7 ms·

Imagine working somewhere and then reading "The studio stressed the layoffs are not imminent, but will take place later this year as Pixar focuses on making les

Imagine working somewhere and then reading "The studio stressed the layoffs are not imminent, but will take place later this year as Pixar focuses on making less content". Then having to go to work each day at a place that keeps saying we are all family here knowing that 2/10 of you are going to get axed. I have to think they will lose at least 10% just through attrition. Although for many of those people I would imagine they have landed their dream job; feel bad for them.

rapfaria 3y ago
Perhaps it's a pivotal moment for those folks to rethink the whole "dream job" shindig, while being in the great position of having a job at Pixar when interviewing in the coming months.
infotainment 3y ago
This is a classic layoff debate -- is it better to do it with zero warning, or is it better to let employees know that a layoff is coming? Personally, I believe advance notice is better, because it signals to employees that, if layoffs are going to happen, there will be some time to prepare. By choosing to blindside employees, it creates a culture of paranoia, IMO. ("Will today be layoff day?" "What about next month?" "Oh no, it's the end of the quarter, does that mean tomorrow my laptop will lock up at 4am?")
- tycho-newman 3y ago
  California has the WARN Act.
- tiffanyh 3y ago
  In my experience, your best talent then leaves. Which is the opposite of what you want.
  - euos 3y ago
    No where to leave. Industry is dead rn, at least if you're an SWE in Silicon Valley. All open positions are paying 50% less.
    - altdataseller 3y ago
      What do you mean 50% less? That sounds off.. by a lot. Salaries have either flattened or increased a bit from last year for SWEs
      - riffraff 3y ago
        If I may suggest am interpretation: different kind of professionals may see different things. E.gm I'm told the market rate for react devs dropped like a brick, which is not the case for other software engineers.
        altdataseller 3y ago
        If you call yourself a react dev, then I’m sorry you’re not a software engineer. That’s like calling urself a Facebook marketer instead of a marketer. Good way to box yourself into a niche that may run out of demand
    - grandmczeb 3y ago
      Not even remotely true. Levels.fyi says SWE salaries are basically flat over the last year, which matches my experience. https://www.levels.fyi/2023/ https://www.levels.fyi/2023/
      - ninkendo 3y ago
        I don’t know which of you is right, but I think you’re saying different things. They’re saying positions that are actually open right now are paying less, and you’re saying salaries for existing employees are flat. They could be right if the positions which are open are only recruiting those with lower salary expectations.
  - infotainment 3y ago
    Isn't that the case in all layoffs, regardless of announcement timing? I'd argue all layoffs are, as a rule, foolish and short-sighted, because they tend end up with so many unintended consequences like that.
    - matthewfcarlson 3y ago
      Agreed. Once you open up the option for layoffs, it’s never going to be the same. The best way to do a layoff is to never have one
      - throwaway2037 3y ago
        > The best way to do a layoff is to never have one Sure, in fantasyland. This is unrealistic. What if you have a severe business downturn? No choice, but to layoff. In services, your number one cost is always people (talent).
      - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
        Couldn't disagree more strongly. Saying "The best way to do a layoff is to never have one" is really saying that you want to hire so cautiously that you will prevent people from getting the opportunity to have a job in the first place. Look, so much of layoffs from the past 1.5 years or so are the result of massive overhiring during the pandemic. Sure, it's easy to argue companies were short sighted, but even if they hadn't been, why would it be better to never have hired all those people to begin with? That is, even if a company had thought "the pandemic has really just pulled demand forward - we need a lot more workers now that we won' need when the pandemic ends", why shouldn't they hire workers for that period? Yes, I totally agree this is bad form to disrupt someone's career tenure if it's for a very short period, but a lot of these pandemic hires lasted several years. All those people got great experience and salaries, and I don't think the better thing would have been to never have hired them in the first place. I wish people would move away from the mindset that a layoff is the most awful thing possible, as long as people are treated respectfully and with adequate severance. When a company hires me, I don't expect to work there for life, nor do I expect them to have an obligation to keep me employed for life. As long as we give each other enough heads up if we decide to separate (and folks can have an honest debate over how long "enough" is), I don't see the problem.
  - Yodel0914 3y ago
    I think this is one of those situations where the optimal strategy for one interaction is very different to that for multiple, iterative interactions. The company has to presumably hire again in the future, and having a reputation for firing without notice may make it harder to attract the people you want.
    - tiffanyh 3y ago
      You don’t want to give your top talent a reason to look for another job. Telling your top talent a layoff is coming, even if they feel “secure” in their role, still gives them a reason to look. Let alone competitors now have a great pitch to your top talent - “do you want to risk getting laid off or join our awesome company”.
      - joeblubaugh 3y ago
        on the other hand, top talent is also likely to feel disrespected by having layoffs sprung on their team with no warning. It was a trigger for 3 of my job changes during my career, each time a "regretted attrition."
    - throwaway2037 3y ago
