4 ms·

This seems like a pretty bold and employee-friendly move. Google recently merged two large divisions, so there's going to be some redundancy. Most companies wou

This seems like a pretty bold and employee-friendly move. Google recently merged two large divisions, so there's going to be some redundancy. Most companies would resolve this with a layoff, but it sounds like they're trying a buyout at the request of their employees. From the article: > Some employees at Google have recently been circulating a petition that calls for CEO Sundar Pichai to offer exactly this type of optional buyout before resorting to involuntary layoffs. “Ongoing rounds of layoffs make us feel insecure about our jobs,” the petition said, according to CNBC. Conventional wisdom is that with voluntary buyouts, high-performing employees who have the most options will leave and lower-performing employees will stay. We'll see how it turns out.

0xbadcafebee 2y ago
If I'm a highly-paid, high-performing employee, I'm not walking away from a big paycheck and lots of clout. If I was a middling employee without a big paycheck, looking at the prospect of months of job searching once I get laid off, I'd take the buyout and use it to start searching full time.
- refulgentis 2y ago
  The trick is knowing you're in the second group (and conveniently, this came roughly a week after everyone got their performance review results)
- JKCalhoun 2y ago
  Seems like the opposite happens. The high-performing employee is getting unsolicited job offers all the time — can skip off to a higher salary somewhere else. Middling employee knows a bird in the hand when they see it.
  - epicureanideal 2y ago
    Theoretically, but in practice I'm not sure recruiters or other companies can tell the difference between a high performer and a mid-performer.
    - tracerbulletx 2y ago
      I agree, they can't, unless we're talking like true experts in a field. Which is a very small % of the people.
- strunz 2y ago
  You may think Google cares about your performance but when the involuntary layoffs come, it's the highest earners who are first cut. Google is hoping the high earners leave because that saves the most money. There is no long/term thought here, it's short-sighted stock bumps from a company already rolling in money.
- deadmutex 2y ago
  Also, for a lot of people working on hardware, the alternatives aren't great. Big Tech players like Apple, Meta, Amazon, etc. all have downsides. Startsups are extremely risky, and don't pay employees as well (ex: Humane, Rabbit, Peleton, etc.) A slightly better story for those working on software (e.g. Google Photos App or Backend). They have more options, but relatively good jobs (high pay, flexibility, great coworkers non-crazy hours, etc.) as still hard to come by. They exist, but not sure about the quantity.
- Karrot_Kream 2y ago
  Why? I was an early hire at a company that became a Big Tech in this position and I left even without a buyout. Well compensated employees might not be top 1% rich but they're usually wealthy enough to find a different shop and tolerate some risk while living comfortably. I found over time that my peers at Big Tech became way too disinterested in making things and more interested in corporate politics or maximizing compensation for unit effort spent. If I had been offered a buyout I would have taken it in a heartbeat. (Consequently, when I read these threads I'm reminded of my good fortune of building my career in Silicon Valley. The kind of work environment I like is hard enough to find in the Valley but would have been impossible to find outside.)
refulgentis 2y ago
> Google recently merged two large divisions, so there's going to be some redundancy I don't see why - it was corporate games of thrones stuff, the hardware VP got the software VP's toys. (disclaimer: worked 7 years in P&E until I left in 2023)
- thevillagechief 2y ago
  Perhaps you can help me answer a question I've had for a long time. How is that hardware VP still there? It seems to me from the outside much better fits have been pushed out, but he's still hanging on. Is he really that good that these games?
  - refulgentis 2y ago
    My thinkings basically the same as yours. I probably also have about as much info as you on the matter, but then again, even knowing the "facts on the ground" aren't misaligned with that conclusion says something. I honestly don't really know if there were better alternatives. But I definitely lost a lot of faith somewhere between the Google IO where they packed every announcement for the next two years they could think of, managing to announce AR glasses again, only to have to cancel them a year later. If the sell was professionalism via Motorola experience, that's not what happened. But quite the loyal soldier, I think the public record has a very clear accounting of how many boneheaded decisions were made at the altar of Good Budgeting*, and the MBAs have thoroughly ate the company in general. They must enjoy his work. * bungling maintaining the tablet; marching onto a nonsensical goal to have Android eat ChromeOS while embarrassing themselves publicly mumbling about how its because AI, when really, its because politics. Meanwhile fantastic software work that would have fit right into a world with LLMs was shitcanned at the altar of Efficiency™ and focusing on getting products out.
    - aoeusnth1 2y ago
      I believe the ChromeOS -> Android move was because the CrOS model of having Google pay for the testing support of partner devices was not working out, and moving towards Android's model would cut costs while also cutting duplicate development costs.
jarjoura 2y ago
I imagine it's mostly going to be folks who were planning to leave anyway, and this is the nudge they needed to do it sooner. The downside to this approach is that they will probably tilt more towards senior and staff engineers who have been driving important projects and likely were going to leave once the project ships (or cancels). Now, they leave 6 months earlier, and leave teams full of new or junior level employees without much context. The company is full of smart folks though and they will recover. It will just be a painful year as teams scramble to figure everything out. It's also a potential F-U to Meta's approach who just did broadcasted performance based layoffs. Future employees will keep note and it will make it harder for Meta to recruit.
- SR2Z 2y ago
  This kind of nonsense was definitely a factor in cancelling my upcoming Meta interviews. I'd like to think that if I (or anyone) was not performing up to par, our managers would TELL US instead of the CEO deciding to do a layoff and character assassination. One of these is productive, the other one puts on a show for Wall Street at the expense of your employees. It didn't help that Meta demanded that I re-interview for the same level that I interviewed for and they offered me two years ago, either.
  - viraptor 2y ago
    I've been fortunate that my manager previously told me "if you're surprised at the performance review, I've failed at my job". That feels like the right approach - everyone should know their situation as soon as something starts going wrong, not suddenly at company-level layoffs.
randmeerkat 2y ago
> This seems like a pretty bold and employee-friendly move. Google recently merged two large divisions, so there's going to be some redundancy. Most companies would resolve this with a layoff, but it sounds like they're trying a buyout at the request of their employees. Or they’re afraid the union at Google will gain more traction. The employees should unionize now before the layoffs happen.
- SR2Z 2y ago
  The Google union, AWU, is a complete clownshow and more focused on TVCs than engineers. They suggest engineers pay insanely high dues so that they can spend it on other people. It's a bunch of new college graduates LARPing as the leaders of a real labor movement and could not become a federally recognized union even if it tried. If I hadn't met some of the people in charge and seen how serious they were about it, I'd think that the whole thing was a plant designed to stop an actual engineers' union from forming.
  - learningstud 2y ago
    True, unions, in general, hurt employees no matter how competent or incompetent said unions are. Unions are the privatization of governmental bureaucracy: more evil than "exploitative" big tech corps.
golly_ned 2y ago
> high-performing employees who have the most options will leave and lower-performing employees will stay. How do you figure? High-performing employees will stay because they're not worried about impending layoffs. Lower-performing employees will leave because they know they're on the chopping block. Google is also notorious for having tons of talented deadwood, since they don't want them to go to other companies. Such companies are ripe for cutting the fat.
- riehwvfbk 2y ago
  Having to do the work of 3 people is a great way to become low performing...
reshlo 2y ago
When you do layoffs, all the employees who didn’t get laid off this time will start wondering if they’ll be next, and they’ll look for a new job. The best employees are the ones who’ll find it easiest to get another job, and they’ll leave.
- SoxNSandles 2y ago
  This is my org, use to be on the Pixel Watch, and I can tell you - all the best talent has already left.

