3 ms·

The framing of the title is ridiculous. > Cisco slashes thousands of workers as it announces yearly profit of $10.3B What does profit have to do with lay offs

by Alupis 2y ago

The framing of the title is ridiculous. > Cisco slashes thousands of workers as it announces yearly profit of $10.3B What does profit have to do with lay offs? Cisco has no obligation to continue employing workers it does not have a need for, and/or projects no need for in the near future. What is this, the federal government??? Ya, it sucks being laid off. But that's part of the "game" of being an employee. You're paid to do a certain job, and if that job doesn't need to be done anymore, well, you're out of a job. Cisco had 84,000 employees before layoffs, and will still have more than 70,000 after this round is complete. That's still a massive payroll...

bufferoverflow 2y ago
Not sure why you're downvoted. Everything you wrote is factually correct. Some people seem to be employment-entitled. I got laid off a few times, it's not a big deal. It just business doesn't want my skills at the price they are paying.
- neilv 2y ago
  > I got laid off a few times, it's not a big deal. It's a big deal for a lot of people. And someday it may be a big deal for you. > It just business doesn't want my skills at the price they are paying. If you expand this theory of economics, why shouldn't the market of labor punish an employer for undesirable properties as an employer?
  - Alupis 2y ago
    What was the undesirable behavior? Employing ~10,000 people that Cisco didn't need to employ and pay relatively high wages to? Or for cutting employees Cisco no longer has a need for? Should Cisco be forced to carry dead weight until it's no longer profitable, only then being allowed to cut employees? How does that serve the other ~70,000+ that are still employed at Cisco and would likely prefer to see Cisco smartly allocate it's resources? Should we craft a system in-which companies are afraid to hire because they'll be forced to keep those employees on payroll forever? How does that foster a healthy environment that produces competitive products and services? People complain about "leetcode" exercises and hiring processes as it is... can you imagine what companies would put applicants through if hiring was a lifetime commitment? For-profit companies are not charities. You are not entitled to a job at one of these companies. Yes, it does suck being laid off, but it's not the end of the world. If you were smart and talented enough to find employment at Cisco for however many years, you're smart and talented enough to find employment elsewhere too.
    - neilv 2y ago
      You seem to be spinning heavily the contributions of those people, as well as the intentions of the company. Also, the assumption that the affected departments should've known this was coming doesn't match up with a lot of what we've heard from many other of the "cut x%" layoffs the last few years. Regarding "entitled" to a job, you're responding to a comment that suggests considering it as an economic problem: many people don't want to be laid off, so hopefully those people (part of the market) can apply negative feedback to that undesired behavior.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Who said they should have known it was coming? Sometimes circumstances change and thats OK. Why would we want to apply negative feedback? I dont want any company to employ workers they dont want. Heck, sometimes I wish my employer would do layoffs to get rid of some of the dead weight.
      - Alupis 2y ago
        > You seem to be spinning heavily the contributions of those people, as well as the intentions of the company. The intentions of the company are to benefit the shareholders. Employees are paid for their time and expertise - nothing more. That's the end of the relationship unless said employees also hold an ownership stake, in which-case they'd get a vote/say in how the company governs itself and strategizes for future unknown climates.
  - bufferoverflow 2y ago
    Why would it be a big deal? You can always find another employer or start your own business. This isn't North Korea. > If you expand this theory of economics It's not theory, it's how business has been operating for many many decades. > why shouldn't the market of labor punish an employer for undesirable properties as an employer? Be more specific. What punishment for what properties?
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    > why shouldn't the market of labor punish an employer for undesirable properties as an employer? It does. Good employees leave bad companies (and bad bosses) all the time.
meiraleal 2y ago
> What does profit have to do with lay offs? Cisco has no obligation to continue employing workers Fair enough. sfgate.com has no obligation to not relate profit and layoff either.
- Alupis 2y ago
  Might as well have the headline "Cisco slashes thousands of workers as bologna sandwiches make a comeback" - it's a non sequitur...
- halJordan 2y ago
  Ah i see the Fox News method of journalism has won out. No journalist has any obligation to maintain veracity in their publications. The good news is you get to be "highly engaged" There are no downsides.
  - meiraleal 2y ago
    what? Cisco literally released both data together. If you consider that bad journalism I think you will need to explain what's good journalism then.

