5 ms·

>I don't really get doing layoffs as soon as the acquisition finishes. Planning layoffs is typically part of the M&A process, so when it completes, they typica

>I don't really get doing layoffs as soon as the acquisition finishes. Planning layoffs is typically part of the M&A process, so when it completes, they typically already know who is going to be let go and drop the axe at that point.

alephnerd 3y ago
The people making the cutting decisions are also a removed from individual IC level visibility. These cuts are often done based on financial metrics per product line. You could be an amazing engineer and have a well engineered product, but still get laid off because the product didn't get market traction. I've been on both sides of the equation. It sucks but such is life sadly.
- gitfan86 3y ago
  And ability doesn't fit in the spreadsheet they use to calculate their target profitability. They are going to cut expenses by 40% and increase costs of their products by 20%.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    That is the point of lay offs. They are not saying you are bad they are saying they don't need someone in your position. sometimes a company will let managers in a different department that is hiring know about coming lay offs and ask/force them to take good people. this is rare though.
    - alephnerd 3y ago
      > sometimes a company will let managers in a different department that is hiring know about coming lay offs and ask/force them to take good people. this is rare though. Depends on the kind of layoff. If it's strategic M&A related this happens fairly often. If it's purely a cost cutting hail mary, then not as much.
comprev 3y ago
There's probably some legal loophole by which _technically_ the employees have a contract with a new company after the merge, since their old employer no longer exists on paper. This means employees get let go with legal bare minimum compensation and have little (if any) legal position to fight back. Immoral but not illegal.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  > This means employees get let go with legal bare minimum compensation and have little (if any) legal position to fight back. I don't know what country you're posting this from, but in the US none of this matters, and it does not apply. When someone is let go there is no "legal bare minimum compensation." There are some notice requirements (e.g. the WARN act), and many companies will pay out compensation in lieu of notice if the WARN act applies, but an acquisition makes no difference to these notice requirements.
  - comprev 3y ago
    In the UK we do have some protections depending on length of time with the company. There is some framework for redundancy payments. The US culture of "at will employment" (i.e fire you on the spot for little reason) gives me anxiety and I don't even live there!
    - bluGill 3y ago
      There are pros and cons. The ability to lay someone off quickly means someone in the US can risk hiring a bunch of people on a risky bet - if/when they give up on the project they can let the people go and cut their losses. Some of those risky bets pay off though and the people are not laid off. Note that I said lay off not fire above. There is an important legal difference.
      - Isthatablackgsd 3y ago
        There are both side of the coin when it comes to at-will employments with layoff. They can use it to get rid of high paying employees to hire lowest quality of employee for little pay that will affects the quality of their product. And they don't care because it looks good on their balance sheet. And there is no recourse for high paying employee against the company (unless they have a signed contracts that have a clause to prevent this). My former job laidoff few people because of high paying salary. They got high salary because positions required a specialized and niche knowledge for their jobs. They are good at what they do which earned their justification for high paying. It took the company a year to hire a barely qualified person because they don't want to increase the pay after declined job offers from multiple potential candidates.

alephnerd 3y ago

The people making the cutting decisions are also a removed from individual IC level visibility. These cuts are often done based on financial metrics per product line. You could be an amazing engineer and have a well engineered product, but still get laid off because the product didn't get market traction. I've been on both sides of the equation. It sucks but such is life sadly.

gitfan86 3y ago
And ability doesn't fit in the spreadsheet they use to calculate their target profitability. They are going to cut expenses by 40% and increase costs of their products by 20%.
- bluGill 3y ago
  That is the point of lay offs. They are not saying you are bad they are saying they don't need someone in your position. sometimes a company will let managers in a different department that is hiring know about coming lay offs and ask/force them to take good people. this is rare though.
  - alephnerd 3y ago
    > sometimes a company will let managers in a different department that is hiring know about coming lay offs and ask/force them to take good people. this is rare though. Depends on the kind of layoff. If it's strategic M&A related this happens fairly often. If it's purely a cost cutting hail mary, then not as much.

comprev 3y ago

There's probably some legal loophole by which _technically_ the employees have a contract with a new company after the merge, since their old employer no longer exists on paper. This means employees get let go with legal bare minimum compensation and have little (if any) legal position to fight back. Immoral but not illegal.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
> This means employees get let go with legal bare minimum compensation and have little (if any) legal position to fight back. I don't know what country you're posting this from, but in the US none of this matters, and it does not apply. When someone is let go there is no "legal bare minimum compensation." There are some notice requirements (e.g. the WARN act), and many companies will pay out compensation in lieu of notice if the WARN act applies, but an acquisition makes no difference to these notice requirements.
- comprev 3y ago
  In the UK we do have some protections depending on length of time with the company. There is some framework for redundancy payments. The US culture of "at will employment" (i.e fire you on the spot for little reason) gives me anxiety and I don't even live there!
  - bluGill 3y ago
    There are pros and cons. The ability to lay someone off quickly means someone in the US can risk hiring a bunch of people on a risky bet - if/when they give up on the project they can let the people go and cut their losses. Some of those risky bets pay off though and the people are not laid off. Note that I said lay off not fire above. There is an important legal difference.
    - Isthatablackgsd 3y ago
      There are both side of the coin when it comes to at-will employments with layoff. They can use it to get rid of high paying employees to hire lowest quality of employee for little pay that will affects the quality of their product. And they don't care because it looks good on their balance sheet. And there is no recourse for high paying employee against the company (unless they have a signed contracts that have a clause to prevent this). My former job laidoff few people because of high paying salary. They got high salary because positions required a specialized and niche knowledge for their jobs. They are good at what they do which earned their justification for high paying. It took the company a year to hire a barely qualified person because they don't want to increase the pay after declined job offers from multiple potential candidates.