9 ms·
Google employees pressure execs at all-hands meeting for clarity on cost cuts
- aftbit 2y ago>In response to another question about ongoing layoffs and reorganizations and what might be coming in the future, Pichai said, "If we are making companywide decisions, we'll definitely let you know." Yeah right, they'll definitely let you know when they lay you off, but not a minute sooner.
- onion2k 2y agoIt's worse than that. All Pichai has to do is say "We're not laying off anyone who works in <some tiny department in the basement of Mountain View with 4 people>" and suddenly it's no longer a "companywide decision" so the board can weasel out of telling everyone.
- happyopossum 2y agoYeah, that’s kinda for the best. Have you ever worked someplace where layoffs had been pre-announced? Humans don’t act well in an environment like that.
- inerte 2y agoIt's not unheard of. I personally know of people at Splunk, HP, and Groupon who knew they would be laid off / fired months before it actually happened.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoMy workplace announced a 10% cut and the implementation time is many many months. Doesn't seem like a big deal. Most people I know don't think they are in the bottom 10%
- jumping_frog 2y agohttps://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/may/24/meta-layoffs-final-round-facebook https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/may/24/meta-layo... Article published on 24th May, layoffs announced in March. Meta started carrying out the last batch of a three-part round of layoffs on Wednesday, according to a source familiar with the matter, as part of a plan announced in March to eliminate 10,000 roles.
- toast0 2y agoMy take on these kinds of meetings is there's not a lot of information that they could share that's of consequence to employees, but not of consequence to shareholders. Layoffs and reorgs will be need to be disclosed to shareholders and that's going to probably be done to both groups at a similar time. Expecting early disclosure to employees is unrealistic.
- transcriptase 2y agoI’ve noticed the common employee doesn’t really understand that executives aren’t going to tell them any material non-public information at all hands meetings. Or that the answer to “will there be any more layoffs?” is never going to be answered truthfully or satisfactorily.
- SpicyLemonZest 2y agoIt's not about what they will say but what they won't say. When companies are confident they won't need to do layoffs soon, CEOs can and do say something to that effect instead of "If we are making companywide decisions, we’ll definitely let you know".
- mh- 2y agoThe problem is, no executive can (responsibly) say that. What if macro conditions worsen? Some kind of black swan event? I don't think it's appropriate to say "we're definitely not doing layoffs soon." Not to mention, people will quibble about what they mean by soon and start asking for timelines. It's a lose-lose situation to be up on stage and get asked this question, and I think it shows a bit of immaturity or naiveté to pose it.
- thefourthchime 2y agoThe board must fire Pichai. He has turned the most innovative company in the world into an ad business while ignoring its own inventions, which could have saved it.
- voisin 2y agolol. This is exactly what the board and shareholders wanted! Obsessed with earnings growth they killed their golden goose. Firing Pichai won’t change a culture built on an addiction to ads. Treat any business with an advertising business model as ephemeral - the business model simply begs to be disrupted.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoWhat golden goose? Has any innovation outside of ads even turned a profit? My impression is that everything else that google does is some form of a loss leader. Or are you saying that ads are the golden goose?
- voisin 2y agoSearch was their golden goose spitting off ad revenue and in search for continuous growth they have left search ripe for disruption by an ad free competitor with better results.
- goalieca 2y agoDid Google make any money before ads by just innovating? I was around 20 years ago when all these companies were losing money. Twitter was a prime example of taking years to land on a business model. They all landed on ads. Consumers wouldn’t fund the company via subscription to cover the obscene engineering and operating costs. They would probably need to lean up the way X did and Google is starting to do anyways.
- 1oooqooq 2y agogoogle was the good exception. while everyone was just dialing ads to the max and turning into portals... google was at least churning new products and buying interesting ones to diversify ads. on their heyday they had some ads on search, some on youtube, some on apps, some on maps etc... now they've killed search by making it two page full of ads. they are in the process of killing youtube by showing more ads than daytime tv. and will soon show ads on android lock screen if this continues. but this started on the last year of Schmidt. when he gave up to Icahn and other zombies on the board.
- tmpz22 2y agoFor all the people who ridiculed the idea of Collective Bargaining for Software Engineers so that they could have a decade of increased salary, here you go. FANNG engineers had the most leverage, they had the numbers, they still would have had enormous salaries regardless, and they gave it up. Good luck obtaining the same amount of leverage you would've had in the 2010s ever again. Good luck trying to steer the direction of these companies ever again. Good luck trying to establish a baseline for morality and conduct ever again.