      "firing without notice": First, not legal in California where most of their highest skilled people work (Emeryville, last that I knew). These people will probably will receive (very) large severance packages worth months of pay. Plenty of time to find a new job. If they are very high skill, it will be easy to find a new role. Also, reputation for an employer is quickly forgotten if salaries are high enough. Please don't forget how many people went to work on dumb projects at the height of Facebook. After the Metaverse was cancelled and many people were laid off, suddenly a bunch of blog posts appeared: "That place was awful to work, but they paid me lots of money." (Example: Eric Lippert) Investment banking is similar. In short, if you pay enough, there are enough (plenty of?) people who don't care about your reputation.
      - obmelvin 3y ago
        > "firing without notice": First, not legal in California where most of their highest skilled people work Can you expand? Doesn't at-will meant that you can be fired without advanced notice?
  - gedy 3y ago
    Even if they don't leave, I was at a company that warned us 3 months before a 20% layoff, and basically everyone treaded water for 3 months until they knew if were staying. Huge company loss of productivity.
  - freetanga 3y ago
    Maybe you identify your best and worst before, and after giving heads up you sit with the best and tell them they are safe? Even give them reinforced contracts to make them at ease?
  - CyberDildonics 3y ago
    Your best talent at a company like this knows they aren't going to get fired. In fact at a company like this, your best talent probably wishes the bottom 10% would get trimmed because they produce so little relative to higher performers.
    - snotrockets 3y ago
      You mistakenly assume those making the lists of employees to be fired actually know, or care, about quality of said employees.
    - georgemcbay 3y ago
      The best talent is often the highest paid and that gets factored into these decisions as well when the company is trying to hit specific budget targets. And this is the sort of thing that can be especially problematic in creative companies when the layoffs are being run by bean-counting executives who have no presence in the day to day work of ICs. Will top talent get sacked at Pixar? I have no idea, but as a 50 year old tech worker I've seen a number of layoffs first-hand and have heard anecdotal reports of dozens more that lead me to the conclusion that being among the "top talent" does not make you immune when it comes to large belt-tightening layoffs.
    - gopher2000 3y ago
      Large layoffs are rarely, if ever, performance anchored at the IC level. They're anchored in the performance at product/unit level. So the major decider for layoffs is whether you're working on something that is deemed as business positive or not.
  - ambicapter 3y ago
    Why would the "best talent" leave? Are they worried they're going to get laid off? Or were they just looking for an excuse to leave?
    - bradfitz 3y ago
      Can most easily find new jobs.
      - joquarky 3y ago
        With new coworkers who are not demoralized by the impending layoff
    - AmVess 3y ago
      No point in staying on a sinking ship.
    - iancmceachern 3y ago
      It's like with a sinking ship. In Titanic the folks that got on lifeboats early survived, the ones that didn't got caught up in whatever traps as the rest of the ship goes down. If the ship is going down, its good to not ride it to the depths. If it's not going down, then maybe it's not worth jumping. That's thr skill in it I guess, knowing which is which.
    - FLT8 3y ago
      Layoffs usually occur within the wider context of a more cost constrained/austere environment. Essentially the high performers understand that they'll be expected to do more with less (people, resources, benefits, ...). Likely the layoffs won't affect the layers of grifters above them, so it becomes a question of whether they really want to work harder for little or no personal gain, just to support the layers above them who are making and being rewarded for the bad decisions, or whether the high performers should look elsewhere for something more aligned with their personal happiness.
    - watwut 3y ago
      Things change with layoffs - whatever they liked about company before is not there anymore. The relationships get worst, there is a lot more political infighting due to unclear competencies and changes. The people who stay after layoff tend to be demotivated in general too.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
    In my experience, the best talent has the privilege to pick jobs based on what they really want - because they have the most options. If they didn't want to be at Pixar, they'd already be gone. If they like it there, they aren't too worried about getting fired, because they know it won't be hard to find a different (probably better) job.
    - rob74 3y ago
      Maybe they wanted to be at Pixar because it was a successful company with safe jobs, but don't want to be at the new less successful layoff-threatened Pixar anymore? And the "best talent" also tends to have better salaries, and management decisions are often not really well-informed, so IMHO thinking you are immune from layoffs because you're better than average is hubris...
    - triyambakam 3y ago
      best talent !== most confident and self aware talent, thus good talent gets scared and leaves
    - wonderwonder 3y ago
      This is tempered by everyone's financial situation. Even in tech a large group of people don't have the resources to sit on the shelf for a few months unpaid. Even if they know a severance package is included the amount is unknown and there are not a ton of animation studios that can probably compete with Pixar on salary, a few but not a lot. Its a big risk to just wait it out and see if you are not financially secure.
  - dsabanin 3y ago
    Not all actions have to be self-serving.
  - throwaway2037 3y ago
    My experience is different. _When_ (not always!) I was considered a top performer, you had a 1:1 or small group meeting with senior leaders who told you point blank: "Layoffs are coming. You are top performers. None of you will be laid-off." People would sigh with relief, then go back to their desk. The layoff announcement would come moments later.
    - pi-e-sigma 3y ago
      This happens only when layoffs are small and targeted. In reality of big corps your whole department would be cut including the managers promising you that you wouldn't be affected
