Layoffs.fyi(layoffs.fyi)
layoffs.fyi
Layoffs.fyi
https://layoffs.fyi/
80 comments
>The time series chart shows a pretty strong decrease in the number of layoffs the last month
Do people remember how these companies were talking a year ago? Because I do.
Meanwhile, I just searched Google News for "[company] quarterly results" for the three companies with the highest layoff rounds and here were the headlines for the top result for each:
>Alphabet reports better-than-expected quarterly results driven by growth in cloud
>Amazon reports blowout profit, beats on sales and issues optimistic guidance
>Meta reports better-than-expected results and issues optimistic guidance for third quarter
It is almost like the "difficult economic environment" that was "forcing their hands" might not have been as real as they were claiming. I don't know if this was another example of active collusion among big tech companies, but it certainly seems like these layoffs were at least partially motivated by power starting to shift too much into the hands of labor for the liking of some of these companies.
Do people remember how these companies were talking a year ago? Because I do.
Meanwhile, I just searched Google News for "[company] quarterly results" for the three companies with the highest layoff rounds and here were the headlines for the top result for each:
>Alphabet reports better-than-expected quarterly results driven by growth in cloud
>Amazon reports blowout profit, beats on sales and issues optimistic guidance
>Meta reports better-than-expected results and issues optimistic guidance for third quarter
It is almost like the "difficult economic environment" that was "forcing their hands" might not have been as real as they were claiming. I don't know if this was another example of active collusion among big tech companies, but it certainly seems like these layoffs were at least partially motivated by power starting to shift too much into the hands of labor for the liking of some of these companies.
I often hear the phrase "you can't drive by looking in the rear view mirror". In practice, though, most businesses actually do that.
A lot of the companies with layoffs had a "bad" quarter or so, but hiring continued during that bad quarter. So they correct for the past with layoffs, then resume hiring.
It makes perfect sense if you don't think about it.
A lot of the companies with layoffs had a "bad" quarter or so, but hiring continued during that bad quarter. So they correct for the past with layoffs, then resume hiring.
It makes perfect sense if you don't think about it.
If I've learned anything in the past decade it's that CEOs aren't any better at predicting the future than you or I.
In fact a lot of business strategy seems to be making 5 year plans from last quarters data and assuming last quarter will repeat for five years. Look at all the aggressive hiring. Look at all the aggressive layoffs.
In fact a lot of business strategy seems to be making 5 year plans from last quarters data and assuming last quarter will repeat for five years. Look at all the aggressive hiring. Look at all the aggressive layoffs.
To be honest, I sometimes think they are worse at it than you and I would be.
I was truly shocked by how some companies behaved during and after the pandemic. I can understand why companies that struggled (like restaurants) had to lay employees off, but companies that received what was obviously going to be a temporary boost in revenue behaved as if this were the new normal, over-invested in growth, and then freaked out when customer demand returned to normal pre-pandemic levels.
I know that interest rate changes also played a big role here, but the interest rate changes were also extremely predictable. Interest rates were obviously going to be lowered during the pandemic to keep the economy chugging, and then they were obviously going to be raised later to compensate. This is how modern economies are managed. It's nothing new.
All the investment and VC capital floating around during the pandemic was obviously going to dry up, so why did all these companies decide it was a good idea to become reliant on it?
I was truly shocked by how some companies behaved during and after the pandemic. I can understand why companies that struggled (like restaurants) had to lay employees off, but companies that received what was obviously going to be a temporary boost in revenue behaved as if this were the new normal, over-invested in growth, and then freaked out when customer demand returned to normal pre-pandemic levels.
I know that interest rate changes also played a big role here, but the interest rate changes were also extremely predictable. Interest rates were obviously going to be lowered during the pandemic to keep the economy chugging, and then they were obviously going to be raised later to compensate. This is how modern economies are managed. It's nothing new.
All the investment and VC capital floating around during the pandemic was obviously going to dry up, so why did all these companies decide it was a good idea to become reliant on it?