0xbadcafebee 2y ago

If I'm a highly-paid, high-performing employee, I'm not walking away from a big paycheck and lots of clout. If I was a middling employee without a big paycheck, looking at the prospect of months of job searching once I get laid off, I'd take the buyout and use it to start searching full time.

refulgentis 2y ago
The trick is knowing you're in the second group (and conveniently, this came roughly a week after everyone got their performance review results)
JKCalhoun 2y ago
Seems like the opposite happens. The high-performing employee is getting unsolicited job offers all the time — can skip off to a higher salary somewhere else. Middling employee knows a bird in the hand when they see it.
- epicureanideal 2y ago
  Theoretically, but in practice I'm not sure recruiters or other companies can tell the difference between a high performer and a mid-performer.
  - tracerbulletx 2y ago
    I agree, they can't, unless we're talking like true experts in a field. Which is a very small % of the people.
strunz 2y ago
You may think Google cares about your performance but when the involuntary layoffs come, it's the highest earners who are first cut. Google is hoping the high earners leave because that saves the most money. There is no long/term thought here, it's short-sighted stock bumps from a company already rolling in money.
deadmutex 2y ago
Also, for a lot of people working on hardware, the alternatives aren't great. Big Tech players like Apple, Meta, Amazon, etc. all have downsides. Startsups are extremely risky, and don't pay employees as well (ex: Humane, Rabbit, Peleton, etc.) A slightly better story for those working on software (e.g. Google Photos App or Backend). They have more options, but relatively good jobs (high pay, flexibility, great coworkers non-crazy hours, etc.) as still hard to come by. They exist, but not sure about the quantity.
Karrot_Kream 2y ago
Why? I was an early hire at a company that became a Big Tech in this position and I left even without a buyout. Well compensated employees might not be top 1% rich but they're usually wealthy enough to find a different shop and tolerate some risk while living comfortably. I found over time that my peers at Big Tech became way too disinterested in making things and more interested in corporate politics or maximizing compensation for unit effort spent. If I had been offered a buyout I would have taken it in a heartbeat. (Consequently, when I read these threads I'm reminded of my good fortune of building my career in Silicon Valley. The kind of work environment I like is hard enough to find in the Valley but would have been impossible to find outside.)

