He’s saying lay off to 150k, not by 150k. He says getting down to that would be a 20% reduction, so that puts the then-current headcount at ~188k, so get rid of about 35-40k people.
I’m saying his complete disregard for these employees as people, with families, and lives, is unaffected by the difference. He’s proposing to fire 30,000+ people so that a number in his portfolio can grow. A number that he doesn’t need, and will never spend. He’s a fucking psychopath, regardless of it being 30k, 40k, or 150k.
35k is a pretty huge amount better than 150k. Are you just trying to say that it sucks either way? Because that I agree with, but when we criticize things, we should at least have the numbers right.
Yes, I’m saying he’s a psychopath regardless of the numerical error. He’s talking about destroying the livelihood of tens of thousands of people, just so he can make some more money he doesn’t need, and could never spend. So it doesn’t really matter if it’s 30k, 40k, or 150k. He would propose anything that benefits him personally, regardless of the suffering it causes.
Kinda glad I work in government/heavy industry. The highs aren’t very high and the lows aren’t very low. I will never be rich but I also will never be unemployed for over a week by choice.
The average time a software engineer, regardless of level, stays at a big tech company is around 18-24 months. That, surprisingly, hasn’t changed with the market slowing. Many are still taking jobs at a higher level at smaller companies, or leaving to do other things.
Given the severance paid out for many of these employees, alongside the operational damage caused, it’s likely that the people they laid off or forced out would have already left for another role. Funny enough, many of the companies that laid thousands of people off are still hiring external candidates, or people on boomerang deals to return to the company after 6-12 months.
It was always a short-sighted move, triggered by everyone else doing the same thing. While you’re not wrong, I don’t have enough faith in these companies to run things for the benefit of their current employees.
Please kill Christopher Hahn, rape his corpse, impale him through the anus with a spear, display his severed head at the entrance of the city, use this obvious heroic act to make your introduction to politics, with the ultimate goal to get a law passed that get psychopaths like him treated young, or simply disposed of if it’s too late and they’ve hurt (or intend to hurt) too many.
I mean, if you’re not busy or anything. Thanks.
Yours sincerely, because I hate myself and want to die, frfr on God no cap, just kill me if you see me, everyone can help with the execution, I give you explicit permission, regardless of local laws,
He’s just a finance guy. They don’t understand maintenance & ongoing operations/support of software can take nearly as many people as development. They hear “pRoJeCT dOnE” and wonder what those employees are working on after launch.
… and lets say reduce for about a 100.00% … this marginal, poor, repressed, scrutinized group of (technically) people need to be put helped out of their misery, it’s the humane & eco-friendly thing to do.
Markdown link is the other way around [text](link)
On lemmy, you do it like this so it embeds inline: https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Zorg.jpg
The comp cut thing is going to be interesting to see play out, because that comp is why most people put up with working at places like that. They’re selling their morals. And I can’t honestly blame them that much, considering how unforgiving and brutal the socioeconomic system in this country has become.
“Stock price is low, so you should reduce employee’s stock options”
He sees employees’ stock options as competition for the stocks. Add in the job cuts he wants and the company will be selling all those employee’s unvested stock options at a low price.
And of course stock prices shoot up soon after job cuts
I just got laid off last month and I was a revenue generator.
The decision came down from the board as a part of a total restructure that eliminated my position, which was transitioning to be in line with the ‘new’ direction. The day after I was laid off I had an 80k deal come through, and I was set to bring in double what it cost to keep me on in 2024. That revenue would have continued to grow, and now they have no one to pick up that work and carry it forward. It was a stupid decision and I let them know how I felt about it (respectfully, didn’t want to burn any bridges) in my exit interview and when I attempted to negotiate my severance.
With piss and vinegar and a sincere belief that you deserve better, but with the clear understanding that you’ll likely get nothing.
So set your sights on something realistic and smaller.
I got them to sell me my work laptop for well below its depreciated value (14” M1 MacBook Pro kitted out with memory and storage for $800) which is what I went in hoping for. I had some real strong arguments for more severance which were all expectedly shot down, so when I asked for a discount on the laptop, I got it and I won.
In my case I knew the worst that would happen is they say no. That’s not gonna be true everywhere so there can definitely be some risk of losing the severance all together by asking for more, but if you have a good relationship with management and know they’ll come to the table in good faith it’s worth the time. If nothing else you come to the table and let them know you understand what the severance is all about (the non disparagement clause is all they really care about) and sometimes that’s enough to get them to give you something more.
I read his wikipedia article and I must say I was somewhat confused. He does not eat meat, he advocates urgent action on the climate crisis and has given over billions to children’s investment f (don’t know if this is a good charity or not). And yet he is an asshole enough to ask a company to fire tens of thousands of employees so his investments are more profitable on short term. It is entirely possible that he does not eat meat because he thinks that it is healthier and would make him live longer (typical billionaire). Moreover he was directly affiliated to the mentioned children’s charity through his wife so god knows what is really going on in there. Also after their divorce his fund is no longer contractually tied to the foundation so don’t know if he is regularly donating some parts of his profit there anymore.
he thinks that it is healthier and would make him live longer (typical billionaire)
I’m pretty sure there are a lot of people who aren’t billionaires who do this. I’m not sure “wanting to live longer” is necessarily a billionaire exclusive trait
Yea for sure but I think you miss my point. I am wondering whether if he is a vegetarian because he cares about the environment and animals or just because he thinks it is healthier.
