About 700 Microsoft employees will be laid off next week, sources say(businessinsider.com)
businessinsider.com
About 700 Microsoft employees will be laid off next week, sources say
http://www.businessinsider.com/about-700-microsoft-employees-to-be-laid-off-sources-say-2017-1
125 comments
> "We understand that Microsoft typically gives laid-off employees 60 days to find a new position internally and offers two weeks pay for every 6 months of employment, according one employee."
It sounds like this is close to what is happening, except it's less about underperformer and more about specific skillsets.
It sounds like this is close to what is happening, except it's less about underperformer and more about specific skillsets.
They file thousands of worker visas because there's a "shortage" of qualified people, yet they also set a layoff target of 2,850 people back in June 2016...
It's like no one really cares if anything adds up anymore. Perhaps it was always this way?
It's like no one really cares if anything adds up anymore. Perhaps it was always this way?
Qualified people are not interchangeable. I'm qualified for some jobs, and worse than useless for others. (You wouldn't pick me to formulate a new rocket fuel.)
Software Engineers at Microsoft may as well be interchangeable.
I was working there when they laid off 18,000 people. Everyone I knew personally who lost their job was rehired by the company within three months. One of them was even rehired to their original team, go figure.
I saw good performers laid off while poor performers kept their jobs. I also saw poor performers rehired. The rumor at the time was that the list of people being laid off was chosen at random. That certainly makes sense, as it would allow the company to say, "We randomly laid off X% of people doing Y work in Z division." in the event of any discrimination or wrongful termination lawsuits.
Companies of this size treat people as cogs in a machine. Provided all your cogs meet a certain minimum standard your machine functions well. If you need to cut down on the number of moving parts, you don't get too concerned over which individual cogs you get rid of. It's horrible and impersonal, but I guess it's somewhat necessary for a company like Microsoft.
I was working there when they laid off 18,000 people. Everyone I knew personally who lost their job was rehired by the company within three months. One of them was even rehired to their original team, go figure.
I saw good performers laid off while poor performers kept their jobs. I also saw poor performers rehired. The rumor at the time was that the list of people being laid off was chosen at random. That certainly makes sense, as it would allow the company to say, "We randomly laid off X% of people doing Y work in Z division." in the event of any discrimination or wrongful termination lawsuits.
Companies of this size treat people as cogs in a machine. Provided all your cogs meet a certain minimum standard your machine functions well. If you need to cut down on the number of moving parts, you don't get too concerned over which individual cogs you get rid of. It's horrible and impersonal, but I guess it's somewhat necessary for a company like Microsoft.
aren't layoffs/rehires also generally used to minimize workers benefits ?
Software jobs don't just need quality people, there are actual costs associated with ramping up new employees and knowledge transfer of old ones. There's certain things employees keep in their heads that you can't quantify as lost mindshare when they are gone.
Software has so much domain knowledge that there are all sorts of funny memes about what happens whenever the person that originally wrote the code leaves the company.
Software has so much domain knowledge that there are all sorts of funny memes about what happens whenever the person that originally wrote the code leaves the company.
You're forgetting but Microsoft isn't just a software shop. They also do quite a lot of hardware, games / VR, design among other things.
I don't know who they're laying off but if they worked in, say, ARM Surface Hardware or maybe phone hardware engineering, they're going to have a smaller amount of places to go. Yes they could go learn software development but if they haven't done it that ramp up time is going to be years.
I don't know who they're laying off but if they worked in, say, ARM Surface Hardware or maybe phone hardware engineering, they're going to have a smaller amount of places to go. Yes they could go learn software development but if they haven't done it that ramp up time is going to be years.
The same argument applies to hardware engineering (after all, so much of hardware engineering nowadays is coding, Verilog or otherwise).
Also, it's worth noting that I'm very familiar with Microsoft.
Also, it's worth noting that I'm very familiar with Microsoft.
For some tasks this is true; for other tasks false.
With programming, I've seen some great work done when good people are tasked with alien problems.
I think the novelty gets people excited again while making them (temporarily) more careful.
With programming, I've seen some great work done when good people are tasked with alien problems.
I think the novelty gets people excited again while making them (temporarily) more careful.
> It's like no one really cares if anything adds up anymore.
