4 ms·
Despite growth in revenue, Informatica lays off hundreds
- datadrivenangel 3y agoInformatica is laying off 10% of their staff, 545 people.
- joeframbach 3y agoGenerally I agree with the HN rule that the submission must match the headline, but this is definitely a case where the submission title needs to be changed.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hindsightbias 3y agoArticle title was edited by sfstandard after this post.
- dang 3y agoYes, that does happen sometimes. I've updated it now, to say what the article says except with the actual company name specified.
- throwaway5959 3y agoThis kind of thing is terrifying. Growth through layoffs while buying back shares.
- nyx 3y agoI genuinely thought this was going to be satire, based on just the headline... then I clicked and read the first paragraph, and STILL thought it was satire. Then I saw the link to the earnings release and figured out it's real. Where else but tech is "things are great and we're firing 10% of our workforce" a normal announcement?
- mixdup 3y ago>Where else but tech is "things are great and we're firing 10% of our workforce" a normal announcement? I mean putting it in the guise of "AI" (does anyone actually trust AI to replace anyone except the most low level customer service at this point?) lets them have an excuse that doesn't look bad economically, and doing mass layoffs lets them dump a lot of dead weight that they would have trouble doing one by one without performance plans, worrying about lawsuits, etc.
- chimpanzee 3y ago> Where else but tech is "things are great and we're firing 10% of our workforce" a normal announcement? It’s a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitality_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitality_curve
- erulabs 3y agoThe alternative universe where companies never restructure, never abandon bad plans, and never fire anyone seems worse. You have to make a decision - is work the end goal or a means to an end? If work is the goal - this is horrible and bad - never fire people if you can afford not to! Why doesn’t someone just pay those folks to sit at their desk? It must be “greed for capital” at work! It’s hard to discus economics like this without sounding cold hearted - so I’ll say I feel for anyone laid off unexpectedly. However, of all the humanitarian crisis in the world today - it does not rank terribly high. I certainly hope those folks can find new jobs - but I think holding ill will towards business-runners who do not retain unneeded employees is first order stupidity.
- francisofascii 3y agoAn alternative would be not calling it growth. Or call it pivoting. Say that our new approach will require vastly different skills, such that using existing employees for the transformation is not a viable option.
- mistrial9 3y agostudy history or be doomed to repeat it?
- x86x87 3y agoYou're mixing things that don't belong together. Bringing in the humanitarian crisis to say "though luck, other people are having it way worse" is disingenuous. Here is the problem as I see it: these corpos no longer want to accept responsibility for their decisions and they will literally sell their grandmas if that means a great next quarter. Long term thinking and planning? Fuck that. The irony is that pulling this bullcrap (while raking in profits) does not work long term. The productivity and morale of people working there goes down even more each time they play this kind of stunts. Same corpos will now complain that people are quiet quitting.
- erulabs 3y agoI only meant to say playing the moral card is pretty weak here. If the moral thing to do is pay people forever to do something you don't need them to do, well, I reject that. If this decision is a bad decision, it will hurt the company. That's not my prerogative, it's the companies. How are you so sure this is not "long term planning"? How are you so sure of everything you've said?