And enforcing RTO
To make things worse these companies are still doing layoffs in various hidden and underhanded ways. From what I figure they're doing "employee refreshes", i.e. getting rid of more experienced Covid hires with high salaries in favor of less experienced post-Covid hires with lower compensation.
For at least a few big companies, it's both big and scummy.
For at least a few big companies, it's both big and scummy.
It's also very hard to figure out which companies expect a 15% discount compared to the same role a year or more ago.. This makes a market that is too annoying for the already employed that want to move laterally with no losses or upward with actual benefit.
Possibly that's a short time help to the unemployed, but it is a factor that could successfully lower the going wage.
The downtick in layoffs is perhaps that many experienced tech workers even if jobless can apply at much lower rates or just sit it out so its hard for management to understand which positions will cost them a pound of flesh to fill again even as they stare at the holes they already have.
Possibly that's a short time help to the unemployed, but it is a factor that could successfully lower the going wage.
The downtick in layoffs is perhaps that many experienced tech workers even if jobless can apply at much lower rates or just sit it out so its hard for management to understand which positions will cost them a pound of flesh to fill again even as they stare at the holes they already have.
It's not like they don't have a history of colluding to keep power from employees.
It's very suspicious that this "time of cost cutting" just so happened to coincide with increased office spending.
It's very suspicious that this "time of cost cutting" just so happened to coincide with increased office spending.
If a company has a great quarter buy hired for a much greater quarter, there could still be problems. My understanding is that there was a bit of a hiring frenzy (everyone desperate to hire as many people as possible) that wasn’t really justified, and most of those companies still have more employees than they did two years ago (even ignoring hiring after layoffs).
I’m not sure if this accounts for the datasets you are referencing, but one reason for layoffs to cluster at the beginning of the month, in the US at least, is health insurance…
Typically if you are laid off, your health insurance coverage will run at least through the end of the current month as of your last day before COBRA would kick in. This isn’t a hard and fast rule necessarily, and some layoffs extend healthcare coverage longer anyways, but I know for a fact multiple layoffs I’ve been involved in over the years have timed for the first of the month for this reason.
Typically if you are laid off, your health insurance coverage will run at least through the end of the current month as of your last day before COBRA would kick in. This isn’t a hard and fast rule necessarily, and some layoffs extend healthcare coverage longer anyways, but I know for a fact multiple layoffs I’ve been involved in over the years have timed for the first of the month for this reason.
I'd hold off coming to any conclusions on the numbers for a given month until at least after it has passed.
> I'm getting a lot more interviews recently.
Would these people immediately seek a new job, or would there be a lag between being laid off and seeking a new job, especially if you got a 6-12 month package. Wouldn't you want to take a few months off?
Would these people immediately seek a new job, or would there be a lag between being laid off and seeking a new job, especially if you got a 6-12 month package. Wouldn't you want to take a few months off?
Not in the US where health insurance is tied to your job and career gaps are perceived as substantially negative.
what levels are you interviewing for? any suggestions?
I'm getting a lot more too. I'm applying for senior DS or a level lower mle positions and have gotten significantly more interviews in the last few weeks than the previous 2 months
true aficionados of tech booms remember https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fucked_Company
I’m mostly interested in forced resignations due to not wanting to RTO.
The flip side is impact to “zoom towns” that were booming with remote workers and whether a bunch of new listings from RTO workers will drag certain housing markets lower
The flip side is impact to “zoom towns” that were booming with remote workers and whether a bunch of new listings from RTO workers will drag certain housing markets lower
[deleted]
It would be interesting to count people who were likely forced out due to return-to-office mandates.
I think that would be an interesting number to know. I get occasional pings for remote contract options, the rates have dropped quite a bit from personal observation.
I’ve been lucky to be fully remote for over a decade. I avoided talking beyond a couple screens with Amazon during Covid because the hiring managers were wishy washy about if “hired remote” meant that would be a permanent thing. Despite the hullabaloo I think most Amazon management knew fully remote had an end date.
I’ve been lucky to be fully remote for over a decade. I avoided talking beyond a couple screens with Amazon during Covid because the hiring managers were wishy washy about if “hired remote” meant that would be a permanent thing. Despite the hullabaloo I think most Amazon management knew fully remote had an end date.
may i ask where you source these contracts?