      - throwaway2037 3y ago
        > This happens only when layoffs are small and targeted. Thank you for speaking on my behalf. No, it does not. In my experience, I am never concerned with small and targeted layoffs because I am never in the bottom 25% performers in my team. Instead, when the layoff are mass and broad, only then, have I experienced those personalised meeting with senior management. (To be crystal clear: I was only invited to those meetings when I was viewed as a top-top performer. Not always.)
  - baby 3y ago
    What’s the argument here? Why would talent leave?
    - thih9 3y ago
      Layoffs often indicate lack of growth - might be harder to grow professionally, or get promoted. Also saving money on hiring often means saving money in general and elsewhere too, worsening quality of life. In particular projects can get canceled, priorities shifted, grind increased, privileges revoked, remote work banned, etc. People who have the option to leave might do just that.
      - pie420 3y ago
        Layoffs could also mean trimming the dead weight at the company that is sitting around and collecting paychecks, which in my experience is super common in california tech. Hit L4/L5, attend that weekly standups, and rest and vest till 50, then FAT FIRE and move to New Zealand
        thih9 3y ago
        Unless you’re the one conducting layoffs, what you think is dead weight and what people conducting layoffs think is dead weight might be different people. Plus that L4/L5 employee might look stellar on paper. Or even be stellar, just not very vocal about what they’re doing.
      - baby 3y ago
        > Layoffs often indicate lack of growth I thought that was true as well but the tech layoffs that have been happening have all been about being leaner to grow faster. Look at Meta, for example, that did layoffs in spite of massive continuous growth.
    - wonderwonder 3y ago
      For a lot of people going through a first layoff, it would be shocking. This company that keeps telling them they are all family here just cut x% of them. Its a slap in the face and makes them understand that there is no loyalty from the business to the employee so why be loyal to the business? This drives people to take a more mercenary approach to work and look for better pay elsewhere.
  - happymellon 3y ago
    In my experience the best talent will leave after a 10% layoff anyway. It's never just 10%, just 10% this week. Once they see stocks go up, and costs go down because everyone is working an extra hour a week to keep on track why wouldn't you cut another 15%?
  - watwut 3y ago
    People will make choices to leave either way. If you do not give advance warnings and just fire people, remaining people will still make decisions to leave. You cant force the talent to stay.
  - michaelcampbell 3y ago
    The "Dead Sea Effect" will have been going on already, but this certainly speeds it up.
- redserk 3y ago
  Or there is the third option: do the layoffs, immediately cut access, then give a generous amount of severance with benefits.
  - infotainment 3y ago
    I'd argue that's basically option 2: blindsiding employees. Severance softens the blow, but fundamentally doesn't fix the "I might get axed tomorrow" paranoia.
- tharne 3y ago
  > This is a classic layoff debate -- is it better to do it with zero warning, or is it better to let employees know that a layoff is coming? No good answers here. They're both bad, but in different ways, and I suspect that whether one is worse than the other is probably a matter of personality type.
- deeviant 3y ago
  I feel that's less of a benefit if you don't know it is you that is getting laid off or not...
- pdimitar 3y ago
  They just want people to leave voluntarily so they don't have to pay severance.
  - ithkuil 3y ago
    It depends on the amount of severance and the person. Not sure if everybody would prefer to get a couple months worth of severance but have to go through the stress of quickly finding a new job. I find that stressful even if I live in a country where I have the same level of healthcare no matter whether I'm employed or not. How do you guys in the US cope with that? Is it as bad as it looks from outside or you have mechanisms to not lose all your healthcare if laid off?
    - jstarfish 3y ago
      You get severance and can claim unemployment for a while too if you're laid off. Getting people to jump ship themselves avoids severance payouts and UI claims. If you plan to jump ship, negotiate with HR to get the severance package and voluntary leave, especially if you're hot shit and can get another job quickly, otherwise you're leaving money on the table. The only thing you lose here is eligibility for unemployment, which you won't need anyway. Healthcare is a shitshow. You can do COBRA, which lets you maintain your health plan by picking up the tab the employer previously paid. I've never done it myself but heard premiums were like $800 per person per month, years ago.
- voidfunc 3y ago
  It's kind of a weird move for companies to make because it's an oddly pro-labor signal to tell employees ahead of time to prepare for layoffs. I agree, I prefer it.. but also, it's weird in 2024 where corps basically try to fuck everyone at every possible turn that they're being so open about these layoffs.
- dojitza1 3y ago
  I know it's not practical because of select few bad apples, but giving a year's notice to the affected people, letting them finish up the work and mentally prepare, and all the while coaching them through the process of finding a new job seems like a humane thing to do.
- John23832 3y ago
  Immediate layoff, long period of transition. What Pixar has created is an environment where nobody knows is they’re going to stay, so people self select into two buckets: 1) those who say “I’m not going to bust my ass just to get fired”. They coast and prepare to leave. And 2) those who work their ass off to try to “prove” themselves. If any of 2 get fired, it’s a bad morale hit for anyone around after the layoffs. You’ll lose actual talent this way. Make the decision of who to layoff and do it, but be kind as you do.
- nunez 3y ago
  There is no good option. Either embrace the suck immediately, or let the suck consume you.