Agreed. A company with 94000 people in US lays off 700 people, and its because of them worker visas.
Agreed. A company with 94000 people in US lays off 700 people, and its because of them worker visas.
If this were just a trickle of 700 who were eased-out for performance reasons, I would accept your sarcasm. However, this was not easing-out. This was pre-planned.
If you google "microsoft mass layoff", it's like they have these pre-ordained layoffs of thousands every year, while their visa certifications are in the low thousands every year. In this case, the 700 is just a single wave of a layoff planned the middle of last year.
I am not knocking worker visas here. I am knocking Microsoft's honesty.
If you google "microsoft mass layoff", it's like they have these pre-ordained layoffs of thousands every year, while their visa certifications are in the low thousands every year. In this case, the 700 is just a single wave of a layoff planned the middle of last year.
I am not knocking worker visas here. I am knocking Microsoft's honesty.
Sad to see Microsoft seeming to fall into this pattern of a recurring trickle of layoffs, especially when they are still so profitable. These kinds of layoffs can be incredibly corrosive to morale.
The 'update skills in various units' argument rings a little hollow at a company where a new hire on an eng team in an org with lots of legacy systems, like Windows or Office, will be expected to need 6+ months to be fully integrated in the team. If that were true, why not just retrain the people you already have?
The 'update skills in various units' argument rings a little hollow at a company where a new hire on an eng team in an org with lots of legacy systems, like Windows or Office, will be expected to need 6+ months to be fully integrated in the team. If that were true, why not just retrain the people you already have?
> The 'update skills in various units' argument rings a little hollow at a company where a new hire on an eng team in an org with lots of legacy systems, like Windows or Office, will be expected to need 6+ months to be fully integrated in the team. If that were true, why not just retrain the people you already have?
I didn't see where it said who they were laying off. What if they were laying off hardware engineers? If they haven't done software before that ramp up time to integrate into a software development team may be years.
They do a lot more than just software. I agree if they're laying off of software then there is no reason they can't be retrained in another dev team but that's not always the case here.
You're also missing the part where Microsoft gives them 60 days to find a new position within the company. I'm assuming they have to re-interview but probably no way to avoid that.
I didn't see where it said who they were laying off. What if they were laying off hardware engineers? If they haven't done software before that ramp up time to integrate into a software development team may be years.
They do a lot more than just software. I agree if they're laying off of software then there is no reason they can't be retrained in another dev team but that's not always the case here.
You're also missing the part where Microsoft gives them 60 days to find a new position within the company. I'm assuming they have to re-interview but probably no way to avoid that.
>I didn't see where it said who they were laying off
"The upcoming cuts won't be specific to any single group, but will be spread across the company's worldwide offices and business units, including sales, marketing, human resources, engineering, finance and more."
Sounds like perhaps they dont expect to make their quarterly numbers, and are doing blanket layoffs to appease investors.
"The upcoming cuts won't be specific to any single group, but will be spread across the company's worldwide offices and business units, including sales, marketing, human resources, engineering, finance and more."
Sounds like perhaps they dont expect to make their quarterly numbers, and are doing blanket layoffs to appease investors.
> "The upcoming cuts won't be specific to any single group, but will be spread across the company's worldwide offices and business units, including sales, marketing, human resources, engineering, finance and more."
I was referring to the type of people, mostly. Like, software engineers, hardware engineers, designers, HR folks, etc.
> Sounds like perhaps they dont expect to make their quarterly numbers, and are doing blanket layoffs to appease investors.
They announced these over 6 months ago so I'm not necessarily convinced that's why. Though I would love to know for sure.
I was referring to the type of people, mostly. Like, software engineers, hardware engineers, designers, HR folks, etc.
> Sounds like perhaps they dont expect to make their quarterly numbers, and are doing blanket layoffs to appease investors.
They announced these over 6 months ago so I'm not necessarily convinced that's why. Though I would love to know for sure.
I'm genuinely curious if POTUS will take note of this.
My prediction, based on the fact that POTUS has a mind of a 7 year old kid, is a tantrum will be thrown. The adults in the room will pacify it with some superficial meaningless action/distraction and the cycle will repeat for 4 years.
As Daniel Kahnemen has said there is high demand for overconfidence these days.
