Topic: Google Executives Warn Employees About Layoffs: 'There Will Be Blood On Streets' (Read 267 times)

I have always mentioned in other forums - that side hustle is very important.
You are on job one day and you are jobless the next moment - the companies would not have any mercy on the employee if they are drowning themself.
They will save themselves first and they will help other late. So better have a small side business - the sooner the better.

Exactly, many shareholders only look at the short term profits their investment generates but forget completely about the long term and what this means for the company, we need to wonder who hires those people after they are fired? The competition, whether it is a rival company or even a rival government like China, it is known that for a long time China has been hiring those fired from the top companies in an effort to get their corporate secrets, so I think firing so many employees at once only aids your rivals, but if that is what they want to do they can do so but then they have no right to complain when in a decade or two China gets at the same level as Silicon Valley or even surpass it.

The company has the right to hire and fire but it should be done appropriately. Only unproductive workers should be sacked. Sometimes instead of devising alternative strategies to cut cost companies would just go ahead and sack their skilled workers. The company has just lost the resources used in training these laid-off staff. Their functions would now be allocated to other staff making them to overwork. The company must also note that sacking workers also affects the reputation of the firm. It gives the public a perception that the firm is not well managed. Sacking of workers should be the last option in the course of trying to cut the operational cost of a firm. 

Their layoffs are the companies' loss. If you lay off workers then how can you expect more growth in the company's productivity and hence profit with less hands on deck? Other smaller companies will poach their fired workers and reap a share of Google and Co's lost profits.

Same with what I am thinking especially those high tech and modern companies like google because they can easily create robots or a.i as some termed it. The cost to create it is going to be expensive but they think it is worth it than continuously paying more fees from their human workers.

In some jobs or companies, some workers aren't really doing their work properly so it's better if we will just remove them but company owners are sure that a.i's will work at all times 24/7. This could make the job faster. Some human workers are still going to stay because there are specific fields which can't possibly be handled by these robot's.

For those who remember JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon's comments on BTC years back.

Was the credibility level of his crypto commentary, greater than what we might expect from a janitor sweeping floors?

Sorry. Couldn't resist asking this. Although I know its 100% an irrelevant point to most.

Think of all the CEOs who commented on crypto. Was there any intelligent content published by any of them. Aside from a scant few like apple co founder Steve Wozniak?

Even those that are at the top and decide how the company moves are still employees of those which own shares of the company, and if they want to keep their jobs then they better fulfill their goals or even surpass them, otherwise they will be replaced with someone that is willing to do anything to reach those goals, this creates an environment in which your average employer can be fired at any moment, but at the same time they are always making plans to leave the company and have a way out in the case that happens.

The salary should be performance-based but if they're struggling to manage their company's finances, I don't think cutting out the CEO's salary would be the only solution. Employees play a vital role in the success of the company and if they feel unvalued, it will affect the whole company negatively. Employees know their rights when it comes to their benefits and I think it's something that the company should focus on to solve this issue.

This really isn't anything new in business, and tech is no exeption. Companies need to hit predicted marks promised to their shareholders (or else they are the ones to blame) and they will do it by any means. Remember kids, in capitalism, the one that exploits your work for his benefit without the consideration for your wellbeing, is not your friend.

CEO's getting a high salary is not something that I would suggest neither, and I think it should be performance based. Like give them minimum wage 1%+ of that year's profits, and I do not mean revenue, I mean profits.

That way they will work hard to have high profits, but at the same time laying of 10k people all at once would make them profitable for that year, but have a terrible long term disaster, which means it would be hard to find a good way for CEO to get paid without hurting the company. In the end, the whole world economy is in shambles, it's normal for these type of tech companies to lay off people as well considering they must be losing some money too.

Let's analyze the situation globally, and not tear one event out of many other events surrounding it.
1. On the recruitment / reduction of staff. No offense - but the staff is the same resource as, for example ... let them be - "warehouse forklifts." Yes, yes. Most of the personnel in companies are PERFORMERS. And they do what they are told or described in the job description. And in good times, when companies have good profits, they can afford to keep an "excess" resource so that there is no overload, so that they can select and get the best hands or brains for business in the future. The same is true in IT. For example, in my development group there were from 3 to 10 excellent developers. As well as 1-3 young specialists. Their role is nothing more than a personnel reserve, which we ourselves have grown! They are always at your fingertips, in case of either an expansion or a change of player from the "big leagues". They are well motivated - by the prospects of moving to the "big league", they already understand the processes in the company well, are familiar with technologies and solutions. It is cheaper and better than looking for the right specialist on the market, adapting him, and not being sure that in 2-3 months it will not turn out that he is not the one you need ... In difficult times, companies remove the "extra" less effective employees and redistribute the workload to more productive ones. It does not look very good, but otherwise the business cannot survive.
2. About what TOP managers do. I have about 30 years of general experience in IT, of which up to 20 years, in the position of CIO. He has also worked in medium and large companies. The key word here is "manager" - the one who can organize the processes in the company as efficiently as possible. Including - both selection and optimization of personnel. TOP manager - can read letters 90% of the time, but the remaining 10% of his experience, knowledge, provide solutions that provide the company with either additional profit or cost reduction.
Remember the main rule - you need to evaluate the work not because of how much you endured, how much you went through, how many times you repeated the action, how much you were tired or how much you sweated. The result must be judged by the RESULT! To what extent the result corresponds to the given indicator, how finances, resources (including human resources), time, etc. were optimally used.
At the same time, the TOP manager is responsible - for the decisions made, for the chosen tools for solving problems, for organizing processes within his responsibility, for the optimality of the decision made, and for much more. If this, qualitatively, can be done by others - welcome to the TOP composition! But the problem is that many, if not all, WANT, but very few of those who can really DO it.

