r/technology • u/Sorin61 • Jan 23 '23 • 1
An engineer laid off after over 16 years at Google said 'faceless' tech giants see staff as '100% disposable' Businesshttps://www.businessinsider.com/laid-off-engineer-says-google-considers-staff-disposable-2023-1
u/w1ckizer Jan 23 '23
Yea, it’s not just google or tech giants. It’s pretty much every company. That’s why you shouldn’t be loyal to them either. Always be on the lookout for options and put yourself first.
u/DigNitty Jan 23 '23
I always wanted to quit a job in some crazy way. In reality, you burn bridges doing that.
This year, my boss wouldn’t give me two days off 6 weeks in advance for my best friend’s wedding. She got really pissy when I said I’ll quit over it. Suddenly she approved my time off, and the next day I gave 2 months notice.
u/weedboi69 Jan 23 '23
Just curious, why give them a 2 months notice and not 2 weeks?→ More replies (11)
u/Dininiful Jan 24 '23
I would not be able to continue working for 2 months at a place I know I hate and will be leaving soon. I'd stay two weeks tops to get everything in order for the next person, but yeah that's it lmao.→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)
u/flight_recorder Jan 23 '23
I threw my only t-shirt at my boss once and walked out topless. Then again, it was Wild Wings and who really cares about that bridge lol
u/davy_p Jan 23 '23
This! If you aren’t opening your LinkedIn recruitment up, updating your resume and talking with/interviewing with recruiters once a year you’re selling yourself short.
Those 1.2% annual raises are nothing. A company makes money by making sure you produce more than you cost so the only way to really get ahead is jump ship when an opportunity presents itself with either considerably more pay or more responsibility with a leveled up title.→ More replies (9)
u/bobartig Jan 23 '23
Those 1.2% annual raises are nothing.
To put this slightly differently, given the historical rate of inflation being at 3-4% per year, if your annual raises are less than that, then every year, your company is getting your output for slightly less each year. You grow, learn, gain institutional knowledge probably take on more responsibilities, and you get cheaper by the year.
Unless you are getting re-evaluated every few years with a substantial raise, you are just offering your effort and expertise for less and less over time, according to basic math. So, don't do this. Negotiate for more, or find yourself a better deal.→ More replies (34)
u/DreamMaster8 Jan 23 '23
Or you know....Unionize.→ More replies (1)
u/DrMisery Jan 23 '23
The only thing corporations are loyal to are the profits and shareholders. Nothing else matters.
u/DogsAreOurFriends Jan 23 '23 edited Jan 23 '23
And not even profit. The profit must be consistently growing.
My 11 person team who loved their work and the product and each other just got unceremoniously reassigned and the product given to an Indian team.
We pulled in $71 million in 2021, similar for 2020. Very profitable but no profit growth, which when accounting for inflation is actually a profit decline. But still millions in their pockets.
Not good enough. Enjoy your trip to Pune to train others to take your job.
First release on their watch - with no notification to anyone - they changed signing certs, didn’t test the changes as well as disabled the now failing automation test, and released a bricked product to dozens of customers.
That process is automated, usually just push a button, wait for the signing and automated test to complete, and move on with your life.
We lost 30+ customers due to that.
u/Icy-Coyote-621 Jan 23 '23
But think of all the money management saved by offshoring! (/s)
u/calvin43 Jan 23 '23
Loss is in some other team's bucket.
u/moreannoyedthanangry Jan 23 '23
You can bet some exec got a bonus!→ More replies (1)
u/Senyu Jan 23 '23
Another gold star and stack of green to wipe his ass with somewhete else. How long will corps realize it's more costly catering to the whims of execs chasing personal greed than company sustainability/growth? What's that, Lassie? Never you say?
Jan 23 '23 edited Jan 23 '23
You have to stop thinking of big businesses as trying to solve any problems other than how to make their C-Suite as rich as possible before they all take golden parachutes to the site of their next grift.→ More replies (7)→ More replies (7)
u/clickwir Jan 23 '23
Wait, hold up. You added a /s to indicate it's a sarcastic comment. Sadly, it's 100% accurate.