itake 3y ago
I don't understand the logic with employers dropping warnings like that. I knew ~2mo before my employer announced layoffs and it caused much unnecessary anxiety in my life.
- jauntywundrkind 3y ago
  But it shapes how you'll feel about the event & the future for a long long time after. The company was honest with you. When the day came it wasn't a complete shock. I don't have a conclusive answer, but I'd want to know I think & respect companies that have the bravery to be up front.
  - itake 3y ago
    I have experienced 2 layoffs, once as an IC and once as an EM. As an IC, the day it happened and the weeks after it happened were tough, but I knew if I was the one impacted and my job was 'safe' for the time being. As an EM, I knew months in advance, but I had no idea if I would be on the list. This caused months of stress while I planned for promotions and projects for people that might not (and eventually weren't) there after the rif. Ripping off the band aid is much more human than telling people "sometime in the next 12 mo we may or may not fire a large portion of you, so please keep giving your 100%"
- euos 3y ago
  Gives you a peace of mind once it is over. Also, allows you to prepare contingencies. Our company only now was recovering from the last year layoffs and now it is suddenly hit again. It would've been much more humane to know in advance not to relax.
- oldsecondhand 3y ago
  Depending on jurisdiction an employer might be obligated to announce a mass lay-off in advance. It gives more time for people to look for another job.
  - mminer237 3y ago
notatoad 3y ago
>I have to think they will lose at least 10% just through attrition and before anybody says that's maybe intentional, that just a really dumb way to do layoffs. that's how you lose your best people, rather than your worst.
- irrational 3y ago
  The worst will know they will have trouble getting a job elsewhere. The best might assume they are known to be the best, so they are safe. I would think it would be the middle people who would jump ship.
  - curiousllama 3y ago
    Nah, layoffs are too random. Being the best on your team doesn’t matter if the division is cut, or if the VP is making the call, or if your manager is disfavored, etc. Most of the (risk averse) great folks I know have purposely found safe harbor over the past ~2 years.
- MattGaiser 3y ago
  Doesn’t mean it isn’t intentional. Lots of companies don’t really seem to have a concept of “best people.” Also cost savings to consider such as severance.
  - tharne 3y ago
    Exactly. Companies really don't care as much about talent and performance as people think they do. Most of the time good enough is good enough. And companies almost always prefer attrition to layoffs or firings. Corporations are very conflict averse by nature.
- onion2k 3y ago
  This assumes that there's a significant difference between top performers and the next tier down, and that it's important to keep 'the best people'. In most businesses there are plenty of other good people who can step up if the best ones leave. Its also rare that someone is 'the best' at everything; people have a range of skills and you'll only be losing the person who's best at one or two of them. Most people who think companies have a 'best person' aspire to be seen as that person, and haven't really thought about what it would actually mean.
baryphonic 3y ago
> Then having to go to work each day at a place that keeps saying we are all family here knowing that 2/10 of you are going to get axed. Sounds like the mafia
euos 3y ago
I feel like there's a high chance of a layoff in my org as they had layoffs in other orgs yesterday and mine is one of major holdouts. I would very much wished for something definite, either for them to say that nothing currently planned or to say that it will happen later this month or something.
rhuru 3y ago
There is a reason why layoffs always happen as a surprise and kept a secret. Now everyone thinks they might get laid off. The folks who are easily employable will switch. This might be the end of Pixar.
- throwaway2037 3y ago
  > This might be the end of Pixar. Classic overreaction on HN. Did you say the same when Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft slashed huge number of employees in last year? How about Spotify?
  - rhuru 3y ago
    No because: 1. Layoffs were a surprise. 2. When you leave Google there isn't a better option + you are easily employable elsewhere.
codemac 3y ago
Same happened at Meta for the 2023 "layoff moments". The labor market is tough, the attrition you speak of did not happen at Meta. And that's for SWEs who have a lot of potential employers.
romwell 3y ago
> I have to think they will lose at least 10% just through attrition. Which is one of the benefits of making such an announcement. You don't have to pay severance or unemployment benefits to those who quit on their own. And if you are already treating headcount as a fungible commodity, it's a pure win for the HR department.
onion2k 3y ago
I have to think they will lose at least 10% just through attrition. And they won't have to pay any severance packages for that 10%. Heck, if 20% choose to leave they can cancel the layoff. Imagine the PR! The outcome of corporate comms strategy is never unplanned or coincidental. People quitting over it is exactly why they made this announcement.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
> we are all family here Surely nobody actually believes that?
pvaldes 3y ago
A solution would be to make histories again that humans want to see, and stop all that panderverse nonsense
Solstinox 3y ago
Most companies approach this in two ways: 1. Say nothing until day of. 2. Say someone somewhere at some point or by some date. For the employees, neither solves the problem of uncertainty that causes the most psychological turmoil. The best for the employee is being told several months in advance exactly who is going to get axed and when. This is considered risky for the business though. At that point you have an effective outsider with access to your systems for several months.
michaelcampbell 3y ago
> at a place that keeps saying we are all family Is this actually happening now? It's a great trope and probably most of us have seen it in action, but I wonder if it's even reality any more.