Alternately, those that chose to not keep their job because they did not return.
I note your passive voice in this "construct" for this fantasy
I also note the presumptive statement of the comment I replied to. Not everyone agrees that remote work is still a good idea in all situations.
I'm not trying to make any sort of statement about RTO in general. I'm sure there are at least some companies who are using RTO mandates as a "constructive dismissal" tactic, I'm curious how widespread that is. If it's widespread, then it's important to track when looking at layoff data.
It's only a presumptive statement (in this sense) if one assumes there wasn't a single employee forced out due to RTO mandates.
I’m a huge proponent of RTO, but that’s a personal decision not a layoff.
It's not a personal decision when the job was advertised as fully remote, you were hired in city A with the expectation that you would continue to live there, and then a few months later the company said "move your family 2000 miles to city B or resign".
If the company changes the terms of employment and you don't accept the new terms, that's not on you. The company is the one deciding to fire you, plain and simple.
If the company changes the terms of employment and you don't accept the new terms, that's not on you. The company is the one deciding to fire you, plain and simple.
paulcole(2)
its not a decision when it is forced...
The employee chose not to return to the office though.
Would you be putting it on the employees if instead of laying off people, companies dropped their salary to minimum wage?
Hard to argue with that logic.
ACT 1
"We're hiring remote, being in NYC or London or Peru is totally fine, geographic diversity of talent is a strength! Own your schedule!"
ACT 2
"Sorry folks, we just had a downround, can't control the market.
BTW in totally unrelated news, RTO next week. Folks in NYC & London & Peru, you can keep your job, just move to SF HQ. We will not pay for movers, higher SF compensation, etc. Also, it's starting on Monday, no excuses: We can't wait for your kids to finish the school year, your wife to get a new medical specialist, nor help you find a preschool for your youngest. I know it's annoying, it took me a year to get through a waitlist for ours, haha SF. Totally not a layoff... though HR does tell us to expect 10-20% attrition..."
"We're hiring remote, being in NYC or London or Peru is totally fine, geographic diversity of talent is a strength! Own your schedule!"
ACT 2
"Sorry folks, we just had a downround, can't control the market.
BTW in totally unrelated news, RTO next week. Folks in NYC & London & Peru, you can keep your job, just move to SF HQ. We will not pay for movers, higher SF compensation, etc. Also, it's starting on Monday, no excuses: We can't wait for your kids to finish the school year, your wife to get a new medical specialist, nor help you find a preschool for your youngest. I know it's annoying, it took me a year to get through a waitlist for ours, haha SF. Totally not a layoff... though HR does tell us to expect 10-20% attrition..."
Is this legal?
not a lawyer but sounds like a constructive dismissal
IANAL and don't know for sure whether or not there are any criminal statutes that would prevent it... but in general, employment is all about what is in your contract with your employer.
If you have a contract saying they'll never move your job to a new city, you can take a civil action against them to enforce that. But I've never seen such things in my employment history.
If you have a contract saying they'll never move your job to a new city, you can take a civil action against them to enforce that. But I've never seen such things in my employment history.
Companies have been doing this forever. As I child, IBM almost relocated our family multiple times. They were doing huge reorgs in the 90s
This is almost certainly down to contract law, but IANAL too
This is almost certainly down to contract law, but IANAL too
There's definitely still a discussion around the concept of constructive dismissal that could be had. Although a lot of that has to do with the exact parameters of the RTO, so it would be company to company.
I have provided guidance to several folks over the last few years with regards to taking a remote role. I have told all of them to require in their offer letter that the role be defined as remote without an in office component (it helps if you don't take a role at an org that has an office within 50 miles of your home address). I have also provided them with contact information for an employment attorney who will provide a letter to their employer with regards to their employment arrangement being remote if the employer attempts to unilaterally change the working arrangement. In no cases has the employer successfully required the employee return to office, and only once was the attorney necessary to push the issue.
n=1. If you're taking a remote role, have it codified in your offer letter. Retain that as an artifact in the event you need to engage legally. Always be prepared for your job to end at any time due to the state of US employment, but also set yourself up for success whenever possible. The party with the best position of power and the least to lose typically is the one who wins. Always be preparing a paper trail if you feel like the actions your employer is taking might infringe on your labor rights. You've then done all the hard work to then hand it over to an attorney and/or government regulator for actioning.