And the tech industry has blindly satisfied that demand by creating platforms that prop up characters like POTUS. Not just in the sphere of politics but you can see this within your family, friends, teachers, scientists, religious and biz leaders basically everywhere you look.
If we want solutions that trend has to be reversed.
As Daniel Kahnemen has said there is high demand for overconfidence these days.
And the tech industry has blindly satisfied that demand by creating platforms that prop up characters like POTUS. Not just in the sphere of politics but you can see this within your family, friends, teachers, scientists, religious and biz leaders basically everywhere you look.
If we want solutions that trend has to be reversed.
> My prediction, based on the fact that POTUS has a mind of a 7 year old kid, is a tantrum will be thrown. The adults in the room will pacify it with some superficial meaningless action/distraction and the cycle will repeat for 4 years.
You assume adults are let into the room and will be making the decision. He is the POTUS as long as he cares and isn't lazy enough to pawn it off he'll be the one making decisions.
You assume adults are let into the room and will be making the decision. He is the POTUS as long as he cares and isn't lazy enough to pawn it off he'll be the one making decisions.
Fantastic point. I think he'll tweet about it eventually and try to make a cause for H1B Reform (even though MS is hardly an example of visa fraud).
When it seems like companies don't complain enough how scarce it is to find hirable talent, I wonder what the details are on their engineering layoffs. Why not just move them to a different team? Why not just keep work on tech debt efforts? Laying them off seems like a terrible long term decision. I'm assuming these lay offs are not some guise to hide that they're getting rid of their low performing engineers.
The article says they can apply for other positions within Microsoft.
> some guise
I would expect many companies to do this so the employee can save face by being laid off rather than fired.
> some guise
I would expect many companies to do this so the employee can save face by being laid off rather than fired.
> The article says they can apply for other positions within Microsoft
I don't know how I would handle that mentally, to have to re-apply to the company that just laid me off. The message is weird. "We're letting you go, but if you REALLY want to stay, find a team that wants you. Here, we'll put a 2 month timer on it."
Sorry if that sounds like rambling, but I simply don't understand.
I don't know how I would handle that mentally, to have to re-apply to the company that just laid me off. The message is weird. "We're letting you go, but if you REALLY want to stay, find a team that wants you. Here, we'll put a 2 month timer on it."
Sorry if that sounds like rambling, but I simply don't understand.
We're letting you go, but if you REALLY want to stay, find a team that wants you
I don't know about Microsoft. But I've known quite a number of people at Intel who have gone thru this sort of procedure.
Every two or three years there would be a re-org and thousands would get thrown into a layoff pool, from which they had perhaps 60 days to get hired into another group. But there really wasn't a stigma, many people successfully navigated that process four or five times over the years.
The real downside was that being in the pool was your severance. When your 60 days ran out you were SOL.
I don't know about Microsoft. But I've known quite a number of people at Intel who have gone thru this sort of procedure.
Every two or three years there would be a re-org and thousands would get thrown into a layoff pool, from which they had perhaps 60 days to get hired into another group. But there really wasn't a stigma, many people successfully navigated that process four or five times over the years.
The real downside was that being in the pool was your severance. When your 60 days ran out you were SOL.
Its more like:
"Your team is going to be no more or is being downsized because its not as important anymore, we really want to keep you though, so we are going to give you 2 months to find another place inside the company where you would like to work at."
"Your team is going to be no more or is being downsized because its not as important anymore, we really want to keep you though, so we are going to give you 2 months to find another place inside the company where you would like to work at."
I was at Microsoft during the "great" mid-2014 layoffs when they eliminated 4/5ths of all SDETs in OSG (the Windows org). My division was one of the least affected, but not everyone was given the "musical chairs" treatment to find another job internally - seemingly that privilege was reserved only for those at the top of the "rank-and-yank" pecking order - presumably to avoid those perceived as being less-capable from taking an in-company job away from someone else being laid-off who was more desirable to retain.
(I had a friend in MSFT HR at the time who confirmed that the 2014 layoffs were conducted by-algorithm and were absolutely not based on job-performance - hence why management had to resort to creative ways to retain people they wanted).
Even for those who were granted the "privilege" of applying internally, it was incredibly stressful for them because now there was rampant competition for a limited number of places. The QA/SDET roles were hit the hardest because most of the open positions were exclusively SDE - and SDE hiring managers are reluctant to engage SDETs.