refulgentis 2y ago

> Google recently merged two large divisions, so there's going to be some redundancy I don't see why - it was corporate games of thrones stuff, the hardware VP got the software VP's toys. (disclaimer: worked 7 years in P&E until I left in 2023)

thevillagechief 2y ago
Perhaps you can help me answer a question I've had for a long time. How is that hardware VP still there? It seems to me from the outside much better fits have been pushed out, but he's still hanging on. Is he really that good that these games?
- refulgentis 2y ago
  My thinkings basically the same as yours. I probably also have about as much info as you on the matter, but then again, even knowing the "facts on the ground" aren't misaligned with that conclusion says something. I honestly don't really know if there were better alternatives. But I definitely lost a lot of faith somewhere between the Google IO where they packed every announcement for the next two years they could think of, managing to announce AR glasses again, only to have to cancel them a year later. If the sell was professionalism via Motorola experience, that's not what happened. But quite the loyal soldier, I think the public record has a very clear accounting of how many boneheaded decisions were made at the altar of Good Budgeting*, and the MBAs have thoroughly ate the company in general. They must enjoy his work. * bungling maintaining the tablet; marching onto a nonsensical goal to have Android eat ChromeOS while embarrassing themselves publicly mumbling about how its because AI, when really, its because politics. Meanwhile fantastic software work that would have fit right into a world with LLMs was shitcanned at the altar of Efficiency™ and focusing on getting products out.
  - aoeusnth1 2y ago
    I believe the ChromeOS -> Android move was because the CrOS model of having Google pay for the testing support of partner devices was not working out, and moving towards Android's model would cut costs while also cutting duplicate development costs.

jarjoura 2y ago

I imagine it's mostly going to be folks who were planning to leave anyway, and this is the nudge they needed to do it sooner. The downside to this approach is that they will probably tilt more towards senior and staff engineers who have been driving important projects and likely were going to leave once the project ships (or cancels). Now, they leave 6 months earlier, and leave teams full of new or junior level employees without much context. The company is full of smart folks though and they will recover. It will just be a painful year as teams scramble to figure everything out. It's also a potential F-U to Meta's approach who just did broadcasted performance based layoffs. Future employees will keep note and it will make it harder for Meta to recruit.

SR2Z 2y ago
This kind of nonsense was definitely a factor in cancelling my upcoming Meta interviews. I'd like to think that if I (or anyone) was not performing up to par, our managers would TELL US instead of the CEO deciding to do a layoff and character assassination. One of these is productive, the other one puts on a show for Wall Street at the expense of your employees. It didn't help that Meta demanded that I re-interview for the same level that I interviewed for and they offered me two years ago, either.
- viraptor 2y ago
  I've been fortunate that my manager previously told me "if you're surprised at the performance review, I've failed at my job". That feels like the right approach - everyone should know their situation as soon as something starts going wrong, not suddenly at company-level layoffs.

randmeerkat 2y ago

> This seems like a pretty bold and employee-friendly move. Google recently merged two large divisions, so there's going to be some redundancy. Most companies would resolve this with a layoff, but it sounds like they're trying a buyout at the request of their employees. Or they’re afraid the union at Google will gain more traction. The employees should unionize now before the layoffs happen.

SR2Z 2y ago
The Google union, AWU, is a complete clownshow and more focused on TVCs than engineers. They suggest engineers pay insanely high dues so that they can spend it on other people. It's a bunch of new college graduates LARPing as the leaders of a real labor movement and could not become a federally recognized union even if it tried. If I hadn't met some of the people in charge and seen how serious they were about it, I'd think that the whole thing was a plant designed to stop an actual engineers' union from forming.
- learningstud 2y ago
  True, unions, in general, hurt employees no matter how competent or incompetent said unions are. Unions are the privatization of governmental bureaucracy: more evil than "exploitative" big tech corps.

golly_ned 2y ago

> high-performing employees who have the most options will leave and lower-performing employees will stay. How do you figure? High-performing employees will stay because they're not worried about impending layoffs. Lower-performing employees will leave because they know they're on the chopping block. Google is also notorious for having tons of talented deadwood, since they don't want them to go to other companies. Such companies are ripe for cutting the fat.

riehwvfbk 2y ago
Having to do the work of 3 people is a great way to become low performing...

reshlo 2y ago

When you do layoffs, all the employees who didn’t get laid off this time will start wondering if they’ll be next, and they’ll look for a new job. The best employees are the ones who’ll find it easiest to get another job, and they’ll leave.

SoxNSandles 2y ago
This is my org, use to be on the Pixel Watch, and I can tell you - all the best talent has already left.