You may have said it in jest, but it's true.→ More replies (1)
u/kaji823 Jan 23 '23 edited Jan 23 '23
I work for a financial institute and see shit like this all the time. In the last 10 years I have never seen a 3p team working in isolation produce anything successfully. I don’t even mind it being 50/50 3p/1p, but you need people that know what they’re doing and care about the long term.
For the sake of “modernizing” we have moved from 50/50 to 85/15 and it’s been a god damn nightmare. We’re just burning money with no return. I’ve gotten to learn first hand how growth can destroy a company.
Edit: sorry for the jargon. Translation:
3p = third party, contractors
1p = first party, employees→ More replies (6)
u/ghjm Jan 23 '23
What do you mean by 3p and 1p?→ More replies (4)
u/HopesBurnBright Jan 23 '23
Electron orbitals obviously
u/My-Left-Plate Jan 23 '23
Silly rabbit, there is no 1p orbital→ More replies (1)
u/oracleofnonsense Jan 24 '23
Not in this dimension.→ More replies (1)
u/Cherry_Galsia Jan 23 '23
They sound like one of those teams that'll invite a mashup of random people to an emergency chat/meeting 2AM where they just basically say "Looked up your job title, you've must be involved plz help"
u/Only-Inspector-3782 Jan 23 '23
I am triggered by this.
If your team name has some generic terms in it, consider rebranding under an obtuse acronym so people stop engaging you for bullshit.
u/SoppingBread Jan 24 '23
Internally: manager Externally: engineer
My mail is all time low.→ More replies (1)
u/MNCPA Jan 23 '23
This is why I have a generic job title in my email signature. You don't need to know the alphabet or specific title behind my name.→ More replies (2)
u/JC_Hysteria Jan 23 '23 edited Jan 24 '23
It’s not profits that need to consistently be growing, it’s perceived future value for shareholders. Buying and selling stock - that’s it.
CEOs at public companies are financially aligned with growing their stock’s value perception. Everything underneath that are tactics. And, doing so opens up new beneficial opportunities for them.
It’s why private equity is somewhat afraid of ESG…because society/younger people are starting to put more pressure on what a corporation should be standing for.
When Blackrock’s CEO says the tides are changing using the Ukraine war as an example (i.e no one pulled business out because of forced government sanctions, only public outrage + shareholders falling in line), it’s a sign that the rules of the game are changing.→ More replies (11)
u/gechu Jan 23 '23
ELI5: what is esg?
u/caboosetp Jan 23 '23
Environmental, social, and governance. Investment research based on corporate policies and acting responsibly.→ More replies (1)
u/JC_Hysteria Jan 24 '23 edited Jan 24 '23
What the other reply said (environmental, social, governance)…but basically, it’s businesses acting for the “better good” vs. solely for maximizing owner/shareholder value.
It can be philosophically compared to some of the core values of capitalism, in that it’s considered a “risk” to maximizing owner/shareholder value.
Big, impactful businesses are increasingly investing money in studying how to balance these out…because more and more, people are aligning their spending with companies who act within their values.
u/mowotlarx Jan 23 '23
And not even profit. The profit must be consistently growing.
Most public companies function like pyramid schemes in this way. And it leads many of them to commit fraud to keep up with growth expectations. Look at Wells Fargo for starters.→ More replies (2)
u/Rizenstrom Jan 23 '23
This is the thing that disgusts me.
The constant need for ever increasing profits. Nobody is satisfied with just maintaining. They have to pump that balloon until it bursts. And of course they walk away with millions, if not billions, while everyone else is just out of a job.
At this point I feel like being a greedy, soulless husk is a prerequisite to excel in corporate management.
