6 ms·

Google isn't hiring anymore out of top management or very specific exceptions.

by alecco 18y ago

andr 18y ago
Citation needed.
- alecco 18y ago
  I thought it was on the front page http://www.webguild.org/2008/11/google-layoffs-10000-workers-affected.php http://www.webguild.org/2008/11/google-layoffs-10000-workers... Similar leaks are being posted every other day.
  - alecco 18y ago
    It seems today it got broader attention. http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE4AO1LI20081125 http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE4AO1LI20081125 http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/11/25/afx5737988.html http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/11/25/af... And everybody mentions WSJ as source but couldn't find the original, perhaps it's offline only. Yeah, no mention of (mostly) not hiring but I am very sure of that, too.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
lacker 18y ago
Not true.
- jimbokun 18y ago
  Citation needed. (Seriously, two totally contradictory opinions on this, wondering if there is any actual evidence either way.)
  - nostrademons 18y ago
    I asked my recruiter specifically if they were in a hiring freeze (I'm in the middle of the application process now), and she was very adamant that they were not. If they were, they would lay off the whole HR department, except for a skeleton crew needed for benefits and such. After all, why spend ~40M/year on recruiters if you're not recruiting?
    - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
      Retention. Turn-over. Keeping a "hot list". Getting rid of under-performing groups by replacing them with new blood. Those are some of the reasons. Also sometimes HR departments are just several months behind the times. Not trying to rain on your parade. I just wouldn't take that argument too seriously in a general situation. In this particular situation, I think Google is doing great and believe they probably are hiring.
    - gaius 18y ago
      Who lays off the layers-off? HR departments look after themselves.
      - JesseAldridge 18y ago
        Executives?
        gaius 18y ago
        One company I worked for, they always used to be run by people who'd come up through the line of business, the thing the company was known for. Somehow, tho', they ended up with the company lawyer as CEO and the former head of HR as his lieutenant. It was all downhill from there but the HR department I assume were happy, since they were now consulted on every action...
      - alecco 18y ago
        "500 of them were recruiters for Google." (link above)

Google isn't hiring anymore out of top management or very specific exceptions.

by alecco 18y ago

Google isn't hiring anymore out of top management or very specific exceptions.

andr 18y ago

Citation needed.

alecco 18y ago
I thought it was on the front page http://www.webguild.org/2008/11/google-layoffs-10000-workers-affected.php http://www.webguild.org/2008/11/google-layoffs-10000-workers... Similar leaks are being posted every other day.
- alecco 18y ago
  It seems today it got broader attention. http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE4AO1LI20081125 http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE4AO1LI20081125 http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/11/25/afx5737988.html http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/11/25/af... And everybody mentions WSJ as source but couldn't find the original, perhaps it's offline only. Yeah, no mention of (mostly) not hiring but I am very sure of that, too.

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

lacker 18y ago

Not true.

jimbokun 18y ago
Citation needed. (Seriously, two totally contradictory opinions on this, wondering if there is any actual evidence either way.)
- nostrademons 18y ago
  I asked my recruiter specifically if they were in a hiring freeze (I'm in the middle of the application process now), and she was very adamant that they were not. If they were, they would lay off the whole HR department, except for a skeleton crew needed for benefits and such. After all, why spend ~40M/year on recruiters if you're not recruiting?
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    Retention. Turn-over. Keeping a "hot list". Getting rid of under-performing groups by replacing them with new blood. Those are some of the reasons. Also sometimes HR departments are just several months behind the times. Not trying to rain on your parade. I just wouldn't take that argument too seriously in a general situation. In this particular situation, I think Google is doing great and believe they probably are hiring.
  - gaius 18y ago
    Who lays off the layers-off? HR departments look after themselves.
    - JesseAldridge 18y ago
      Executives?
      - gaius 18y ago
        One company I worked for, they always used to be run by people who'd come up through the line of business, the thing the company was known for. Somehow, tho', they ended up with the company lawyer as CEO and the former head of HR as his lieutenant. It was all downhill from there but the HR department I assume were happy, since they were now consulted on every action...
    - alecco 18y ago
      "500 of them were recruiters for Google." (link above)