And if you're not organizing and unionizing to secure remote work as a right at your org, you should consider it. Very favorable environment at the moment to do so.
(not an attorney, not your attorney)
n=1. If you're taking a remote role, have it codified in your offer letter. Retain that as an artifact in the event you need to engage legally. Always be prepared for your job to end at any time due to the state of US employment, but also set yourself up for success whenever possible. The party with the best position of power and the least to lose typically is the one who wins. Always be preparing a paper trail if you feel like the actions your employer is taking might infringe on your labor rights. You've then done all the hard work to then hand it over to an attorney and/or government regulator for actioning.
And if you're not organizing and unionizing to secure remote work as a right at your org, you should consider it. Very favorable environment at the moment to do so.
(not an attorney, not your attorney)
> Very favorable environment at the moment to do so.
Is it? I would think that during hiring booms would be a far more favorable environment for workers to drive demands.
Is it? I would think that during hiring booms would be a far more favorable environment for workers to drive demands.
NLRB is more aggressive than historically with adults in charge at the executive branch.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37421903
Also, structural labor shortages for the next decade.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37524951
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37421903
Also, structural labor shortages for the next decade.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37524951
NLRB just helps you vote to put a union in place. So, now you can pay a union your dues, but if the union doesn't have actual structural leverage over the employer, you're likely going to pay 1% of your salary for roughly the same deal you have now.
1% of my salary at improved odds of having more power in a work arrangement with an employer sounds like a steal, vs 0% and having no chance. Nothing is assured as always.
I spend more than that on annual auto insurance, for comparison, and the odds are much higher I need protection from an employer vs another driver. We may have different opinions on value, and that’s okay.
I spend more than that on annual auto insurance, for comparison, and the odds are much higher I need protection from an employer vs another driver. We may have different opinions on value, and that’s okay.
Like in "office space".
The office had burned down.
Everyone failed to go to work.
The office had burned down.
Everyone failed to go to work.
I had a former coworker reach out after he was let go by Paper. They've done 3 rounds of lay-offs, around 100 people each time since May 17. Bravo! talk about the wrong way to make cuts; everyone left must be freaking out.
The list is very partial. Sometimes they add companies that are obviously not tech at all and sometimes they don't add tech companies.
Is this crowd sourced, or is there an element of curation? My ex-employer is on there twice as Kape and Kape Technologies.
It is crowdsourced but also curated by an individual.
The rate of layoffs seems like it has abated since about March. Hopefully this is a good sign for our industry.
AI pump began around then..
Site isn't mobile friendly. Graphs overflow without a scrollbar to see all the content. I prefer https://www.trueup.io/layoffs
It would be interesting to have an unbiased reason for various layoffs.
Rates went up and changed where businesses put their money.
Let's say your company has an idea that they are pretty sure can make a 2% return each year. If they can borrow money at 1% interest, it makes sense to borrow money to fund that project. When rates go up and loans now have 6% interest, borrowing money to fund that project no longer makes sense. On top of that, if they can park money in something like bonds and get a guaranteed 4% return, it actually makes more sense to just shut that project down and put the money in the bank since that's a higher return with lower risk.
The company in the scenario will actually make even more with less people since parking money in the bank doesn't require employees to get a return.
That's a super simplified version of what has happened. When the safe assets give small returns it makes sense to take risks because the alternatives pay so little. When safe assets give big returns appetite for risk goes down and money flows to safe investments.
To put this another way, if you put one million dollars in the bank for 10 years at 1% interest, you'll have a little over 1.1 million dollars at the end of ten years. That same million dollars at 6% interest will be worth just under $1.8 million after ten years. To justify taking that money out of the bank you've gone from needing a 10% return to an 80% return.