by Alupis 2y ago

bufferoverflow 2y ago

Not sure why you're downvoted. Everything you wrote is factually correct. Some people seem to be employment-entitled. I got laid off a few times, it's not a big deal. It just business doesn't want my skills at the price they are paying.

neilv 2y ago
> I got laid off a few times, it's not a big deal. It's a big deal for a lot of people. And someday it may be a big deal for you. > It just business doesn't want my skills at the price they are paying. If you expand this theory of economics, why shouldn't the market of labor punish an employer for undesirable properties as an employer?
- Alupis 2y ago
  What was the undesirable behavior? Employing ~10,000 people that Cisco didn't need to employ and pay relatively high wages to? Or for cutting employees Cisco no longer has a need for? Should Cisco be forced to carry dead weight until it's no longer profitable, only then being allowed to cut employees? How does that serve the other ~70,000+ that are still employed at Cisco and would likely prefer to see Cisco smartly allocate it's resources? Should we craft a system in-which companies are afraid to hire because they'll be forced to keep those employees on payroll forever? How does that foster a healthy environment that produces competitive products and services? People complain about "leetcode" exercises and hiring processes as it is... can you imagine what companies would put applicants through if hiring was a lifetime commitment? For-profit companies are not charities. You are not entitled to a job at one of these companies. Yes, it does suck being laid off, but it's not the end of the world. If you were smart and talented enough to find employment at Cisco for however many years, you're smart and talented enough to find employment elsewhere too.
  - neilv 2y ago
    You seem to be spinning heavily the contributions of those people, as well as the intentions of the company. Also, the assumption that the affected departments should've known this was coming doesn't match up with a lot of what we've heard from many other of the "cut x%" layoffs the last few years. Regarding "entitled" to a job, you're responding to a comment that suggests considering it as an economic problem: many people don't want to be laid off, so hopefully those people (part of the market) can apply negative feedback to that undesired behavior.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Who said they should have known it was coming? Sometimes circumstances change and thats OK. Why would we want to apply negative feedback? I dont want any company to employ workers they dont want. Heck, sometimes I wish my employer would do layoffs to get rid of some of the dead weight.
    - Alupis 2y ago
      > You seem to be spinning heavily the contributions of those people, as well as the intentions of the company. The intentions of the company are to benefit the shareholders. Employees are paid for their time and expertise - nothing more. That's the end of the relationship unless said employees also hold an ownership stake, in which-case they'd get a vote/say in how the company governs itself and strategizes for future unknown climates.
- bufferoverflow 2y ago
  Why would it be a big deal? You can always find another employer or start your own business. This isn't North Korea. > If you expand this theory of economics It's not theory, it's how business has been operating for many many decades. > why shouldn't the market of labor punish an employer for undesirable properties as an employer? Be more specific. What punishment for what properties?
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  > why shouldn't the market of labor punish an employer for undesirable properties as an employer? It does. Good employees leave bad companies (and bad bosses) all the time.

meiraleal 2y ago

> What does profit have to do with lay offs? Cisco has no obligation to continue employing workers Fair enough. sfgate.com has no obligation to not relate profit and layoff either.

Alupis 2y ago
Might as well have the headline "Cisco slashes thousands of workers as bologna sandwiches make a comeback" - it's a non sequitur...
halJordan 2y ago
Ah i see the Fox News method of journalism has won out. No journalist has any obligation to maintain veracity in their publications. The good news is you get to be "highly engaged" There are no downsides.
- meiraleal 2y ago
  what? Cisco literally released both data together. If you consider that bad journalism I think you will need to explain what's good journalism then.