4 ms·

People aren't cattle for you to get rid of. I'm tired of layoffs being a first resort rather than a last resort for companies. I'd like to see something where C

People aren't cattle for you to get rid of. I'm tired of layoffs being a first resort rather than a last resort for companies. I'd like to see something where C-suite executives are required to resign if undergoing layoffs.

throwaway5959 3y ago
Ultimately it’s bad management that usually leads to layoffs (barring extreme cases like the product your company makes being banned, for instance), it makes sense that leadership should be some of the first heads to roll.
novagameco 3y ago
At the very least, layoffs should be seen as an indication of failure. Sundar Pichai should not be making as much money as he is with the amount of layoffs they did
- paulddraper 3y ago
  Layoffs are an indication of failure, as much as hires are an indication of success. That is to say: not at all.
- tlivolsi 3y ago
  Neither should every other Google employee.
paulddraper 3y ago
HN in 2018: "Why do you need X employees to do that? That's like a weekend project." HN in 2024: "Companies should not reduce their headcount."
- jimbob45 3y ago
  Layoffs ruin human lives. Suicides happen. Breakups happen, with and without kids. Homes are defaulted on. Depression is almost a certainty. If the choice is between layoffs and total company ruin, okay, they’re necessary. If the layoffs are because you don’t want to try fixing anything else with the company first, you ought to be the first one fired.
  - avarun 3y ago
    Maybe in 1990s style layoffs with 2 weeks severance. Tech companies doing layoffs today are giving people 3-6-sometimes even 12 months of severance of benefits! If you can’t figure out a new job with that, it’s on you.
- vineyardmike 3y ago
  Companies shouldn’t overhire and also shouldn’t do layoffs. Why is this some hot take. In 2018 people were advocating against bloat. Now they’re advocating against poor treatment of employees. Both are valid. In 2018, people were right, and the price of bloat is being paid by employees now. Companies can start new products instead of laying people off. Companies constantly start new things, and can internally allocate resources. Google has open positions for hire right now; they just laid off 1K people.
- tikhonj 3y ago
  Those comments are totally consistent! If you hadn't hired X employees in the first place, you wouldn't be laying them off now. And, conversely, if you can afford to lay them off now, you could have afforded not to hire them earlier. Apart from avoiding layoffs, hiring less quickly also lets you be more intentional about quality and culture. How can you expect any real continuity in your culture if like 30%–50% of your engineers are new in any given year?
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    So the hiring was the unwise action and layoffs are the wise correction.
woah 3y ago
The impotent instinct to go after top management is silly. How management performs is between them and the shareholders. The only reason to fire management is if someone else could make the shareholders more money. If you don't think it should be legal to lay people off, then make layoffs illegal. Doing it through some weird requirement to spite management is just going to result in bizarre distortive effects in their behavior. I think stuff like this comes from a low level caveman jealousy instinct, where management is seen as a person to envy, while shareholders are ignored as some kind of far off impersonal force.
- vineyardmike 3y ago
  Woah there. That’s a pretty intense opinion with some pretty harsh language. Caveman jealous instinct? Eek. How management performs is between the management and the managed. Profit is not law, it’s not a god given right. Profit is a side affect from employees generating it. If you lay people off in a poor way, you can be chastised the same way a child gets chastised for cutting in line. Our society has an obligation to ensure everyone behaves in a pro-societal manner. Not a profitable manner. We shouldn’t need government laws to tell people to treat others well. Oh and FWIW most companies that perform layoffs tend to not see positive outcomes for the shareholders, so you’d think they’d respond if they actually acted uniformly and rationally about shareholder value.
  - drstewart 3y ago
    >Profit is not law, it’s not a god given right Neither is continued employment at a job that doesn't generate value

throwaway5959 3y ago

Ultimately it’s bad management that usually leads to layoffs (barring extreme cases like the product your company makes being banned, for instance), it makes sense that leadership should be some of the first heads to roll.

novagameco 3y ago

At the very least, layoffs should be seen as an indication of failure. Sundar Pichai should not be making as much money as he is with the amount of layoffs they did

paulddraper 3y ago
Layoffs are an indication of failure, as much as hires are an indication of success. That is to say: not at all.
tlivolsi 3y ago
Neither should every other Google employee.

paulddraper 3y ago

HN in 2018: "Why do you need X employees to do that? That's like a weekend project." HN in 2024: "Companies should not reduce their headcount."

jimbob45 3y ago
Layoffs ruin human lives. Suicides happen. Breakups happen, with and without kids. Homes are defaulted on. Depression is almost a certainty. If the choice is between layoffs and total company ruin, okay, they’re necessary. If the layoffs are because you don’t want to try fixing anything else with the company first, you ought to be the first one fired.
- avarun 3y ago
  Maybe in 1990s style layoffs with 2 weeks severance. Tech companies doing layoffs today are giving people 3-6-sometimes even 12 months of severance of benefits! If you can’t figure out a new job with that, it’s on you.
vineyardmike 3y ago
Companies shouldn’t overhire and also shouldn’t do layoffs. Why is this some hot take. In 2018 people were advocating against bloat. Now they’re advocating against poor treatment of employees. Both are valid. In 2018, people were right, and the price of bloat is being paid by employees now. Companies can start new products instead of laying people off. Companies constantly start new things, and can internally allocate resources. Google has open positions for hire right now; they just laid off 1K people.
tikhonj 3y ago
Those comments are totally consistent! If you hadn't hired X employees in the first place, you wouldn't be laying them off now. And, conversely, if you can afford to lay them off now, you could have afforded not to hire them earlier. Apart from avoiding layoffs, hiring less quickly also lets you be more intentional about quality and culture. How can you expect any real continuity in your culture if like 30%–50% of your engineers are new in any given year?
- paulddraper 3y ago
  So the hiring was the unwise action and layoffs are the wise correction.

woah 3y ago

The impotent instinct to go after top management is silly. How management performs is between them and the shareholders. The only reason to fire management is if someone else could make the shareholders more money. If you don't think it should be legal to lay people off, then make layoffs illegal. Doing it through some weird requirement to spite management is just going to result in bizarre distortive effects in their behavior. I think stuff like this comes from a low level caveman jealousy instinct, where management is seen as a person to envy, while shareholders are ignored as some kind of far off impersonal force.

vineyardmike 3y ago
Woah there. That’s a pretty intense opinion with some pretty harsh language. Caveman jealous instinct? Eek. How management performs is between the management and the managed. Profit is not law, it’s not a god given right. Profit is a side affect from employees generating it. If you lay people off in a poor way, you can be chastised the same way a child gets chastised for cutting in line. Our society has an obligation to ensure everyone behaves in a pro-societal manner. Not a profitable manner. We shouldn’t need government laws to tell people to treat others well. Oh and FWIW most companies that perform layoffs tend to not see positive outcomes for the shareholders, so you’d think they’d respond if they actually acted uniformly and rationally about shareholder value.
- drstewart 3y ago
  >Profit is not law, it’s not a god given right Neither is continued employment at a job that doesn't generate value