rapfaria 3y ago

Perhaps it's a pivotal moment for those folks to rethink the whole "dream job" shindig, while being in the great position of having a job at Pixar when interviewing in the coming months.

infotainment 3y ago

This is a classic layoff debate -- is it better to do it with zero warning, or is it better to let employees know that a layoff is coming? Personally, I believe advance notice is better, because it signals to employees that, if layoffs are going to happen, there will be some time to prepare. By choosing to blindside employees, it creates a culture of paranoia, IMO. ("Will today be layoff day?" "What about next month?" "Oh no, it's the end of the quarter, does that mean tomorrow my laptop will lock up at 4am?")

tycho-newman 3y ago
California has the WARN Act.
tiffanyh 3y ago
In my experience, your best talent then leaves. Which is the opposite of what you want.
- euos 3y ago
  No where to leave. Industry is dead rn, at least if you're an SWE in Silicon Valley. All open positions are paying 50% less.
  - altdataseller 3y ago
    What do you mean 50% less? That sounds off.. by a lot. Salaries have either flattened or increased a bit from last year for SWEs
    - riffraff 3y ago
      If I may suggest am interpretation: different kind of professionals may see different things. E.gm I'm told the market rate for react devs dropped like a brick, which is not the case for other software engineers.
      - altdataseller 3y ago
        If you call yourself a react dev, then I’m sorry you’re not a software engineer. That’s like calling urself a Facebook marketer instead of a marketer. Good way to box yourself into a niche that may run out of demand
  - grandmczeb 3y ago
    Not even remotely true. Levels.fyi says SWE salaries are basically flat over the last year, which matches my experience. https://www.levels.fyi/2023/ https://www.levels.fyi/2023/
    - ninkendo 3y ago
      I don’t know which of you is right, but I think you’re saying different things. They’re saying positions that are actually open right now are paying less, and you’re saying salaries for existing employees are flat. They could be right if the positions which are open are only recruiting those with lower salary expectations.
- infotainment 3y ago
  Isn't that the case in all layoffs, regardless of announcement timing? I'd argue all layoffs are, as a rule, foolish and short-sighted, because they tend end up with so many unintended consequences like that.
  - matthewfcarlson 3y ago
    Agreed. Once you open up the option for layoffs, it’s never going to be the same. The best way to do a layoff is to never have one
    - throwaway2037 3y ago
      > The best way to do a layoff is to never have one Sure, in fantasyland. This is unrealistic. What if you have a severe business downturn? No choice, but to layoff. In services, your number one cost is always people (talent).
    - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
      Couldn't disagree more strongly. Saying "The best way to do a layoff is to never have one" is really saying that you want to hire so cautiously that you will prevent people from getting the opportunity to have a job in the first place. Look, so much of layoffs from the past 1.5 years or so are the result of massive overhiring during the pandemic. Sure, it's easy to argue companies were short sighted, but even if they hadn't been, why would it be better to never have hired all those people to begin with? That is, even if a company had thought "the pandemic has really just pulled demand forward - we need a lot more workers now that we won' need when the pandemic ends", why shouldn't they hire workers for that period? Yes, I totally agree this is bad form to disrupt someone's career tenure if it's for a very short period, but a lot of these pandemic hires lasted several years. All those people got great experience and salaries, and I don't think the better thing would have been to never have hired them in the first place. I wish people would move away from the mindset that a layoff is the most awful thing possible, as long as people are treated respectfully and with adequate severance. When a company hires me, I don't expect to work there for life, nor do I expect them to have an obligation to keep me employed for life. As long as we give each other enough heads up if we decide to separate (and folks can have an honest debate over how long "enough" is), I don't see the problem.
- Yodel0914 3y ago
  I think this is one of those situations where the optimal strategy for one interaction is very different to that for multiple, iterative interactions. The company has to presumably hire again in the future, and having a reputation for firing without notice may make it harder to attract the people you want.
  - tiffanyh 3y ago
    You don’t want to give your top talent a reason to look for another job. Telling your top talent a layoff is coming, even if they feel “secure” in their role, still gives them a reason to look. Let alone competitors now have a great pitch to your top talent - “do you want to risk getting laid off or join our awesome company”.
    - joeblubaugh 3y ago
      on the other hand, top talent is also likely to feel disrespected by having layoffs sprung on their team with no warning. It was a trigger for 3 of my job changes during my career, each time a "regretted attrition."
  - throwaway2037 3y ago
    "firing without notice": First, not legal in California where most of their highest skilled people work (Emeryville, last that I knew). These people will probably will receive (very) large severance packages worth months of pay. Plenty of time to find a new job. If they are very high skill, it will be easy to find a new role. Also, reputation for an employer is quickly forgotten if salaries are high enough. Please don't forget how many people went to work on dumb projects at the height of Facebook. After the Metaverse was cancelled and many people were laid off, suddenly a bunch of blog posts appeared: "That place was awful to work, but they paid me lots of money." (Example: Eric Lippert) Investment banking is similar. In short, if you pay enough, there are enough (plenty of?) people who don't care about your reputation.
