A billionaire wrote this letter to Google a year ago. How likely is that Google's layoffs and actions since then are at least partly because of this?
A billionaire wrote this letter to Google a year ago. How likely is that Google's layoffs and actions since then are at least partly because of this?
You're viewing a single thread.
I think asking for lowered compensation is definitely shitty and he should be condemned for that.
However, can someone explain to me the vitriolic opposition to downsizing/layoffs whenever this topic comes up?
I don't see how anyone has a right be hired and work at X company. It is, after all, their company and their decision. Surely we can all agree that sometimes companies make strategic mistakes in terms of hiring and need to correct them later on. Also, circumstances could simply change, products be canceled or no longer need as much manpower etc.
What am I missing?
In millions 2021 revenue: 75,325 2022 revenue: 76,048
Revenue is neither stagnant nor decreasing. Only reason to reduce pay and headcount is to increase profit at the employee's cost. All corporations will get to an operational standpoint that reducing costs through better process and materials is no longer feasible and the only avenue to increased profits is to begin extracting wealth from the employee's via layoffs and salary reduction.
It's also a fairly reliable indicator that the glory days of the business are over, and they're pivoting from innovation to capture / create new markets and products to a conservative stance protecting their dominant position at the expense of everyone else - customers, staff, suppliers, vendors...
It's possible to run lean and innovate, but at this phase of the business lifecycle, they're not retooling to remove redundant management and organisational bloat - they're cutting the "doers" responsible for building the product because they know they're now in a position to sell the same old BS and just crush new market entrants that would drive continued improvement.
Revenue isn’t profit though. Revenue is income before expenses, and payroll and benefits are expenses.
Take a look at New Zealand's approach to this issue. We have much stronger laws for our people and we have a thriving economy regardless.
Companies nees to really think about hiring staff as the process for firing in and of itself, let along laying someone off is a difficult and costly one.
This results in two main things; 1, when a company changes direction or a project gets cancelled - they try as hard as they can (and have the legal obligation to) to place you on a different project but you keep your role. 2, if that is not possible, they need to help and support you when it comes to either finding a new and different role within the company, or find a role elsewhere, by providing interview training or help with your CV.
This does not apply for contractors, who get treated more like employees do in America and are a way for companies to avoid the risk of over recruitment, at the expense of having to pay someone twice the market rate.
Just because that's how it's been done in our system so far doesn't mean it's right or fair. Those numbers he mentioned are people that this company promised a job to. Some of them may have upended their lives for this. This guy brings no value other than lending his parents money out and what he's saying will ruin the lives of many people for several months. Why should he have that power? Those employees should be taken care of because they were promised a job to support their families with.
I'm not against it in it's entirety partly because of the point you made, it is their company after all.
What I am against is the intent behind cutting employees.
First, it's just irresponsible to grow a company outside of what it can sustain. But in the end, the company survives and profits while the employee is now unemployed. The worker suffers because the top fucked up.
Second, corporate greed. It's fucking up people's lives for profit it technically doesn't need to continue to exist and be successful.
It's a human sacrifice to an entity that doesn't even exist.
His suggestions are to maximize share values, namely his.
I imagine it is because many of us have had it happened. We worked hard and did what we are supposed to do and now have to suffer because of another person's mistake. A mistake that they are shielded from. It isn't like the upper management is going to get fired because they overhired.
Additionally it tends to come in waves and that seems to be more based on what they think they can get away with not based on what the market is actually doing. One of my main vendors just did that to their engineering department. They are publically traded and their financials are fine.
It's cuz being laid off means a lot of stress. The job search, the anxiety of not having money, and also knowing that the government will let you go homeless. Seeing a billionaire easily messing with thousands of lives is disturbing.
Where I live it works a bit like this.
A company can hire you and give you a temporary contract, usually a year, but it can de shorter. After that they can do that again and again. But after 3 temporary contracts (at most 3 years) they have to give you a permanent contract.
The advantage of this permanent contract is that you can quit, but if you don't and the company wants to fire you they have to compensate it financially. This usually is part of the contract you signed, but it's 1-3 months of salary per year you worked for this company.
So of you get fired after 5 full years, you will get somewhere between 5 to 15 months of salary when you go.
So companies don't fire you without really having a good reason and even if you are fired, you have extra money while searching for a new job.
One of my friends has been at the same company for a long time and he told me it would cost them 150K to fire him.
My disgust with it is that it's simply a call to reduce labor not that there should be less people working on x or we should stop working on y. He views that this many people can't be productive simply because he wants the company spending less on staff so his profits or share price goes up. It's short sighted but since investors only care about the next quarter it doesn't really matter to him.
You're not missing anything, this is just the business cycle at work.