(I had a friend in MSFT HR at the time who confirmed that the 2014 layoffs were conducted by-algorithm and were absolutely not based on job-performance - hence why management had to resort to creative ways to retain people they wanted).
Even for those who were granted the "privilege" of applying internally, it was incredibly stressful for them because now there was rampant competition for a limited number of places. The QA/SDET roles were hit the hardest because most of the open positions were exclusively SDE - and SDE hiring managers are reluctant to engage SDETs.
Maybe, but they're weighing another place inside the company against another place in some other company PLUS severance.
It is good to see some messages from those who do have inside knowledge about working within (and being kicked out of) this particular bureaucracy.
The similarities and differences between different bureaucracies in different "tech" companies, some quite similar and others quite different by design, is interesting too.
Regardless, it fundamentally looks like the decent companies that have a system to truly hire employees worth investing in, and are qualified enough investors to never let that investment in their people lapse (since it always pays off, short-term or long-term), would be the last ones to lay people off at all. Certainly not layoffs as part of a non-emergency long-term planned business strategy, in such a non-astute effort known as "across-the-board", or even more childishly by algorithm.
As a businessman while trying to maintain or accelerate growth, if you can also limit the downside to the rate of attrition, you will never need to lay anybody off.
Depends on how good a businessman you are.
There have always been companies that are not decent, some even have an actual system to exclude potential employees who would otherwise provide the most return on resource investment, and there are some that never even leverage a respectable percentage of their capable people anywhere near their full potential.
Even for these lesser companies, bold downsizing leaves unmeasurable damage to the company and remaining employees, just as strongly as it can to those who are kicked out. Although many who are laid off move on to much better careers after being separated from companies which didn't seem so poor up until that point.
When the unmeasured damage exceeds the cost of retaining actual good people, the direct negative effect on the bottom line can still be completely obfuscated. This can easily be ignored by the ignorant or malicious, or swept under the rug by a large variety of bureaucracies, most of which are not capable of building or maintaing alignment of employee interests with those of shareholders. In this case it can be a significant notch-down in opportunities for both employees and shareholders from that point forward, with no indication whatsoever on any current financial statement. Too bad it's the future financial statements that will be less impressive or more disappointing, depending on the situation.
Just like in the 20th Century, 19th Century . . .
The similarities and differences between different bureaucracies in different "tech" companies, some quite similar and others quite different by design, is interesting too.
Regardless, it fundamentally looks like the decent companies that have a system to truly hire employees worth investing in, and are qualified enough investors to never let that investment in their people lapse (since it always pays off, short-term or long-term), would be the last ones to lay people off at all. Certainly not layoffs as part of a non-emergency long-term planned business strategy, in such a non-astute effort known as "across-the-board", or even more childishly by algorithm.
As a businessman while trying to maintain or accelerate growth, if you can also limit the downside to the rate of attrition, you will never need to lay anybody off.
Depends on how good a businessman you are.
There have always been companies that are not decent, some even have an actual system to exclude potential employees who would otherwise provide the most return on resource investment, and there are some that never even leverage a respectable percentage of their capable people anywhere near their full potential.
Even for these lesser companies, bold downsizing leaves unmeasurable damage to the company and remaining employees, just as strongly as it can to those who are kicked out. Although many who are laid off move on to much better careers after being separated from companies which didn't seem so poor up until that point.
When the unmeasured damage exceeds the cost of retaining actual good people, the direct negative effect on the bottom line can still be completely obfuscated. This can easily be ignored by the ignorant or malicious, or swept under the rug by a large variety of bureaucracies, most of which are not capable of building or maintaing alignment of employee interests with those of shareholders. In this case it can be a significant notch-down in opportunities for both employees and shareholders from that point forward, with no indication whatsoever on any current financial statement. Too bad it's the future financial statements that will be less impressive or more disappointing, depending on the situation.
Just like in the 20th Century, 19th Century . . .
How exactly is this not just people being fired? I understand they get severance so that's nice for employees, but what's the goal of doing it this way from the companies perspective?
A firing usually means the employee did something wrong, such as harassing a co-worker, stealing money, or violating critical policies. A layoff means simply that your services are no longer needed, and that's it.