    - obmelvin 3y ago
      > "firing without notice": First, not legal in California where most of their highest skilled people work Can you expand? Doesn't at-will meant that you can be fired without advanced notice?
- gedy 3y ago
  Even if they don't leave, I was at a company that warned us 3 months before a 20% layoff, and basically everyone treaded water for 3 months until they knew if were staying. Huge company loss of productivity.
- freetanga 3y ago
  Maybe you identify your best and worst before, and after giving heads up you sit with the best and tell them they are safe? Even give them reinforced contracts to make them at ease?
- CyberDildonics 3y ago
  Your best talent at a company like this knows they aren't going to get fired. In fact at a company like this, your best talent probably wishes the bottom 10% would get trimmed because they produce so little relative to higher performers.
  - snotrockets 3y ago
    You mistakenly assume those making the lists of employees to be fired actually know, or care, about quality of said employees.
  - georgemcbay 3y ago
    The best talent is often the highest paid and that gets factored into these decisions as well when the company is trying to hit specific budget targets. And this is the sort of thing that can be especially problematic in creative companies when the layoffs are being run by bean-counting executives who have no presence in the day to day work of ICs. Will top talent get sacked at Pixar? I have no idea, but as a 50 year old tech worker I've seen a number of layoffs first-hand and have heard anecdotal reports of dozens more that lead me to the conclusion that being among the "top talent" does not make you immune when it comes to large belt-tightening layoffs.
  - gopher2000 3y ago
    Large layoffs are rarely, if ever, performance anchored at the IC level. They're anchored in the performance at product/unit level. So the major decider for layoffs is whether you're working on something that is deemed as business positive or not.
- ambicapter 3y ago
  Why would the "best talent" leave? Are they worried they're going to get laid off? Or were they just looking for an excuse to leave?
  - bradfitz 3y ago
    Can most easily find new jobs.
    - joquarky 3y ago
      With new coworkers who are not demoralized by the impending layoff
  - AmVess 3y ago
    No point in staying on a sinking ship.
  - iancmceachern 3y ago
    It's like with a sinking ship. In Titanic the folks that got on lifeboats early survived, the ones that didn't got caught up in whatever traps as the rest of the ship goes down. If the ship is going down, its good to not ride it to the depths. If it's not going down, then maybe it's not worth jumping. That's thr skill in it I guess, knowing which is which.
  - FLT8 3y ago
    Layoffs usually occur within the wider context of a more cost constrained/austere environment. Essentially the high performers understand that they'll be expected to do more with less (people, resources, benefits, ...). Likely the layoffs won't affect the layers of grifters above them, so it becomes a question of whether they really want to work harder for little or no personal gain, just to support the layers above them who are making and being rewarded for the bad decisions, or whether the high performers should look elsewhere for something more aligned with their personal happiness.
  - watwut 3y ago
    Things change with layoffs - whatever they liked about company before is not there anymore. The relationships get worst, there is a lot more political infighting due to unclear competencies and changes. The people who stay after layoff tend to be demotivated in general too.
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
  In my experience, the best talent has the privilege to pick jobs based on what they really want - because they have the most options. If they didn't want to be at Pixar, they'd already be gone. If they like it there, they aren't too worried about getting fired, because they know it won't be hard to find a different (probably better) job.
  - rob74 3y ago
    Maybe they wanted to be at Pixar because it was a successful company with safe jobs, but don't want to be at the new less successful layoff-threatened Pixar anymore? And the "best talent" also tends to have better salaries, and management decisions are often not really well-informed, so IMHO thinking you are immune from layoffs because you're better than average is hubris...
  - triyambakam 3y ago
    best talent !== most confident and self aware talent, thus good talent gets scared and leaves
  - wonderwonder 3y ago
    This is tempered by everyone's financial situation. Even in tech a large group of people don't have the resources to sit on the shelf for a few months unpaid. Even if they know a severance package is included the amount is unknown and there are not a ton of animation studios that can probably compete with Pixar on salary, a few but not a lot. Its a big risk to just wait it out and see if you are not financially secure.
- dsabanin 3y ago
  Not all actions have to be self-serving.
- throwaway2037 3y ago
  My experience is different. _When_ (not always!) I was considered a top performer, you had a 1:1 or small group meeting with senior leaders who told you point blank: "Layoffs are coming. You are top performers. None of you will be laid-off." People would sigh with relief, then go back to their desk. The layoff announcement would come moments later.
  - pi-e-sigma 3y ago
    This happens only when layoffs are small and targeted. In reality of big corps your whole department would be cut including the managers promising you that you wouldn't be affected
    - throwaway2037 3y ago
