Topic: Google Executives Warn Employees About Layoffs: 'There Will Be Blood On Streets' (Read 314 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.

Unlike you I asked you questions about things you mentioned, what you come up with are useles questions that have zero correlation with what the discussion was about, but since I do care when discussing with somebody about my interlocutor I will no just throw back at you some random questions and I will answer them.

Jack Ma was forced to step down at the political level, a thing that contradicts your theories.
Hideo Kojima was no CEO and you can read why he left Konami on like every newspaper out there.
Elon Musk can do whatever he wants, and again it's nobody's business what he thinks and what he tweets.


Because that's all some are capable of, they can't come up with a method of getting money without working so the simple way out of this is to take money out of the pockets of someone who makes money and then claim that guy doesn't deserve that much


Oh yeah, cause it has worked miracles in the past, ruining country after country after country, and with the onslaught of morons thinking it's a great idea it will continue to do so for ages. Unlike you and a lot of guys here I've experienced forced equality for decades, so there is only one achievement when you reach this stage, everyone gets poverty!

I will answer your questions, with. More questions.   

• Why did Jack Ma step down as CEO of alibaba?
• Why did video game developer Hideo Kojima leave konami after many years of working there?
• Why did Elon Musk ridicule CEOs of other companies for hiring many of the employees Elon Musk fired from tesla? Which later foreshadowed the EV ventures of said companies failing?
• Why are wealth and wage equality hot topics in the current era?

Wanting to improve circumstances and equality isn't reserved for socialists or any single demographic. It should be the goal of all.

What's the point of wanting certain topics to be off limits to those who need to discuss and learn about them the most.

Sooner or later some employees at startups or factories will be laid off and will be replaced with robots or AI, and this has been predicted by many experts. But despite all that, I think these companies are laying off their employees because they don't want to pay too much for employees and want to increase work efficiency by forcing the remaining employees. So that way there will be more money going into their pockets and that is real American corporate capitalism.

Let me ask you some serious questions:
- if others are making the decisions why are they allowing some muppet to earn twice as much as them while they do all the work and they also have the decisional power?
- if multi-billion companies are that stupid to ruin everything because of a stupid CEO who knows shit, how are those multi-billions companies still up and running, and more importantly how have they got so big in the first place and why others have failed
- if there is no skill needed to be picked as a CEO, do they pick those from the street, or as we can obviously see they have been in the company for years which makes you wonder if they are not actually the most familiar with how everything works?
- in a free market, in a private business, why do you care how much a guy makes when that's not your money or your business? Or should I rephrase that: not your shares, not your coins?

This socialist way of thinking when the mass decides who gets paid how much should really stop, why do you give a damn, if they hire stupid people good for you, you can start your own business and you will crush them since they are stupidly overpaid and overweight pikachus, but as always behind all the hate the reality is different.


I got used to this, 99% claim that windows sucks, windows is crap, when they go and switch to Linux, 99% are screaming why is this so complicated, why are there no programs, and 99% of them switch back to the crappy windows.
Gates is evil and stupid, no point debating! Just as amusing how an illiterate bounty hunter posting tweets and giving likes all day knows that Buffett is a stupid old man who knows shit about the economy.

Layoffs in the tech sector are not something that is specific only to the US, but are happening all over the world, and a few months ago there were rumors that at least 20 000 people would lose their jobs in that sector. Now the figures only from the US show that the situation is even worse than it seemed, but no one should be surprised that companies save in this way, because people are always expendable for them.


I will not even comment on the position of any CEO, because there are those who do it very well and deserve to be paid excellently for it, but there are also those who do it very badly and cause damage to the companies they represent. At the end of the day, they are the ones at the top of the pyramid and in difficult times feel the least impact on their position.

What specialized knowledge or skillset do you think CEOs have that make them irreplaceable?

Very few CEOs know important and critical information offhand. They usually have to delegate and ask other execs questions, if they need an answer. You see this happen in earnings reports all the time. If the CEO needs an answer they ask the CTO or another exec. They're usually not hands on enough to keep track and know the details of what is happening in the company.