The Children’s Investment Fund Management (TCI) is not a charity, it is a hedgefund. Even this letter was sent on behalf of TCI. They’re apparently one of the most activist investors out there. And not activism in a good way, their only focus is maximizing profits. So activism means: demanding lay-offs, doing unsolicited take-overs of other companies, etc. And then after a few years dumping the company again. They themselves probably have all sorts of thoughts about how they play an important function in an economy because they are ruthless and force changes in the markets. To put ‘children’s’ in the name is just a scam that aims to make them sound innocent. But just this fact tells you a lot about how these people operate. Source: en.wikipedia.org/…/The_Children's_Investment_Fund…
He does not eat meat, he advocates urgent action on the climate crisis and has given over billions to children’s investment f (don’t know if this is a good charity or not).
None of these make you a good person. You can do all these things, believe in them, and still be a bad person.
Could be, I would still be interested to know however why an emotionless asshole would be doing these. Does he still feel the need to repent or want to feel morally superior to your average asshole rich person? Or does he just use them as a facade to prevent being blamed as %100 narcissistic sociopath? Or maybe humans are complicated enough that they can spiritually melt firing tens of thousands of people for profit and climate/environment activism in the same pot and don’t feel contradicted about it.
I don’t think it’s that deep, personally. I truly believe someone can analyze their behavior, like eating meat for example, and have moral or health-related objections. This in no way means they aren’t a rich asshole billionaire. At the end of the day, he’s watching his bottom dollar as an investor. I’m sure everything comes second to that for him.
I think asking for lowered compensation is definitely shitty and he should be condemned for that.
However, can someone explain to me the vitriolic opposition to downsizing/layoffs whenever this topic comes up?
I don’t see how anyone has a right be hired and work at X company. It is, after all, their company and their decision. Surely we can all agree that sometimes companies make strategic mistakes in terms of hiring and need to correct them later on. Also, circumstances could simply change, products be canceled or no longer need as much manpower etc.
I imagine it is because many of us have had it happened. We worked hard and did what we are supposed to do and now have to suffer because of another person’s mistake. A mistake that they are shielded from. It isn’t like the upper management is going to get fired because they overhired.
Additionally it tends to come in waves and that seems to be more based on what they think they can get away with not based on what the market is actually doing. One of my main vendors just did that to their engineering department. They are publically traded and their financials are fine.
I’m not against it in it’s entirety partly because of the point you made, it is their company after all.
What I am against is the intent behind cutting employees.
First, it’s just irresponsible to grow a company outside of what it can sustain. But in the end, the company survives and profits while the employee is now unemployed. The worker suffers because the top fucked up.
Second, corporate greed. It’s fucking up people’s lives for profit it technically doesn’t need to continue to exist and be successful.
It’s a human sacrifice to an entity that doesn’t even exist.
A company can hire you and give you a temporary contract, usually a year, but it can de shorter. After that they can do that again and again. But after 3 temporary contracts (at most 3 years) they have to give you a permanent contract.
The advantage of this permanent contract is that you can quit, but if you don’t and the company wants to fire you they have to compensate it financially. This usually is part of the contract you signed, but it’s 1-3 months of salary per year you worked for this company.
So of you get fired after 5 full years, you will get somewhere between 5 to 15 months of salary when you go.
So companies don’t fire you without really having a good reason and even if you are fired, you have extra money while searching for a new job.
One of my friends has been at the same company for a long time and he told me it would cost them 150K to fire him.
In millions 2021 revenue: 75,325 2022 revenue: 76,048
Revenue is neither stagnant nor decreasing. Only reason to reduce pay and headcount is to increase profit at the employee’s cost. All corporations will get to an operational standpoint that reducing costs through better process and materials is no longer feasible and the only avenue to increased profits is to begin extracting wealth from the employee’s via layoffs and salary reduction.
It’s also a fairly reliable indicator that the glory days of the business are over, and they’re pivoting from innovation to capture / create new markets and products to a conservative stance protecting their dominant position at the expense of everyone else - customers, staff, suppliers, vendors…
It’s possible to run lean and innovate, but at this phase of the business lifecycle, they’re not retooling to remove redundant management and organisational bloat - they’re cutting the “doers” responsible for building the product because they know they’re now in a position to sell the same old BS and just crush new market entrants that would drive continued improvement.
My disgust with it is that it’s simply a call to reduce labor not that there should be less people working on x or we should stop working on y. He views that this many people can’t be productive simply because he wants the company spending less on staff so his profits or share price goes up. It’s short sighted but since investors only care about the next quarter it doesn’t really matter to him.
