2 ms·

I did recently this “back to the office” thing. At the same time layoffs were happening. It was super obvious that not complying with new rules will bring first

by lnsru 2y ago

I did recently this “back to the office” thing. At the same time layoffs were happening. It was super obvious that not complying with new rules will bring first warning, second warning and layoff without any package. The packages were tailored for greenhorns, as low as possible to be enough for junior engineers to leave quickly. It was obvious again, that the return to the office for older and experienced folks will cause natural attrition and some 5% of expensive people will leave without severance package by quitting like I did. 200 got packages, 300 quit voluntarily. It was one third of workforce in that particular location. I heard it was celebrated as a success in the highest floor. For big organizations these high performers are not important. Good presenters are what matters. Things are achieved by a mass. Sometimes having few departments to do basically the same development. Because somebody on the top of command chain didn’t align properly. Or higher ups just don’t care.

snapplebobapple 2y ago
It's pretty much exactly this. superstars matter when management can properly direct them, which is almost never big companies (it's very often small companies/startups though). The past decade of superstar hiring in tech was so obviously a raising rivals cost/ monopolizing talent so said talent won't go start a startup that unseats the large company from its excess oligopoly profits strategy. When interest rates got high enough to make yield matter and all of a sudden these big guys needed to actually perform quarter to quarter they started cutting all these excess, expensive people loose and this is just one of the ways to force that attrition. (consequently, I expect the company(ies) that will unseat the big tech guys has already/will be shortly created by some of these downsized staff and the next 10 years will be very interesting.

by lnsru 2y ago

snapplebobapple 2y ago

It's pretty much exactly this. superstars matter when management can properly direct them, which is almost never big companies (it's very often small companies/startups though). The past decade of superstar hiring in tech was so obviously a raising rivals cost/ monopolizing talent so said talent won't go start a startup that unseats the large company from its excess oligopoly profits strategy. When interest rates got high enough to make yield matter and all of a sudden these big guys needed to actually perform quarter to quarter they started cutting all these excess, expensive people loose and this is just one of the ways to force that attrition. (consequently, I expect the company(ies) that will unseat the big tech guys has already/will be shortly created by some of these downsized staff and the next 10 years will be very interesting.