There's nothing in the job description of being a CEO that the average person couldn't do. No special intelligence, knowledge or skills needed. Many corporations and institutions admit their CEOs are mere figureheads and spokespersons who do not engage in important decision making regarding the brand they represent.

There are engineers and many in the IT field I could cite, who outright lambasted CEOs for typically not being good at their jobs.

In Bill Gates case its been rumored he helped write FAT16. The 16 bit, linked list, windows file system. Bill Gates tried to trade all of his shares in microsoft for lotus stock, before windows became successful. For which many accused him of being the worst businessman of his era.

If you think Bill Gates has special accolades or accomplishments which put him head and shoulders above the average businessman or entrepreneur, I would be curious to know what they are.

That is not surprising and the tech companies aren't the only ones that are facing this hardship. This is the result of the debt-based US economy. They draw the cycles like this (sorry for the poor paint job). The economy grows but the debt grows too, then there is small high inflation periods when economy shrinks (the green dumps) but eventually all of it is accumulated and causes a massive dump that they can't do anything about regardless of how they change interest rates, etc. That is when the recession occurs (the red part) and the economy crashes.
Due to the way the debt-based economy works they must have recessions like this, in other words it is guaranteed. The last one was in 2008 and we are getting closer to the next one. In fact some people say US is already in a recession.

I see no correlation - Windows XP was released in 2001, Gates was CEO until 2000. It is true that one may have different positions in company, but CEO is CEO. And Skype was bought by Microsoft in 2011, so what is the point?

American corporate culture is the true essence of capitalism.
Treating workers like machines, putting profit on a pedestal and acting as if the CEOs are some kind of royalties.
Revenue is going down, so the only way to keep the profits high and the shareholders happy is to fire as many useless workers as possible and increase the effectiveness of the remaining employees (by turning them into burned out workaholics, I guess).
Maybe the Silicon valley companies are "smelling" the recession in the air.
Bill Gates is probably one of the worst CEOs in the history of the high tech industry(not the worst). Microsoft ruined Skype and failed to make an operating system that is better than Windows XP.

Well, first of all, what you say is not strange, when there is a crisis layoffs come and one way to avoid them is to be more productive. So nothing new.


I think that in some cases it could be positive for companies to reduce CEO salaries and make workers participate in profits, either with a percentage of net profit, stocks or similar options, but being private companies, it is something they have to clarify with their shareholders.


This example you give could not be more biased. For starters, Bill Gates was not just a CEO, he is the one who founded the company. But I can assure you that an important part of the work of CEOs of non-tech companies today consists of answering emails, in addition to phone calls and videoconference meetings.

But the emails they respond to are not the kind that can be answered by the last employee to join the company, which you seem to put on a par. Or I don't know if you are one of those who believe that for someone to get paid a lot for their work they have to sweat and can't get paid a lot for being in front of an air-conditioned computer in the office.

Anyway, nothing new, as soon as the economy recovers, these companies will hire again, offering quite high salaries, but they will not make a drama in the media about it.

....


It appears many silicon valley icons are resorting to layoffs in an effort to boost flagging profits:


Another route they could take is to cut CEO salaries. I don't know if CEO's earning $10,000 an hour is a good payrate in terms of their productivity and overall value to the company. Bill Gates said most of his time as CEO of microsoft was spent reading and responding to emails. I would guess the daily structure of tech CEOs in the modern era hasn't changed. CEO's likely spend most of their time reading and answering emails. Unless they're the CEO of tesla or space x who spends a lot of time doing actual field work and testing.

It will be interesting to see how much of a hit to US GDP these layoffs and potential economic recession contribute. Silicon Valley is arguably the backbone of the american economy. Its a huge part of why california would have the 5th largest economy in the world if it were ranked as a country. Layoffs and slowdowns there could affect american wealth and standard of living significantly.