In addition being fired looks really bad. Being laid off not so much (if at all).
There can be legal differences as well as some of the reasons mentioned by others already.
Many states make it illegal to fire some or all types of employees without cause.
Get it all done at once.
While sad, most employment is "at will". The employer can let go for no reason what so ever with a two week notice, by law
A concept that is utterly foreign and bizarre to most other people in Western countries, including myself in New Zealand.
If you operated a business, how would you feel being forced by the government to keep someone on your payroll who was not a good worker?
That's not 'no reason'. Even for places that have pro-employee workplace laws there's often provisions for getting rid of employees who can't do what you pay them to do.
> employees who can't do what you pay them to do
What if they can do what you pay them to do, but you can no longer afford them?
That's exactly what a layoff is...the result of the fact that employing this group of people is economically unsensible.
What if they can do what you pay them to do, but you can no longer afford them?
That's exactly what a layoff is...the result of the fact that employing this group of people is economically unsensible.
Again, many of these laws have provisions for redundancies for this exact situation.
I think the issue here is "at-will" policies in terms of firing people for no reason. Layoffs are an explicit reason.
There are different cases on "not able to afford".
In Germany cases where companies truly cannot afford the person the following rules apply:
1. there is absolutely no way for the person to conduct different work inside the company 2. the company needs to choose those that can more easily afford to be laid off. (employment duration, young, single etc) 3. the place of work has to permanently be gone
Beforehand, the company has to talk to the workers council though so they can possibly find solutions to the problem without having to fire people.
In Germany cases where companies truly cannot afford the person the following rules apply:
1. there is absolutely no way for the person to conduct different work inside the company 2. the company needs to choose those that can more easily afford to be laid off. (employment duration, young, single etc) 3. the place of work has to permanently be gone
Beforehand, the company has to talk to the workers council though so they can possibly find solutions to the problem without having to fire people.
The flip side of such rules is it makes companies reluctant to hire in the first place.
Companies would be a lot more willing to take a chance on hiring someone if they know that they can let them go easily if things don't work out.
Companies would be a lot more willing to take a chance on hiring someone if they know that they can let them go easily if things don't work out.
Yes. Unemployment is going to be 1-2% higher on average in Germany than in the USA. But it also doesnt fluctuate as much, which is a positive.
It's not like that here (Australian), where you can lay someone off but it's not as simple as at will.
Simplifying a bit, you have to have attempted to help the employee meet standards, or find a suitable position. Also, if the employee develops problrns like alcohol abuse you have to attempt to get them to sort it out.
That's my general understanding as an employee.
Simplifying a bit, you have to have attempted to help the employee meet standards, or find a suitable position. Also, if the employee develops problrns like alcohol abuse you have to attempt to get them to sort it out.
That's my general understanding as an employee.
> the employee develops problrns like alcohol abuse you have to attempt to get them to sort it out.
that seems to be beyond what an employer should have to bear. If an employee develops problems, it doesn't make sense for an employer to help them (unless it's from their job - e.g., a wine taster getting addicted to alcohol). They aint running a charity!
that seems to be beyond what an employer should have to bear. If an employee develops problems, it doesn't make sense for an employer to help them (unless it's from their job - e.g., a wine taster getting addicted to alcohol). They aint running a charity!
I worked in Melbourne for a year. My first day, the manager that hired me was made redundant. He had been at the company for years.
Ah yes, good point, of course there are exceptions and different circumstances for various industries and levels of employment or what have you.
My comment was intended in the context of a regular employee in the scope of "unfair dismissal"[1] which you may have a claim to if you believe your dismissal was "harsh, unjust or unreasonable manner." Slightly different rules for small businesses under 15 employees etc.
1. https://www.fairwork.gov.au/ending-employment/unfair-dismiss...
My comment was intended in the context of a regular employee in the scope of "unfair dismissal"[1] which you may have a claim to if you believe your dismissal was "harsh, unjust or unreasonable manner." Slightly different rules for small businesses under 15 employees etc.
1. https://www.fairwork.gov.au/ending-employment/unfair-dismiss...
German here. Despite our strict employee rights laws, getting rid of bad performers is still easy.
I found it weird that a lot of people in Germany are expected to work the first 2~3 days for free, as like a trial. Is that common? I knew people who had to do that for Subway.