If I had a cushy 7 figure income my priority wouldn't be how to increase my own income but on everyone below me. Then if there is room to do so without cutting jobs or pay expanding the company.→ More replies (2)
u/CrumblingCake Jan 24 '23
An economy based on endless growth is unsustainable.→ More replies (1)→ More replies (49)
u/ShadEShadauX Jan 23 '23
Mmmm... loss growth.→ More replies (45)
u/Ennion Jan 23 '23
What if you work there and are a shareholder?→ More replies (7)
u/starstarstar42 Jan 23 '23 edited Jan 23 '23
Gigantic international company with hundreds of thousands of staff, views said staff is disposable tools?
u/aybbyisok Jan 23 '23
And is also publicly traded, of course they don't care, because there's no "they".→ More replies (18)
u/Reddit-Hivemind Jan 23 '23
Google actually has over 150k employees, and in the past 3 years, it has grown by like 2-3x the number of employees laid off here
u/Electric_General Jan 23 '23
isnt this the case across the board? like microsoft, google, etc all hired 10s of thousands of people the last 5 years. its still a net positive increase with the current layoffs, although losing a job in any manner sucks
u/_145_ Jan 23 '23
Yes. Covid was tech boom times and everyone went on a hiring frenzy. Then the Fed hiked rates, growth slowed, we're likely heading into a recession, and every tech company regrets all the hiring they did. That's why we're seeing layoffs right now.→ More replies (3)→ More replies (18)
u/The__Toast Jan 23 '23
There's lots of complacency in SV, also a lot of arrogance and absurd corporate loyalty. This last 12 months has been a major culture shock for a lot of people.
u/_145_ Jan 23 '23
These companies treat employees very well and employees have a bit of wishful thinking that the company will never "mistreat" them. I put it in quotes because it's subjective if this is mistreatment.
I'd note that it's not entirely misguided. The article is about an eng manager with 16 YOE. His severance is going to be around $750k. If he's in CA, Google is required to give him around $40k. Outside of CA, I don't think US law forces anything. So Google is voluntarily giving him around $700k extra. That's the type of thing that builds this loyalty from employees.→ More replies (6)
u/sprunghuntR3Dux Jan 23 '23
Also if he’s been working at Google for 16 years he should be wealthy enough to never have to work again.→ More replies (1)
u/Doktor_Dysphoria Jan 23 '23
I mean, to be fair, doing 16 years at Google means you can pretty much walk into any other IT job you want and name your price. Not exactly like anyone that gets fired will be hard up for work lol.
u/owiseone23 Jan 23 '23
Also, severance package includes 16 weeks paid + 2 weeks per year they've worked there + saved PTO. For this person, that's essentially an entire year of paid vacation to look for another job.
u/ItsOkILoveYouMYbb Jan 23 '23
48 weeks of big pay severance seems decent lol
u/Weak_Remote3787 Jan 23 '23
Essentially gets a year off work and will walk into another high paying job without issue, assuming they don't just straight up retire.→ More replies (8)
u/Alarming_Teaching310 Jan 23 '23
Dude probably got 300k a year plus 600k a year in stock
u/foldingaces Jan 23 '23
He said on LinkedIn that he made 1-2 mil / year→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)
u/LBozoYBBetterRatio Jan 23 '23
Some other dude that was also laid off was only there 7 years and got 1-2 mil a year. This dude has to be getting similar or more if they’ve been there 16 years
u/calliocypress Jan 23 '23
Tbf that guy was a lead of a niche team—but having grown up blocks from a (the?) Google campus, you’re not far off.→ More replies (9)
u/RCismydaddy Jan 23 '23
This dude could probably just retire based on his income and stock returns over 16 years. He is for sure a multi millionaire unless he is terrible with his money.→ More replies (2)
Jan 23 '23
Most people are terrible with money.→ More replies (6)
u/Tacyd Jan 23 '23
Yes, though there's not many companies that can afford 500k-1M payscales, so unless he's willing to take a paycut there's a limited number of places (and other tens of thousands out of work). I think he'd be better off making his own consulting firm.→ More replies (1)
u/-BetchPLZ Jan 23 '23
A lot of googlers I know are looking into business ventures and startups rather than taking on another job. They’re going to be a new wave of investors and I really don’t blame them? It doesn’t seem sensible in some cases to take the pay cut.
