4 ms·

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

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.
    - UncleMeat 4y ago
      The layoffs have not really been for performance. They aren't dropping deadweights.
- theGnuMe 4y ago
  >the most talented people to leave. They might leave anyway...?
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  It may be a worse idea for the company (though I'm not sure - the US layoffs weren't based on performance). But, as far as I can tell, the response has not been "these suggestions are unacceptable for reasons X, Y, and Z, please propose additional suggestions" but instead has been "nah, we are just gonna do what we want." I am blending the Zurich case with the UK case in my mind, though. There's a lot to keep track of here.
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    >I am blending the Zurich case DO you have any information on the Zurich case? I'm not aware of any layoffs there.
    - UncleMeat 4y ago
      Zurich layoffs were like a month ago.
- danpalmer 4y ago
  > 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. Roughly, voluntary redundancies, pay cuts, unpaid sabbaticals, job trades, and various other implementation details. They also presented a range of options for those at risk of, for example, deportation, including those at risk of deportation to face legal consequences at home or conscription. None of these suggestions were accepted.
  - nonethewiser 4y ago
    Well all of those encourage the best people to leave. Why would Google want to keep everyone at the expense of their top talent?
    - danpalmer 4y ago
      Voluntary redundancy does not mean that anyone can choose to be laid off, but rather that anyone can apply. The company could reject applications from critical people. Sabbaticals tend to increase retention, as those with long tenure can take a break without quitting. And anyway, the company doesn't necessarily only want to cut the "bottom talent", they may want to cut expensive talent.
- ghaff 4y ago
  >The only one you mentioned (voluntary layoffs) is a bad idea because it leads the most talented people to leave Not necessarily. Also people who have been sticking around out of inertia and doing the bare minimum. People ready to retire a bit early. Etc. Basically, it's reasonable to think that most people who would volunteer--especially at a very top-tier pay job--might well not be there in a year or so anyway. (There is I guess an argument that the people who are going to leave anyway will leave with or without a package so why pay for the package?) While you might not want to choose people purely based on volunteers, it's not clear that taking at least some volunteers doesn't benefit both the company and workers.
  - nonethewiser 4y ago
    It makes Google a less competitive employer. It’s better than being laid off, for those that would have been laid off. But worse for the top 94% of people that Google wanted to keep. Why optimize for the bottem 6%?
    - ghaff 4y ago
      Why would you assume that people on the edge of leaving Google in exchange for a package are going to stay there anyway--and, especially, put any real effort into it. I'd be willing to bet that whatever 94% Google ended up deciding to keep would not be the "best" working on the most important/strategic projects and unlikely to leave Google anyway in the next 6-12 months.
- absrd 4y ago
  If they're both the most talented and also don't want to work for you, what makes you think they'd stay?
- ExoticPearTree 4y ago
  And what happens when the company wants to fire a different bunch of people that don't voluntarily want to leave?
nonethewiser 4y ago
> It isn't negative feedback. It is an organized process established in the UK for handling layoffs. The “it”s you are referencing here are different things. There is a formal process. And employees did give negative feedback. I was never suggesting the formal process is negative feedback. In fact that seems non-sensical which makes me wonder how you thought that I thought that made sense. It seems like a lazy dismissal, quite frankly. In what way could someone think an overarching policy is negative feedback on a particular event?

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.
  - UncleMeat 4y ago
    The layoffs have not really been for performance. They aren't dropping deadweights.
theGnuMe 4y ago
>the most talented people to leave. They might leave anyway...?
UncleMeat 4y ago
It may be a worse idea for the company (though I'm not sure - the US layoffs weren't based on performance). But, as far as I can tell, the response has not been "these suggestions are unacceptable for reasons X, Y, and Z, please propose additional suggestions" but instead has been "nah, we are just gonna do what we want." I am blending the Zurich case with the UK case in my mind, though. There's a lot to keep track of here.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  >I am blending the Zurich case DO you have any information on the Zurich case? I'm not aware of any layoffs there.
  - UncleMeat 4y ago
    Zurich layoffs were like a month ago.
danpalmer 4y ago
> 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. Roughly, voluntary redundancies, pay cuts, unpaid sabbaticals, job trades, and various other implementation details. They also presented a range of options for those at risk of, for example, deportation, including those at risk of deportation to face legal consequences at home or conscription. None of these suggestions were accepted.
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  Well all of those encourage the best people to leave. Why would Google want to keep everyone at the expense of their top talent?
  - danpalmer 4y ago
    Voluntary redundancy does not mean that anyone can choose to be laid off, but rather that anyone can apply. The company could reject applications from critical people. Sabbaticals tend to increase retention, as those with long tenure can take a break without quitting. And anyway, the company doesn't necessarily only want to cut the "bottom talent", they may want to cut expensive talent.
ghaff 4y ago
>The only one you mentioned (voluntary layoffs) is a bad idea because it leads the most talented people to leave Not necessarily. Also people who have been sticking around out of inertia and doing the bare minimum. People ready to retire a bit early. Etc. Basically, it's reasonable to think that most people who would volunteer--especially at a very top-tier pay job--might well not be there in a year or so anyway. (There is I guess an argument that the people who are going to leave anyway will leave with or without a package so why pay for the package?) While you might not want to choose people purely based on volunteers, it's not clear that taking at least some volunteers doesn't benefit both the company and workers.
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  It makes Google a less competitive employer. It’s better than being laid off, for those that would have been laid off. But worse for the top 94% of people that Google wanted to keep. Why optimize for the bottem 6%?
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Why would you assume that people on the edge of leaving Google in exchange for a package are going to stay there anyway--and, especially, put any real effort into it. I'd be willing to bet that whatever 94% Google ended up deciding to keep would not be the "best" working on the most important/strategic projects and unlikely to leave Google anyway in the next 6-12 months.
absrd 4y ago
If they're both the most talented and also don't want to work for you, what makes you think they'd stay?
ExoticPearTree 4y ago
And what happens when the company wants to fire a different bunch of people that don't voluntarily want to leave?

nonethewiser 4y ago

> It isn't negative feedback. It is an organized process established in the UK for handling layoffs. The “it”s you are referencing here are different things. There is a formal process. And employees did give negative feedback. I was never suggesting the formal process is negative feedback. In fact that seems non-sensical which makes me wonder how you thought that I thought that made sense. It seems like a lazy dismissal, quite frankly. In what way could someone think an overarching policy is negative feedback on a particular event?