negative feedback. It is an organized process established in the UK for handling layoffs. The UK workers didn't just say "don't fire us." They offered a ton of different options that, based on actual data, would have produced the same savings as the proposed layoffs. These included things like voluntary layoffs. All of these proposals were rejected. It sucks to have a corporation say "okay we'll have a discussion and come to a solution that achieves our goals while also maximizing your goals" and then turn around and say "nah, we are just going to do it our way with no changes." In the US there are little protections so the company just gets to say "you are all fired" but the policies are supposed to be different in some other countries. Since the end result was that Google just picks however they want it feels like crap that the UK folks had to wait 2.5 months to figure out who was going to be fired with no influence at all in the process.

gruez 4y ago
>The UK workers didn't just say "don't fire us." They offered a ton of different options that, based on actual data, would have produced the same savings as the proposed layoffs. These included things like voluntary layoffs. All of these proposals were rejected. What were the specific list of proposals? The only one you mentioned (voluntary layoffs) is a bad idea because it leads the most talented people to leave.
- VikingCoder 4y ago
  You know what else leads to the most talented people to leave? When the company stops listening to the employees.
  - charlieyu1 4y ago
    Keeping deadweights leads to most talented people leaving.
    - VikingCoder 4y ago
      Yeah, there should be a process where people are evaluated by their peers to measure their performance and impact. The input from people who have demonstrated high impact should weigh more heavily. Oh wait, Google already has that. If that's not working well, that's its own problem. These layoffs were somewhat indiscriminate, with high-performing people getting fired.

tom_ 4y ago

There's a specific process: https://www.gov.uk/redundancy-your-rights/consultation https://www.gov.uk/redundancy-your-rights/consultation - plenty of opportunities for disputes to arise. We can trust the union will want to make a fuss, and Google will want the opposite, but the article is a bit light on details. I can't imagine many development staff would be in a union? - though maybe some are. And even if not, some might be sympathetic if Google are being a bit careless about their legal obligations to the people being made redundant.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Eumenes 4y ago

Instead of 'walking out', how about they get a new job? Thats the ultimate form of protest. Google employees have been told for years that they are the smartest people in the world. The puff pieces on Business Insider and major news outlets saying its harder to get a job at NASA or get accepted into MIT have really inflated these peoples egos. Lots of normal and low ego people at Google, but the place certainly radiates snobbery.

stuaxo 4y ago
This is a ridiculous thing to say when the market will be saturated since all companies are letting people go. They are walking out because unlike the US there is a process to this, the company is supposed to listen when it's employees make alternative suggestions to save costs.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  The market is far from being saturated, plenty of places are hiring. Just not at crazy wages. Companies are now correcting the overhiring spree they did in the pandemic boom.
- Eumenes 4y ago
  There are 1000s of open jobs. Working at G00g isn't a human right.
AraceliHarker 4y ago
The story behind the Google employees’ strike is not so much about whether they will lose their jobs or not, but about their anger at the management that refuses to listen to anything they have to say.

stuaxo 4y ago

The laws is that there is a consultation period, this is so that the company can listen to other ways of resolving the problem. Of course, the companies just pay lip service to this.

hiddencost 4y ago

In the situation where the workers refuse to work en masse. It's called a strike. They're quite common.

agilob 4y ago

>Sundar Pichai previously said he takes "full responsibility" for the decisions which lead to mass layoffs, and has now been accused of hiring sprees for "vanity". The same way CEOs say "I take personal responsibility for this layoff". Thoughts and prayers.

nonethewiser 4y ago
What else do people think taking full responsibility means? It doesn’t mean they can somehow prevent the action they are taking responsibility for, nor does it mean they are going to inflict some symbolic hardship on themselves in response. It basically just means “I deserve the blame.” To which people puzzlingly reply as if they are trying to escape blame.

barrysteve 4y ago

Working in the UK you come to realize, these feedback processes and their denial, are both usually expected and part and parcel of the negotiation dance.

swarnie 4y ago

> In London While ultimately hollow, we have far more robust employment laws than US counterparts. Legally mandated advice, negotiatations, worker councils and voting are all things i've experienced in my short time being de-employed constantly

throwaw12 4y ago

> These people seem out of touch. Why? This is basic capitalism, every party cares about their interests. On one side you have companies laying off people to increase profits (some of them have billions in their account), on the other side people walking out to prevent future scenarios for their own interest > 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.” Imagine a scenario where everyone walks out from that company, would it change the mind of management?

ExoticPearTree 4y ago
> Imagine a scenario where everyone walks out from that company, would it change the mind of management? In no scenario this will happen. People have competing interests, and very few actually care what happens job-wise to his/her colleague.
nonethewiser 4y ago
Cares about their interest. Yes. Expects Google to do things differently… out of touch. For the exact reason you cite - Google will act out its best interest.

jrochkind1 4y ago

Being in the USA my whole life, I was curious what they meant by "redundancy process", if there were laws in the UK governing layoffs that we might not be used to in free-for-all USA. But here's all I found, from [1], basically: > Your employer needs to show they have a redundancy process. They can decide what the process is, but it should always include a meeting with you to talk about: > * why you’re being made redundant > * the next steps in their process > …Your employer’s process has to explain: how they’ll choose people for redundancy; how long the decision will take; what meetings you can go to and when; how you can appeal if you’re chosen for redundancy… > …You should get invited to at least 1 meeting between you and your employer. Your meeting should happen before your employer has made their final decision about who will be made redundant… > …You might be able to challenge your redundancy by making a claim for ‘unfair dismissal’ if your employer hasn’t told you these things That, which is apparently legally required, is definitely not something that is guaranteed to happen in the USA, or really probably ever happens quite like that. (internal appeals process for a layoff? Unheard of in the USA). I don't know if this law was followed or not by Google; or if this website I found is completely accureate, or if there are additional UK customary practices we should know about. (The OP article was not great, actual reporting would be including something on if Google broke the UK law or not). Perhaps someone from the UK could give us some context? But it doesn't seem like "these people are out of touch", it seems like possibly the commenter is out of touch with law and practice in the UK (and Europe)? I suppose someone, perhaps the person I'm replying to, could say, who cares about this process, what difference does it make, in the end the employer still gets to lay off who they want, their decision, nothing in that process needs to change their minds, and people still won't be happy. That may be; I'm still curious for a report from a worker in the UK of how this works out in practice. I could see that process making people feel like they had a bit more dignity even when getting laid off, which is not nothing. In general, I agree with the workers that it would be better if the decision of who to layoff is not solely the employers, but the employees actually do have a say in it. The legal process above is not necessarily that. To get that, you usually need a union, and this is one of the things union contracts often cover. [1] https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/redundancy/check-your-rights-if-youre-made-redundant/check-if-you-can-challenge-your-redundancy/fair-redundancy-process/ https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/redundancy/check-your...