Most likely illegal. Its only legal if the workplace is not making you do actual work and is only keeping you there to observe. (and you can come and go as you like)
I'd feel disappointed in my hiring/interviewing practices.
What if your business wasn't doing well, or you wanted to change direction?
Then I should run my business better? And with adequate consideration of the costs of running said business.
Disclaimer: I have owned a small business (~$8MM/year revenue) with employees.
Disclaimer: I have owned a small business (~$8MM/year revenue) with employees.
By that token, if being laid off is a terrible hardship for an employee, wouldn't one say that they should have made better financial decisions (eg, saving more)?
I'm not a Libertarian, and believe in strong labor protections as well as robust social safety nets.
You're free to make your argument though. Most of the rest of the first world doesn't agree with your sentiment.
You're free to make your argument though. Most of the rest of the first world doesn't agree with your sentiment.
So why do you think that anyone is entitled to have the rest of the world take care of them? Is nobody responsible for the outcome of their own actions in your worldview? Why is there no onus on individuals to save and take responsibility for their own financial well-being?
I don't see why you think being a libertarian or not has anything to do with anything, by the way.
I don't see why you think being a libertarian or not has anything to do with anything, by the way.
No one is "forcing" you to keep an employee on pay roll. Just be reasonable and give them 4-6 weeks notice of termination of employment, with a valid reason of dismissal.
Have you noticed how nearly all great companies are now being started in America. Wonder why?
You think it's because of "at will" employment?
I think it's because of our capitalist economy, a significant portion of which is the ability to hire and fire employees based on performance.
At will employment is a symptom, not a cause.
The reason why is be because starting a company in America is generally a good idea
The reason why is be because starting a company in America is generally a good idea
No, it's because the companies aren't encumbered with a million layers of bureaucracy and regulation ensuring every single employee has every single possible safety net in the world preventing every single type of failure known.
Sure that must be the only reason, no-one would think of ever creating a company in socialist Europe. Having access to a huge, uniform market must not factor into this at all. Or any 100 other good reasons you're ignoring from a complex spectrum; no it must be the one and only one that fits your narrative.
Yes, that's part of it. It's a bit of a double-edged sword, but when it's easy to fire people, it also makes it a lot easier to hire them, because there is less of a risk when you make a mistake or need to change direction of your business.
While it's an upheaval to be sure, the vast majority of these laid-off employees have in-demand skills in a growing industry. Who I really feel for is people who get laid off in shrinking industries, where it's basically a game of musical chairs and there are fewer seats each round.
While it's an upheaval to be sure, the vast majority of these laid-off employees have in-demand skills in a growing industry. Who I really feel for is people who get laid off in shrinking industries, where it's basically a game of musical chairs and there are fewer seats each round.
Many great companies are started overseas. Many great companies are also started in America. To suggest there is a correlation between startup success rate and at will employment would require, by golly, empirical data.
Do you have any on hand?
Do you have any on hand?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_r...
Leaving off energy companies, 9 out of the top 16 companies are American.
4.5% of the world's population, ~55% of the world's great companies.
I'm sure at will employment alone wouldn't crush the American economy. But it'd be a hit to it.
Leaving off energy companies, 9 out of the top 16 companies are American.
4.5% of the world's population, ~55% of the world's great companies.
I'm sure at will employment alone wouldn't crush the American economy. But it'd be a hit to it.
You think its gonna stay that way after having voted a protectionist in office?
I think that Trump is going to be outstanding for American businesses. But we will see.
A concept that is utterly foreign and bizarre to most other people in Western countries, including myself in New Zealand.
Great, now you know one reason that Americans prefer America to other countries. A lot of us are quite happy with the "at will" rules that are common in the US. Note, however, that these rules are largely at the state, not federal, level, and not all state are "at will".
Great, now you know one reason that Americans prefer America to other countries. A lot of us are quite happy with the "at will" rules that are common in the US. Note, however, that these rules are largely at the state, not federal, level, and not all state are "at will".
I worked in NZ for three years. The company I worked for rarely had redundancies. But we did have two classes of people who left. People who got a big card and gave a speech at weekly drinks, and people who just left during the day and said "goodbye" to everyone on their teams.
Once one of the former said goodbye after all the announcements after work drinks. It was really awkward.
