4 ms·

It's not the worst "y'all are fired mail" we've seen in recent times but notice how the first two paragraphs, the most dense and buzzword ridden parts of the le

by dtx1 3y ago

It's not the worst "y'all are fired mail" we've seen in recent times but notice how the first two paragraphs, the most dense and buzzword ridden parts of the letter, do not include a concrete reason why they are reducing their workforce. After that part it becomes very precise and readable.

Jevon23 3y ago
Is there ever really a reason beyond “we don’t need you and/or can’t afford you”? I don’t think it really needs to be spelled out.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  Afaik, it's also legally inadvisable to ever be precise on the reason for firing, outside of performance. So every company with a legal team errs on the side of saying as little as possible.
- coldpie 3y ago
  Sure, the most common reason is "the shareholders & execs will make more money if we get rid of you." (No, this is not the same as "we don't need you.")
fooqux 3y ago
> do not include a concrete reason why they are reducing their workforce They're always one of two things: 1) the company is failing and we need to do this to stay afloat; or 2) the board thinks we can make more money by doing a round of layoffs and have determined that the negative repercussions of this are worth that money. I wasn't able to easily find revenue numbers on SIE, just on Sony as a whole, but it seems pretty obvious this is a #2. It doesn't matter how many "stay agile" or other buzzwords they toss out. When you boil it down, it's about a lot of people losing their livelihoods so a few extremely rich people can be a tiny fraction richer.
- xp84 3y ago
  > a few extremely rich people There are a lot more than 900 shareholders, though. Including probably many of those laid off. > losing their livelihoods I know that this is a real expression, and you’re using it correctly of course, but the caliber of employees we are talking about here are not ending up begging on the streets. They’re being forced to interview for other jobs where their talents might be put to better use. A bummer but not the end of the world. I’d prefer this to having a bunch of dysfunctional, uncompetitive companies that did makework programs to avoid having difficult conversations.
  - bluefirebrand 3y ago
    > They’re being forced to interview for other jobs where their talents might be put to better use Speaking as someone who has in the past been laid off in a down economy, when you get laid off while all of the other companies in your industry are also doing layoffs, the world looks bleak as hell. You can interview as much as you want, but chances are you have more competition for fewer jobs than you ever have before.
- majikaja 3y ago
  They might not have been hired in the first place if they expected jobs for life

by dtx1 3y ago

Jevon23 3y ago

Is there ever really a reason beyond “we don’t need you and/or can’t afford you”? I don’t think it really needs to be spelled out.

ethbr1 3y ago
Afaik, it's also legally inadvisable to ever be precise on the reason for firing, outside of performance. So every company with a legal team errs on the side of saying as little as possible.
coldpie 3y ago
Sure, the most common reason is "the shareholders & execs will make more money if we get rid of you." (No, this is not the same as "we don't need you.")

fooqux 3y ago

> do not include a concrete reason why they are reducing their workforce They're always one of two things: 1) the company is failing and we need to do this to stay afloat; or 2) the board thinks we can make more money by doing a round of layoffs and have determined that the negative repercussions of this are worth that money. I wasn't able to easily find revenue numbers on SIE, just on Sony as a whole, but it seems pretty obvious this is a #2. It doesn't matter how many "stay agile" or other buzzwords they toss out. When you boil it down, it's about a lot of people losing their livelihoods so a few extremely rich people can be a tiny fraction richer.

xp84 3y ago
> a few extremely rich people There are a lot more than 900 shareholders, though. Including probably many of those laid off. > losing their livelihoods I know that this is a real expression, and you’re using it correctly of course, but the caliber of employees we are talking about here are not ending up begging on the streets. They’re being forced to interview for other jobs where their talents might be put to better use. A bummer but not the end of the world. I’d prefer this to having a bunch of dysfunctional, uncompetitive companies that did makework programs to avoid having difficult conversations.
- bluefirebrand 3y ago
  > They’re being forced to interview for other jobs where their talents might be put to better use Speaking as someone who has in the past been laid off in a down economy, when you get laid off while all of the other companies in your industry are also doing layoffs, the world looks bleak as hell. You can interview as much as you want, but chances are you have more competition for fewer jobs than you ever have before.
majikaja 3y ago
They might not have been hired in the first place if they expected jobs for life