6 ms·
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, assumin
by 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 agoSurely 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 agoUnfortunately 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 agoThen they should be more careful opening offices in foreign jurisdictions
- voidfunc 4y agoThe 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 agoMaybe? 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 agoCounter-point: The money-making machine exists to serve people, not the other way around.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y agoYes; but the shareholders - not the employees.
- HDThoreaun 4y agoServe the shareholders. Not employees, and certainly not the government of the UK.
- UncleMeat 4y agoCorporation 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 agoIt'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 agoCan 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 agoDoes it matter what you accept or reject? The business’s owners determine the goals of the business.
- voidfunc 4y agoIt doesn't matter what you accept of reject. The owners set the priorities not the workers or the general public.
- enlyth 4y agoIt 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 agoGoogle folks are apparently awake and not amused. Sorry I implied your job isn’t a human right guaranteed for life.
- ilikehurdles 4y agoYou’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 agoEveryone else in this thread is stating that a company has no higher goals than profit.
- ExoticPearTree 4y agoWell, why else would you start a company?
- nonethewiser 4y agoTo pay taxes!
- ilikehurdles 4y agoBuilding 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 agoThat’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 agoWhen I cancel a subscription to Disney+, no one loses their job. I think that's an important distinction.
- mytailorisrich 4y agoIt's completely irrelevant. And, yes, reducing you spending does lead to job losses.
- cmiles74 4y agoI 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.