They have enough cash for cushion.→ More replies (1)→ More replies (21)
u/Gow87 Jan 23 '23
16 years at Google means he can retire. He got everything he needed out of this business transaction.→ More replies (14)
u/blissfulsaltiness Jan 23 '23 •
It took them 16 years to realize this?
u/DGIce Jan 23 '23
Probably only let go because their raises for the last 16 years make them a top earner and likely overpaid. But if you get consistent raises for 16 years you would have good reason to believe the company values you.
u/qpwoeor1235 Jan 23 '23
Dude probably has millions of dollars from all the stock options too→ More replies (287)
u/dirty_cuban Jan 23 '23
Absolutely. 16 years at google means he was making well over $500k a year and has received six figure stock awards for over a decade. He was probably fired for making too much.
u/OutlawBlue9 Jan 23 '23
This guy is also receiving nearly an entire years salary as severance, plus access to a job placement service (which I Doubt he'll need). He's going to be fine.→ More replies (3)
u/cbftw Jan 23 '23
He probably doesn't need to go back to work, given the stock he's likely gotten in previous years→ More replies (4)
u/OutlawBlue9 Jan 23 '23
Agreed. I understand that for many in these tech layoffs this is all more than an inconvenience and I wish them all the best and empathize with them but
a) Google is at minimum giving you 4 months of compensation as severance and paying for access to a 6-month job placement program.
b) If this guy has been even remotely proactive with his stock compensation and retirement planning he can most likely retire right now and never have to work again even if he was 40 and had only worked for Google since he graduated.
These tech layoffs are unfortunate but most of the large companies that I've read about are giving VERY generous severance packages.→ More replies (4)
Jan 23 '23
[deleted]→ More replies (5)→ More replies (21)
u/MastodonSmooth1367 Jan 23 '23
Not entirely sure if he was fired for making too much. If you're one of the more useless people, you could get fired for sure, but sometimes layoffs are simply you're on the wrong team--a team management doesn't believe is beneficial or worth spending money on in the future.
With that said, 16 years in FAANG and in the last 12 years of a bull market is a tremendous amount of money. That with stock appreciation (assuming he held some and didn't sell at every vest period) should allow him to have a pretty solid nest egg built up. Almost everyone I know in big tech has been able to buy a house in within 5 years of joining. You get paid plenty in that industry where it's not hard to have a lot of money to throw around.→ More replies (1)→ More replies (8)
u/GoGabeGo Jan 23 '23
It's usually the other way around. New hires typically get brought in at salaries similar to people who have been there 3-4 years. So while the guy who has been there 16 years makes more, he doesn't actually make THAT much more.
At least that is how it works at the huge corporation I'm at.→ More replies (3)
u/darkkite Jan 23 '23
no. this is a straw man. he never said he just realized now after 16 years. he's only now vocalizing that viewpoint publicly after being laid off→ More replies (26)
u/Sniffeur2Pieds Jan 23 '23
It's especially clear it's a strawman when you read the actual post. He is just reflecting on a difficult thing happening to him. It really doesn't read like he was naive about it, just something he wants to express as part of the strong emotions he probably feels rn.
So after over 16.5 years at Google, I appear to have been let go via an automated account deactivation at 3am this morning as one of the lucky 12,000. I don't have any other information, as I haven't received any of the other communications the boilerplate "you've been let go" website (which I now also can't access) said I should receive.
It was a (largely) wonderful 16 years, and I'm really proud of the work that I and my teams did over the years. I got to work with some great people and really help a lot of our users around the world in the Civics and Elections space. I was so incredibly fortunate.
This also just drives home that work is not your life, and employers -- especially big, faceless ones like Google -- see you as 100% disposable. Live life, not work.