      > This happens only when layoffs are small and targeted. Thank you for speaking on my behalf. No, it does not. In my experience, I am never concerned with small and targeted layoffs because I am never in the bottom 25% performers in my team. Instead, when the layoff are mass and broad, only then, have I experienced those personalised meeting with senior management. (To be crystal clear: I was only invited to those meetings when I was viewed as a top-top performer. Not always.)
- baby 3y ago
  What’s the argument here? Why would talent leave?
  - thih9 3y ago
    Layoffs often indicate lack of growth - might be harder to grow professionally, or get promoted. Also saving money on hiring often means saving money in general and elsewhere too, worsening quality of life. In particular projects can get canceled, priorities shifted, grind increased, privileges revoked, remote work banned, etc. People who have the option to leave might do just that.
    - pie420 3y ago
      Layoffs could also mean trimming the dead weight at the company that is sitting around and collecting paychecks, which in my experience is super common in california tech. Hit L4/L5, attend that weekly standups, and rest and vest till 50, then FAT FIRE and move to New Zealand
      - thih9 3y ago
        Unless you’re the one conducting layoffs, what you think is dead weight and what people conducting layoffs think is dead weight might be different people. Plus that L4/L5 employee might look stellar on paper. Or even be stellar, just not very vocal about what they’re doing.
    - baby 3y ago
      > Layoffs often indicate lack of growth I thought that was true as well but the tech layoffs that have been happening have all been about being leaner to grow faster. Look at Meta, for example, that did layoffs in spite of massive continuous growth.
  - wonderwonder 3y ago
    For a lot of people going through a first layoff, it would be shocking. This company that keeps telling them they are all family here just cut x% of them. Its a slap in the face and makes them understand that there is no loyalty from the business to the employee so why be loyal to the business? This drives people to take a more mercenary approach to work and look for better pay elsewhere.
- happymellon 3y ago
  In my experience the best talent will leave after a 10% layoff anyway. It's never just 10%, just 10% this week. Once they see stocks go up, and costs go down because everyone is working an extra hour a week to keep on track why wouldn't you cut another 15%?
- watwut 3y ago
  People will make choices to leave either way. If you do not give advance warnings and just fire people, remaining people will still make decisions to leave. You cant force the talent to stay.
- michaelcampbell 3y ago
  The "Dead Sea Effect" will have been going on already, but this certainly speeds it up.
redserk 3y ago
Or there is the third option: do the layoffs, immediately cut access, then give a generous amount of severance with benefits.
- infotainment 3y ago
  I'd argue that's basically option 2: blindsiding employees. Severance softens the blow, but fundamentally doesn't fix the "I might get axed tomorrow" paranoia.
tharne 3y ago
> This is a classic layoff debate -- is it better to do it with zero warning, or is it better to let employees know that a layoff is coming? No good answers here. They're both bad, but in different ways, and I suspect that whether one is worse than the other is probably a matter of personality type.
deeviant 3y ago
I feel that's less of a benefit if you don't know it is you that is getting laid off or not...
pdimitar 3y ago
They just want people to leave voluntarily so they don't have to pay severance.
- ithkuil 3y ago
  It depends on the amount of severance and the person. Not sure if everybody would prefer to get a couple months worth of severance but have to go through the stress of quickly finding a new job. I find that stressful even if I live in a country where I have the same level of healthcare no matter whether I'm employed or not. How do you guys in the US cope with that? Is it as bad as it looks from outside or you have mechanisms to not lose all your healthcare if laid off?
  - jstarfish 3y ago
    You get severance and can claim unemployment for a while too if you're laid off. Getting people to jump ship themselves avoids severance payouts and UI claims. If you plan to jump ship, negotiate with HR to get the severance package and voluntary leave, especially if you're hot shit and can get another job quickly, otherwise you're leaving money on the table. The only thing you lose here is eligibility for unemployment, which you won't need anyway. Healthcare is a shitshow. You can do COBRA, which lets you maintain your health plan by picking up the tab the employer previously paid. I've never done it myself but heard premiums were like $800 per person per month, years ago.
voidfunc 3y ago
It's kind of a weird move for companies to make because it's an oddly pro-labor signal to tell employees ahead of time to prepare for layoffs. I agree, I prefer it.. but also, it's weird in 2024 where corps basically try to fuck everyone at every possible turn that they're being so open about these layoffs.
dojitza1 3y ago
I know it's not practical because of select few bad apples, but giving a year's notice to the affected people, letting them finish up the work and mentally prepare, and all the while coaching them through the process of finding a new job seems like a humane thing to do.
John23832 3y ago
Immediate layoff, long period of transition. What Pixar has created is an environment where nobody knows is they’re going to stay, so people self select into two buckets: 1) those who say “I’m not going to bust my ass just to get fired”. They coast and prepare to leave. And 2) those who work their ass off to try to “prove” themselves. If any of 2 get fired, it’s a bad morale hit for anyone around after the layoffs. You’ll lose actual talent this way. Make the decision of who to layoff and do it, but be kind as you do.
nunez 3y ago
There is no good option. Either embrace the suck immediately, or let the suck consume you.

