4 ms·

> Multiple rounds of laying off people isn't treating only those people poorly, but also increasing stress for the people who remain, knowing they can suddenly

> Multiple rounds of laying off people isn't treating only those people poorly, but also increasing stress for the people who remain, knowing they can suddenly be laid off as well. How is this not just "business"? That's what Google is. Granted, they make billions of dollars a quarter and it won't hurt them to keep employees around. But every company I've ever worked for over the last decades has laid people off, made others nervous, etc. It may sound harsh but they aren't a charity. People will be laid off, others will be nervous they may be next. If you are looking for a company where everyone just happy hums along with no fear of job loss, those don't exist. Except maybe in the Government.

BossingAround 3y ago
I empathize with this POV, and I largely hold it myself. That said, there is something incredibly insulting about having a layoff when making billions of dollars. Look, if a company is going under, everyone can understand they have to lay off huge number of folks (otherwise, they'll lay off everyone). But laying people off when you're profitable just because you want to be more profitable..? We need some regulation for it, the problem is what regulation. But I don't think it's controversial to say that this behavior shouldn't be encouraged (despite the fact that it is not illegal, and very few would say that it should be illegal).
yyyfb 3y ago
Even so - I don't have a moral objection to profit motive, I just think they're going about it wrong. There is one large shift happening now in the industry, to AI. Google will need tons of talent to rise to the challenge. There have been other such shifts before (social, mobile). In the past, Google handled these shifts very differently, by retraining and reorganizing engineering staff, which had for the most part been hired for its generalist ability and could therefore jump to other areas. The theory was that there wasn't a need to know the domain too much, since you were going to reinvent it anyways. It worked exceptionally well for a lot of things. People there didn't build data centers using techniques from the field, they didn't build maps like ESRI or Navteq, etc. Now it seems to handle it differently, through layoffs that give their employees clear signals that the company will look outside for talent first. Employees are no longer valued as adaptable generalist hires but as narrow-function cogs. That's a strategic mistake, because the AI field is still so nascent and full of hacks that generalists able to handle novel challenges in innovative ways are so sorely needed. It isn't a mature space at all and outside hires - at the scale that will be needed - will almost certainly be of lower quality and productivity. What would make sense if they wanted to increase profits: routinely cut low performers to keep people motivated to do their best, and completely drop entire business lines that are losses for the company. It doesn't seem like either thing is happening. By their own admission, it's not the lowest performers that get cut ("role eliminations"), and businesses that cause losses are expected to continue operating with less staff. Staff cuts don't fix structurally lossy businesses, they just make them limp longer. It seems like it's setting up these businesses for a long and painful agony.
usrusr 3y ago
That's what publicly traded companies are. They literally can't do "this is going well, let's continue going well", because in that case there'd inevitably be someone out there who thinks "but it could go even better". And with their optimistic projections, they are willing to pay more than even the happiest "yay, this is going well and will go well forever" considers the shares to be worth. Ownership by the biggest optimist is inevitable and when they discover that their hopes were unfounded and there's no even bigger optimist the take the bag, they'll rather burn the house for an imagined chance of still winning than accept the losses. (VC funded is no different of course, that's just a shortcut to arrive at the optimism-race without ever going through "this is going well")

BossingAround 3y ago

I empathize with this POV, and I largely hold it myself. That said, there is something incredibly insulting about having a layoff when making billions of dollars. Look, if a company is going under, everyone can understand they have to lay off huge number of folks (otherwise, they'll lay off everyone). But laying people off when you're profitable just because you want to be more profitable..? We need some regulation for it, the problem is what regulation. But I don't think it's controversial to say that this behavior shouldn't be encouraged (despite the fact that it is not illegal, and very few would say that it should be illegal).

yyyfb 3y ago

Even so - I don't have a moral objection to profit motive, I just think they're going about it wrong. There is one large shift happening now in the industry, to AI. Google will need tons of talent to rise to the challenge. There have been other such shifts before (social, mobile). In the past, Google handled these shifts very differently, by retraining and reorganizing engineering staff, which had for the most part been hired for its generalist ability and could therefore jump to other areas. The theory was that there wasn't a need to know the domain too much, since you were going to reinvent it anyways. It worked exceptionally well for a lot of things. People there didn't build data centers using techniques from the field, they didn't build maps like ESRI or Navteq, etc. Now it seems to handle it differently, through layoffs that give their employees clear signals that the company will look outside for talent first. Employees are no longer valued as adaptable generalist hires but as narrow-function cogs. That's a strategic mistake, because the AI field is still so nascent and full of hacks that generalists able to handle novel challenges in innovative ways are so sorely needed. It isn't a mature space at all and outside hires - at the scale that will be needed - will almost certainly be of lower quality and productivity. What would make sense if they wanted to increase profits: routinely cut low performers to keep people motivated to do their best, and completely drop entire business lines that are losses for the company. It doesn't seem like either thing is happening. By their own admission, it's not the lowest performers that get cut ("role eliminations"), and businesses that cause losses are expected to continue operating with less staff. Staff cuts don't fix structurally lossy businesses, they just make them limp longer. It seems like it's setting up these businesses for a long and painful agony.

usrusr 3y ago

That's what publicly traded companies are. They literally can't do "this is going well, let's continue going well", because in that case there'd inevitably be someone out there who thinks "but it could go even better". And with their optimistic projections, they are willing to pay more than even the happiest "yay, this is going well and will go well forever" considers the shares to be worth. Ownership by the biggest optimist is inevitable and when they discover that their hopes were unfounded and there's no even bigger optimist the take the bag, they'll rather burn the house for an imagined chance of still winning than accept the losses. (VC funded is no different of course, that's just a shortcut to arrive at the optimism-race without ever going through "this is going well")