One of my dad's favorite quotes for moments like this was from the Ballad of Sir Andrew Barton:
"I'll lay me down and bleed a-while, And then I'll rise and fight again."→ More replies (2)
u/Terr_ Jan 23 '23 edited Jan 23 '23
It sounds to me like much of his frustration isn't being laid off per se, but the callous/disrespectful way the company went about it.→ More replies (2)→ More replies (182)
Jan 23 '23
[removed] — view removed comment→ More replies (3)
u/whatdoiwantsky Jan 23 '23
They use to say "don't be evil" as well once upon a time.→ More replies (6)
u/ambientocclusion Jan 23 '23 •
Emulating Mad Men:
Google employees to Management: “I don’t think very much of you.”
Google Management: “I don’t think about you at all.”
→ More replies (20)
u/_UltimatrixmaN_ Jan 23 '23
This quote almost works except for the fact that Don actually was afraid of Ginsberg as competition and said that out of spite.→ More replies (9)
u/doesaxlhaveajack Jan 23 '23
100%. Ginsberg had Don’s looks and talent, plus a certain intellectualism that Don never had, but no hangups about the American dream or his place in society (due to being a Jewish immigrant). He had a loving father. He was meant to represent the mores of the younger generation and how it would have clashed with Don, but then they threw him off the deep end when they decided that Ted (the talented square) was going to be Don’s rival instead.
Sorry, you triggered a tangent.
u/ohpeekaboob Jan 23 '23
Ginsberg had Don's looks? Maybe outside the show (Ben Feldman is a good looking dude) but he is definitely not portrayed as classical handsome on the show and certainly not to the ridiculous degree Don is.→ More replies (1)
u/ASuarezMascareno Jan 23 '23 •
People act as if this was the dumbest comment, but what I've seen in my environment (with companies of more traditional industries) is that they would hesitate with firing highly qualified people with years of experience in the companies, as they would be expensive to fire and difficult to replace. They could be let go in layoffs, but the company needs to be in financial trouble.
Google being trigger happy firing workers of these profiles show they don't value experience or inside knowledge of the company at all, which is somewhat surprising.
u/xtelosx Jan 23 '23
It seems these days experience at the company isn't valued. More and more high level positions seem to be going to outside hires and promoting from within seems to be a thing of the past. This leads to the "tribal knowledge" only having a 5ish year history instead of the 20-30 years it had when I started working at the company I am at.→ More replies (8)
u/ThrowItNTheTrashPile Jan 23 '23
Sometimes in these scenarios I wonder if removing people with experience and knowledge is part of the intent. Like if you’re making a bunch of sweeping changes to a company that you already know will be unpopular with tenured employees and likely to face pushback (since we know for a fact a lot of these changes are bullshit ones made purely to line exec and shareholder pockets and to keep driving exponential grown for the next quarter while not looking at any of the long term consequences).
If you have a bunch of people who haven’t been with the company for more than a few months then nobody knows how shitty everything is in comparison to what used to be following the unnecessary or undermining changes made. Once employees see how much better things used to be you often encounter complaints and morale issues because a declining quality workplace can only be met with frustration by those who remember the better times IMO. Less critics in the crowd keep more employees complacent and in line with the new narrative and help prevent word spreading around with how incompetent management has become. So a company like Google can coast on their reputation and employee ignorance to the building burning around them.
With a company like Google also you have to imagine anyone with 20+ years in the company remembers how much less evil, soulless and profit driven the company used to be. And now it’s a shell of its former self that literally removed don’t be evil from its own internal policy system lol. So having anyone point that out is probably detrimental to employee morale. So fire the replaceable IT person with some desperate wage slave college grad or visa holder and try to pretend everything is still great. “Ooooh ping pong table in the conference room?? This place is sooo cool and modern.”→ More replies (5)→ More replies (45)
u/caguru Jan 23 '23
I don’t know what you consider traditional industries but I have a lot of family in oil and gas, and they lay-off people and cancel projects with any market fluctuation. I would say more so than any tech company.→ More replies (5)
u/Friendofabook Jan 23 '23
While I understand the sentiment, experienced senior tech people, specialized in that one thing you need, is among the toughest things to replace. Not a lot of jobs come close to the competence needed unless you are a top neurosurgeon. Being a top senior tech guy at Google in their AI RnD department you are close to one of a kind. Not many other fields can compete with the level of skill, life long education, dedication and pure experience needes for it.→ More replies (11)
u/caguru Jan 23 '23 edited Jan 23 '23
As a former top engineer in another tech company i disagree. All big projects have an at least a handful of senior engineers and at least one principal. Getting rid of a couple of top engineers only makes a short term impact. No major tech company really builds lone silos of knowledge anymore that I know of for any meaningful project. That’s how things were 15 years ago but I haven’t seen it in a long while.