itake 3y ago

I don't understand the logic with employers dropping warnings like that. I knew ~2mo before my employer announced layoffs and it caused much unnecessary anxiety in my life.

jauntywundrkind 3y ago
But it shapes how you'll feel about the event & the future for a long long time after. The company was honest with you. When the day came it wasn't a complete shock. I don't have a conclusive answer, but I'd want to know I think & respect companies that have the bravery to be up front.
- itake 3y ago
  I have experienced 2 layoffs, once as an IC and once as an EM. As an IC, the day it happened and the weeks after it happened were tough, but I knew if I was the one impacted and my job was 'safe' for the time being. As an EM, I knew months in advance, but I had no idea if I would be on the list. This caused months of stress while I planned for promotions and projects for people that might not (and eventually weren't) there after the rif. Ripping off the band aid is much more human than telling people "sometime in the next 12 mo we may or may not fire a large portion of you, so please keep giving your 100%"
euos 3y ago
Gives you a peace of mind once it is over. Also, allows you to prepare contingencies. Our company only now was recovering from the last year layoffs and now it is suddenly hit again. It would've been much more humane to know in advance not to relax.
oldsecondhand 3y ago
Depending on jurisdiction an employer might be obligated to announce a mass lay-off in advance. It gives more time for people to look for another job.
- mminer237 3y ago

notatoad 3y ago

>I have to think they will lose at least 10% just through attrition and before anybody says that's maybe intentional, that just a really dumb way to do layoffs. that's how you lose your best people, rather than your worst.

irrational 3y ago
The worst will know they will have trouble getting a job elsewhere. The best might assume they are known to be the best, so they are safe. I would think it would be the middle people who would jump ship.
- curiousllama 3y ago
  Nah, layoffs are too random. Being the best on your team doesn’t matter if the division is cut, or if the VP is making the call, or if your manager is disfavored, etc. Most of the (risk averse) great folks I know have purposely found safe harbor over the past ~2 years.
MattGaiser 3y ago
Doesn’t mean it isn’t intentional. Lots of companies don’t really seem to have a concept of “best people.” Also cost savings to consider such as severance.
- tharne 3y ago
  Exactly. Companies really don't care as much about talent and performance as people think they do. Most of the time good enough is good enough. And companies almost always prefer attrition to layoffs or firings. Corporations are very conflict averse by nature.
onion2k 3y ago
This assumes that there's a significant difference between top performers and the next tier down, and that it's important to keep 'the best people'. In most businesses there are plenty of other good people who can step up if the best ones leave. Its also rare that someone is 'the best' at everything; people have a range of skills and you'll only be losing the person who's best at one or two of them. Most people who think companies have a 'best person' aspire to be seen as that person, and haven't really thought about what it would actually mean.

baryphonic 3y ago

> Then having to go to work each day at a place that keeps saying we are all family here knowing that 2/10 of you are going to get axed. Sounds like the mafia

euos 3y ago

I feel like there's a high chance of a layoff in my org as they had layoffs in other orgs yesterday and mine is one of major holdouts. I would very much wished for something definite, either for them to say that nothing currently planned or to say that it will happen later this month or something.

rhuru 3y ago

There is a reason why layoffs always happen as a surprise and kept a secret. Now everyone thinks they might get laid off. The folks who are easily employable will switch. This might be the end of Pixar.

throwaway2037 3y ago
> This might be the end of Pixar. Classic overreaction on HN. Did you say the same when Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft slashed huge number of employees in last year? How about Spotify?
- rhuru 3y ago
  No because: 1. Layoffs were a surprise. 2. When you leave Google there isn't a better option + you are easily employable elsewhere.

codemac 3y ago

Same happened at Meta for the 2023 "layoff moments". The labor market is tough, the attrition you speak of did not happen at Meta. And that's for SWEs who have a lot of potential employers.

romwell 3y ago

> I have to think they will lose at least 10% just through attrition. Which is one of the benefits of making such an announcement. You don't have to pay severance or unemployment benefits to those who quit on their own. And if you are already treating headcount as a fungible commodity, it's a pure win for the HR department.

onion2k 3y ago

I have to think they will lose at least 10% just through attrition. And they won't have to pay any severance packages for that 10%. Heck, if 20% choose to leave they can cancel the layoff. Imagine the PR! The outcome of corporate comms strategy is never unplanned or coincidental. People quitting over it is exactly why they made this announcement.

matheusmoreira 3y ago

> we are all family here Surely nobody actually believes that?

pvaldes 3y ago

A solution would be to make histories again that humans want to see, and stop all that panderverse nonsense

Solstinox 3y ago

Most companies approach this in two ways: 1. Say nothing until day of. 2. Say someone somewhere at some point or by some date. For the employees, neither solves the problem of uncertainty that causes the most psychological turmoil. The best for the employee is being told several months in advance exactly who is going to get axed and when. This is considered risky for the business though. At that point you have an effective outsider with access to your systems for several months.

michaelcampbell 3y ago

> at a place that keeps saying we are all family Is this actually happening now? It's a great trope and probably most of us have seen it in action, but I wonder if it's even reality any more.