- throwaway568383 2y ago[flagged]
- SpicyLemonZest 2y agoI can't speak for all the downvotes, but I just don't understand what the comment had to do with the article it's supposedly commenting on. The article describes Google's weekly meeting where executives answer adversarial questions from employees, in which employees expressed that they're concerned about future layoffs. What part of that story would be different if more of them had joined the union? If the implication is that unionized employees never have to worry about layoffs, that's not accurate.
- lostmsu 2y agoI don't know, SDE 2 in Facebook is hitting $500k total income after a few years of tenure.
- b3ing 2y agoMight as well just move the whole company to India. The software industry will be consolidated there in 20yrs just like manufacturing went to China. They will declare it a state of national security later down the road, when the companies all did this to save money and increase their salaries. Companies aren't people and they have no loyalty to the country they are in, despite what people try to push. It's business and profits come first always.
- twelve40 2y agoThe companies could have done that for the last 20 years at least, but didn't. Why? Layoffs aside (70k at Facebook is obscene), instead of India we now get RTO mandates.
- cudgy 2y agoRTO mandates and layoffs are related … RTO mandates get people to quit (avoid severance and some direct layoffs)
- danudey 2y agoThey're already testing moving manufacturing to India and profits to Ireland, so why not keep it up?
- mostlysimilar 2y agoGovernment needs to step in and prevent this. Massive taxes on any payroll leaving the country. Corporations will always act this way, we need to fight back using the only lever big enough. Also we should be talking about unionizing again.
- from-nibly 2y agoThat would make companies leave entirely not get them to stay and only pay American workers.
- mostlysimilar 2y ago
- goatmanbah 2y agoWhy do devs beg for information about lay-offs. It's unbecoming. Communicating these things ahead of time doesn't do any good for anyone. If you're concerned, start looking for other work.
- ryanmcbride 2y agoBecause when someone is fucking you it's common courtesy for them to look you in the eye.
- goatmanbah 2y agoYes when the layoffs happen it should be done with dignity. But no one owes you a "heads up".
- johannes1234321 2y agoIt's not only about the one being fired. It's also about the ones not affected knowing it was the last round for a while so they can focus on their work, not on fear of losing it.
- Foreignborn 2y agoIn many countries and jurisdictions, that’s exactly what they owe you.
- ryanmcbride 2y agoJust because something isn't legally owed, doesn't mean people shouldn't demand it.
- seanhunter 2y ago1) When someone is unhappy and you ask for questions, they will often ask the question they think you will find most uncomfortable to answer. They don't have much power but they can make you squirm. 2) If someone is still drinking the google juice and believes executives have their interests at heart, they may well believe enough in the "culture of transparency" that if they're worried about layoffs they ask about it at an all-hands. 3) They might suspect you're full of it and that your response to this question will be a litmus test My guess is one of those three
- ecmascript 2y ago[flagged]
- cholantesh 2y agoSuch a sophisticated breakdown; I specifically appreciate the revelatory non-sequitur at the end that makes it clear what your analytical lens is.
- mportela 2y agoThat's actually quite offensive, especially the last remark.
- ecmascript 2y agoMaybe, but I think it's true unfortunately. India has a lot of problems and it's very obvious.
- aprilthird2021 2y agoYou're the problem
- ecmascript 2y ago[flagged]
- arcen 2y agoIt's a way to signal that one is racist, but oh well the mask of superiority is slowly falling apart.
- imran-iq 2y agoThat's just blatantly racist. As a counter example look at kitty which is pushing terminal standards forward which is written by an Indian
- 2y ago
- debacle 2y ago"We are no longer valued like a startup, we are now a major player in a saturated space that is feeling the crunch of global economic headwinds and dwindling value for our real users, advertisers, and our bet on AI doesn't seem to be attracting the same energy that it is for others." What more clarity is necessary?
- burningChrome 2y agoI've never seen a company that allowed the employees to dictate so much of their policies and decisions. How many times have employees staged walk outs and protests and the company continually bent the knee for them? I've never understood people who do this. If you think you're on the chopping block for layoffs or cost cutting? You dust off your resume. You start networking. You reach out to recruiters. You actively PLAN to get laid off and have a Plan B or move before you do get laid off. If you're already working at Google, I'm sure it will be easy to find another job rather quickly. Why would you put yourself on the radar when the company is already looking for people to lay off?