The corporate companies in America have been doing this a long time. They can't post profits and can't perform well? Blame it on the employees who are doing what they're told and threaten to lay them off if the next quarter is still in a slump. Nothing new here, it's just that Google is a big company that's why they're put on a spot light most of the time.


Doubt they'll be doing this. Even though CEOs don't do much except for being the face of the company, they think that they still deserve the bonus and an absurd amount of salary compared to their hardworking employees who are doing the bulk of the job. This culture will never change no matter the weather, be it an extremely prosperous economic year or an entire year of bad luck. Those at the top will always want to get the "mile high perks" while the rest under them are carrying them to get their riches.

CEOs like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos engage in specialized roles which are difficult to duplicate.

In the majority of cases, most CEOs carry out general administrative tasks. The CEO position in a corporation is very similar to being the principal of a school. The job doesn't go to the most talented, hard working or smartest person in the room. There are an entirely different set of criteria for who will be appointed to the role. Which have nothing to do with the work CEOs do being outside the qualifications of the janitor sweeping the floor.

MBAs are a fast track to executive and CEO positions. They're known to not do the best job covering the basics. Recently there have been recommendations made to avoid MBAs as they trend towards producing CEOs who don't understand many of the key points of what happens in the company they're head of.

Some CEOs are paid upwards of $10,000 an hour. Which is the same as paying 1,000 employees $10 an hour or 500 employees $20 an hour. Unless someone will claim CEOs do as much work as 500 to 1,000 employees. I think we have to agree that they are overpaid.

What you say is such nonsense that I doubt what to answer you because we start from such a different vision that we are not going to reach an agreement.

So yes, you are right, the training, intelligence and ability that the person who cleans the WC of the company has is the same as that of the CEO.

Rule 1 if you can't be replaced you can't be promoted, so irreplaceable skill set is bad.
Rule 2 your job was never safe, and never will be safe, never forget that.

Can't speak for all fields, but in the tech world if you are at all competent you can get fired on the 15 floor and start making calls as you walk to the elevator and by the time you reach the lobby you can have another job with about the same pay and benefits. I'm finding more and more in this field the people who are not working just don't want to work. See my above post.

-Dave

I feel for those whose contracts will be terminated and laid off. This is an effect of the harsh economic times everyone is currently experiencing and no one should remain in the mirage that actually their job is safe unless you are the CEO  or occupy a very high position with a unique and irreplaceable skill set.


Many CEO's may argue against slashing their own salaries considering that they have sacrificed and invested much of their time and resources over the years in building the company, and though it may seem like the current job revolves around reading and responding to mails only, it is definitely more than that as they handle and manage the mental aspect of ensuring the company keeps going.

As an employee in a company always ensure that you create an alternative source of income for you and maybe your family in the case of an eventuality like you being laid off.

Without getting into the good / bad CEO thing or anything else. The issue comes down to the fact that tech companies operate a bit different then a lot of other places.

Quoting myself:

If things were a bit different Goggle and others would keep people on because in tech it's usually cheaper to pay someone to do nothing for months and months then it is to fire them, hire someone else later and train them.

Picking on Ford, when the orders for a particular model slow up a bit, and you no longer need 3 shifts but only 2 people get shown the door rather quickly. And if needed can be hired right back a few months later with 0 training. Same with a lot of other fields.

The odds of a programmer that you let got a few months ago being available are a lot less. So you keep them on if possible.

When you have downturns like this that may cover large segments of the industry it *may* be a bit different, but with unemployment at the moment being at an all time low it's a calculated risk.

i.e. using the example of my friend above. She was let go around June 1st, did nothing for 2 months. Seriously my girlfriend and I asked if there was a crazy glue accident and she was attached to her couch for life as in do nothing. Anyway, she started looking for a new job last week or the week before and has a start date at the new job Sept 6th. 100% remote work. So it's not like everyone is laying people off.

-Dave

Personal opinions don't matter when it comes to financial results.
Kojima left Konami in 2015 for good, let's see what happened four years later:


Yea, really bad CEO, really bad guy!
Fast forward 2021:
https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2022/05/konami-just-recorded-its-most-profitable-year-ever


Bad CEO, bad boy, too much profit, Kojima sad, resign bad CEO, you make hydrogen not happy! Such injustice!

His performance as CEO doesn't negate the fact that he started and built a company worth billions. Microsoft was at the time the gold standard.


It never makes sense to me to use the salary as a CEO and somehow make it a comparable metric to the average worker. Is it possible that the CEO of a large enterprise is not worth 10k USD/hr and that those funds could be better placed? Sure, I'd say so. But the market rate for CEO's are extraordinarily high for the reason that a single CEO can tank an entire multi-billion dollar enterprise with a few bad choices. A CEO does much more than read emails.

Hideo Kojima built a name and reputation as a rockstar developer for konami when it had sound leadership and a competent CEO.

At some point konami's good CEO was replaced by a bad CEO. Most if not all of the talented and smart developers and staff fled the company.

This is a common theme in the business world.

You asked how multi billion dollar companies are still up and running. Hideo Kojima and other talented employees fleeing konami is a prime example. Once a large corporation is established and gains market share, its much easier to maintain. Than it is to initially found a small business and build it up into a large business.

Most businesses have smart leadership when they're small. And somehow gain terrible leadership when they become large and successful.

This is only one of the exposition answers I posted in response to your questions. But rest assured the other questions I posted answer your questions, if you dig a little into their background.