Salesforce to Hire 3,300 People After Layoffs Earlier This Year(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Salesforce to Hire 3,300 People After Layoffs Earlier This Year
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-14/salesforce-to-hire-3-300-in-sales-engineering-data-after-earlier-job-cuts
24 comments
I would not trust a $31B company who fired me when times temporarily got slightly tough. They'll do it again at the drop of a hat.
Why would you trust any company at all, ever?
No job this week guarantees a job next week, unless you have a termination clause and a defined monetary penalty. Anything else is wishful thinking.
Where does the idea that either party to the transaction has some implicit future commitment to the other come from? It seems to me like an anachronism from a hundred years ago.
People regularly switch jobs annually to make sure their compensation is in line with the market. Should we expect companies not to do the same when market conditions change?
No job this week guarantees a job next week, unless you have a termination clause and a defined monetary penalty. Anything else is wishful thinking.
Where does the idea that either party to the transaction has some implicit future commitment to the other come from? It seems to me like an anachronism from a hundred years ago.
People regularly switch jobs annually to make sure their compensation is in line with the market. Should we expect companies not to do the same when market conditions change?
That is true, but some companies are more trigger happy and even more unstable than others. So just switching jobs, even if the pay is better, may not be a better deal overall or long term.
Trading of a worker’s labor to a company is not a fair deal between two equal parties. The power imbalance between a company and a worker is massive. Which is why many labor contracts have an end clause and mass layoffs are banned or heavily penalized in the same contracts (sometimes even directly by the state in some jurisdictions).
This is where the idea that either party to the transaction has some implicit future commitment to the other come[s] from. In many (most?) labor contracts this commitment by the company to keep their workers after they’ve been hired—unless a termination is justified by a good and demonstrable reason—is codified in a contract between the company and a labor union. It is not “an anachronism from a hundred years ago” it is very much a reality of today (at least for unionized workers).
The idea that companies and workers are equal parties and we should expect similar behavior between them is a flawed logic that assumes idealism only asserted by free market capitalism and has never been demonstrated in the real world. Unlike layoff protections, which have been in used continuously for over a century, and has very much proven its worth.
This is where the idea that either party to the transaction has some implicit future commitment to the other come[s] from. In many (most?) labor contracts this commitment by the company to keep their workers after they’ve been hired—unless a termination is justified by a good and demonstrable reason—is codified in a contract between the company and a labor union. It is not “an anachronism from a hundred years ago” it is very much a reality of today (at least for unionized workers).
The idea that companies and workers are equal parties and we should expect similar behavior between them is a flawed logic that assumes idealism only asserted by free market capitalism and has never been demonstrated in the real world. Unlike layoff protections, which have been in used continuously for over a century, and has very much proven its worth.
> Trading of a worker’s labor to a company is not a fair deal between two equal parties. The power imbalance between a company and a worker is massive.
I think this only holds true in certain limited cases. Certainly it was a lot more common a hundred years ago and especially in manufacturing jobs in locations with few employers; today many information workers have an extremely liquid market into which they can sell their time.
For the majority of the people here (ie working hackers), I don't think this is true at all. Big Tech is more dependent on its staff than the staff are dependent on Big Tech. This is one reason Google and Apple and others engaged in that illegal wage-fixing scheme: their staff were often availing themselves of their options to hop jobs for big raises.
Eric Schmidt and Steve Jobs (and others!) had to engage in an actual criminal conspiracy in order to tip the power balance back into the employer's favor.
I think this only holds true in certain limited cases. Certainly it was a lot more common a hundred years ago and especially in manufacturing jobs in locations with few employers; today many information workers have an extremely liquid market into which they can sell their time.
For the majority of the people here (ie working hackers), I don't think this is true at all. Big Tech is more dependent on its staff than the staff are dependent on Big Tech. This is one reason Google and Apple and others engaged in that illegal wage-fixing scheme: their staff were often availing themselves of their options to hop jobs for big raises.
Eric Schmidt and Steve Jobs (and others!) had to engage in an actual criminal conspiracy in order to tip the power balance back into the employer's favor.
Yeah, but the checks start clearing again, right now.
Is this out of a Silicon Valley episode? “It’s okay—comeback” after getting laid off? Alumni event?
Everything is upside down.
Everything is upside down.
There’s still some one chilling on the roof being paid not to work.
"Many of the hires will be “boomerangs,” or people who worked at Salesforce before going to a different company, Benioff said. Attracting boomerangs is a new success metric for the company, he added."
A great way to increase your boomerangs is to lay off more people and send out more job offers a few months later.
Why haven't Benioff and crew been fired? Layoffs nearly always demonstrate errors in the judgment of the executives who did the hiring in the first place. And now the massive new hiring shows yet another error in the layoffs. It's just one screwup after the next.
Terribly run company.
The way it sounds is Salesforce sold 5,000 tons of grains a few months ago, and now its buying 3,300 tons back.
Sell 5500 to depress the market and then buy back at depressed price.
Right, the question will be how much are they paying these people compared to what they made previously.
I don't think anyone will come back for less than they had before. In fact, they might ask for at least 30% more.
Really, I know some sales folks who have it unemployed for six months, I think they would take a sales force job for less than they made before over being unemployed. Really, I know some sales folks who have it unemployed for six months, I think they would take a sales force job for less than they made before over being unemployed. So maybe all the laid off from salesforce found new jobs right away? They have a lot of prestige.
Oh, reality check … the average offer is down 15-20% this year. Beggars/Choosers
Sell high, buy low.
On the other hand, they avoided holding cost.
Who would do this?
at 15-20% reduced pay