Let's say your company has an idea that they are pretty sure can make a 2% return each year. If they can borrow money at 1% interest, it makes sense to borrow money to fund that project. When rates go up and loans now have 6% interest, borrowing money to fund that project no longer makes sense. On top of that, if they can park money in something like bonds and get a guaranteed 4% return, it actually makes more sense to just shut that project down and put the money in the bank since that's a higher return with lower risk.
The company in the scenario will actually make even more with less people since parking money in the bank doesn't require employees to get a return.
That's a super simplified version of what has happened. When the safe assets give small returns it makes sense to take risks because the alternatives pay so little. When safe assets give big returns appetite for risk goes down and money flows to safe investments.
To put this another way, if you put one million dollars in the bank for 10 years at 1% interest, you'll have a little over 1.1 million dollars at the end of ten years. That same million dollars at 6% interest will be worth just under $1.8 million after ten years. To justify taking that money out of the bank you've gone from needing a 10% return to an 80% return.
I'm at one the companies that issued layoffs. It was dictated by VCs that there had to be a significant reduction in cost before they gave out additional funding.
Why is it okay to list the specific employees who were laid off? What if they don't want that information to be publicized to the internet?
Those lists shouldn't contain people who haven't submitted their names themselves.
If you go to the "Lists of Employees Laid Off" there's a link to a Google spreadsheet. It seems to be gleaned/scraped from LinkedIn, so I guess if you keep your profile up to date you will show up in this list...
Typically these lists are created by one of the laid off employees or the HR team that laid them off, and are opt-in. They are circulated to help those who were laid off find new jobs.
That’s not cool at all
Why? LinkedIn is public info. These people willingly posted on LinkedIn about changes in their job statuses.
The amount of details contained in these spreadsheets (previous job title, YoE, location, work preferences, contact info, etc.) are pretty clearly meant to match with potential employers
The amount of details contained in these spreadsheets (previous job title, YoE, location, work preferences, contact info, etc.) are pretty clearly meant to match with potential employers
It’s one thing to share with LinkedIn a job change, it’s another for someone else to scrape that info and post it to a different website without their consent.
Like if someone scraped images of their friends from Facebook and posted it to a different site with some commentary
Like if someone scraped images of their friends from Facebook and posted it to a different site with some commentary
LinkedIn is public info. Anyone who posts publicly viewable info on the Internet has accepted the fact that it will circulate beyond their intended audience. If you are so against "scraping" or whatever arbitrary definition you came up with, don't post here either.
And how do you know these people didn't consent to having their info aggregated on that site? It's an additional way of outreach to employers who are most likely to be sensible if they are looking at that site. The vast majority of layoffs over this past year and half have nothing to do with employees' personal performance. It's not that embarrassing to share.
>Like if someone scraped images of their friends from Facebook and posted it to a different site with some commentary
This already happens and has happened for as long as FB's existence as a major website. In fact, a major web page indexing platform whose brand name starts with a G and ends with an E "scrapes" pictures from FB all the time. Why don't you take the issue to them?
And how do you know these people didn't consent to having their info aggregated on that site? It's an additional way of outreach to employers who are most likely to be sensible if they are looking at that site. The vast majority of layoffs over this past year and half have nothing to do with employees' personal performance. It's not that embarrassing to share.
>Like if someone scraped images of their friends from Facebook and posted it to a different site with some commentary
This already happens and has happened for as long as FB's existence as a major website. In fact, a major web page indexing platform whose brand name starts with a G and ends with an E "scrapes" pictures from FB all the time. Why don't you take the issue to them?
Shouldn't as in they might contain names against people's consent and that's bad, or shouldn't as in there is some process in place for people to submit their names and they derive the data from that process?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Also I did some analysis on this dataset a few months ago, and it seems like layoffs tend to happen near the beginning of the month, but I'm not sure why that would be.
Also, as an aside, this doesn't cover all places and I'd guess smaller startups would be less likely to show up. My last place went from about 45 to 10 employees over the last year (layoffs, RTO bs, terminations for "performance," etc.) and isn't on this list, for example.