We had a guy on my team just tell us "today is my last day," out of nowhere. He was in the director's office earlier.
We suspected these people were given some money and told to quit, rather than keep them on. It was usually people who turned out to not really be great engineers and I think they just wanted to get rid of them without having to fire them.
I also worked in Australia for a year. My first day on the job, my hiring manager, who had been with the company for six years, was made redundant.
Once one of the former said goodbye after all the announcements after work drinks. It was really awkward.
We had a guy on my team just tell us "today is my last day," out of nowhere. He was in the director's office earlier.
We suspected these people were given some money and told to quit, rather than keep them on. It was usually people who turned out to not really be great engineers and I think they just wanted to get rid of them without having to fire them.
I also worked in Australia for a year. My first day on the job, my hiring manager, who had been with the company for six years, was made redundant.
Personally I prefer the Danish idea of "Flexicurity", where it's easy to hire and easy to fire, but there are strong welfare protections guaranteed by the state if you do end up unemployed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexicurity
Off-topic: Is New Zealand really a western country? Seems like Japan, Philippines, etc. would be western too.
The Philippines is pretty westernized (primarily because of Spanish and American occupation). I don't think Japan would be considered as westernized.
How is that sad? I love the fact that I can quit my job and go take another job at any time. If the flip-side of that coin is that I can be fired at any time, then so be it.
Most people appreciate it once they've settled down and have family.
What, you think having a family means you want to be stuck in the same boring job for the rest of your life? Or that you won't still want to seek higher pay down the road? What if you have another kid? Job flexibility could come in handy...
Most people take many months to find a job, and it is an incredibly stressful and demoralizing experience.
So? We should end at-will employment so a few people don't have to experience the occasional "stressful and demoralizing experience"? I'm not buying it. Nobody said life was all sunshine and rainbows...
Family, in this case, generally means they appreciate the stability, and are willing to trade the slower mobility for the increased security.
Works well when it's easy to find a job, doesn't work well when you get fired for no reason and you were working in a profession where you don't just get a job the next week.
Also there are more possibilities to employment than American "any time for any reason" and European "at least a month either way". In Canada you have to have a justified cause to fire people or just give notice, and for quitting you customarily give 2 weeks notice (I'm not even sure if you're legally bound to).
Also there are more possibilities to employment than American "any time for any reason" and European "at least a month either way". In Canada you have to have a justified cause to fire people or just give notice, and for quitting you customarily give 2 weeks notice (I'm not even sure if you're legally bound to).
Works well when it's easy to find a job, doesn't work well when you get fired for no reason and you were working in a profession where you don't just get a job the next week.
Isn't putting aside savings to account for possible interruptions in employment simply prudent management of one's personal finances?
Isn't putting aside savings to account for possible interruptions in employment simply prudent management of one's personal finances?
Most likely these people will get a decent severance package, in startups when they have layoffs often you're laid off being owed salary even though the salary may be 80% below market rate and you could be laid off simply to save money at the end of the project, engineers used to be precious back when everything required its own custom apache c module but these days engineers are very much disposible.
[deleted]
Still have to follow the Warn Act.
You're right.
It's an example of the preferential treatment employers receive over employees.
It's an example of the preferential treatment employers receive over employees.
Microsoft has a lot of deadweight, mostly holdovers from the Ballmer era.
They lost their most skilled staff from the 1990s era due to early retirement. They fired all QA staff. Nowadays they have a big piles of legacy codebases. They outsourced or better say moved development of many products to India. Nowadays you really feel the lower skilled work force (compared to 1990s staff) and no QA to speak of everywhere in there products. Their product feel like designed by people who have little engineering knowledge, a far cry from 1990s software UI. Well it already started with WinXP that contained already HTML based UI parts like "software" control panel, and many more parts - an undocumented new UI API where the EU fined them. Plus the 1984 style spyware features their Nadella CEO introduced and forces upon end consumers like there is no tomorrow.
> no QA to speak of everywhere in there products
nit: their, not there.
nit: their, not there.
Ballmer was among the ones who pushed Microsoft into Azure. Not exactly a deadweight if you look at revenue sheet today.
sean_patel(6)
Why wouldn't they just fire the underperformers and reassign the others? Mass indiscriminate layoffs are bad.