Edit: being a little more vague→ More replies (1)
u/shiroboi Jan 23 '23
We run a small business. We have about 15 employees and at least a dozen contractors. After a few years or sometimes months, they come and go. We think we treat our employees good. Paid vacations, lots of holidays, a 3 day company party to the beach where we give out prizes like refrigerators and gold necklaces, competitive pay and generous bonuses.
But as much as I want to emotionally connect with the employees like friends and family, it bites me in the ass every time. One of our favorite employees just quit right after getting his bonus. He got a more prestigious position (with less pay). I'm happy for him but at the same time, it's heartbreaking.
And if I had 1,000 employees, forget about it. Management barely knows your name. It's not that they don't want to care. They can't. It's literally impossible for this juggernaut of a company like google to know and care about you on a personal level.
But by the same token, it's naive for a company to think that employees are truly loyal and have the best interests of the company at heart.
→ More replies (33)
u/WhoDat_Sa3VuS Jan 23 '23
Wow 👏 consider yourself one of the last people on the planet to figure this out.
u/therealmeal Jan 23 '23
"This also just drives home that work is not your life, and employers — especially big, faceless ones like Google — see you as 100% disposable," Moore wrote in the post.
Seems like this person understood it well already. But they didn't end up quoted in a "news" story until now.
u/BlackwaterSleeper Jan 23 '23
You probably should read the article and what the dude actually said, cause it doesn’t read like that at all.→ More replies (11)
u/saltyhasp Jan 23 '23
Love it when "indispensable" people find they are just like everyone else. Probably lot of people at Google in that bubble.
u/jasnel Jan 23 '23
The graveyards are full of indispensable men.→ More replies (1)
u/Reelix Jan 23 '23
indispensable - AKA - We could afford to do it without sacrificing that persons life, but it's 3% more expensive.→ More replies (26)
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Jan 23 '23
There are some "indispensable" people, even in tech. It's usually people who work with legacy systems though. Shit nobody really knows anymore, and shit nobody is learning. Even then they're not 100% untouchable, just mroe safe than others.
The problem is "indispensable" also means "unpromotable". If you're too valuable to let go, you're too valuable to move up.→ More replies (2)
u/-byb- Jan 23 '23
you've got to be in some kind of entitled bubble to assume corporations won't act in their own best interest before its employees
u/AndyTheSane Jan 23 '23
Well, they don't always act i their own interests. In the 1980s downsizing craze, a lot of IT people were made redundant, only for the corporations to belatedly realize that they'd just got rid of all of their institutional knowledge, and had to get people back as consultants for multiples of their previous salary.
I sometimes think there's a kind of equilibrium. Management and MBAs who assume that 'all engineers are equal and just a commodity' will inevitably under-value or just forget about things like institutional knowledge and tend to fire too many people.. then there comes a gradual realisation that perhaps keeping people who know how things work is useful so there are fewer layoffs.. which is forgotten about after a decade or so, and the cycle restarts.→ More replies (5)
u/ESCAPE_PLANET_X Jan 23 '23
There's another side I've been seeing. It can be really hard to see who's actually important to the process and who's just really good at looking like they are important to the process. Shockingly difficult without process specific knowledge and being part of "boots on the ground" for a lot of systems.
This slashing behavior can (counter to intuition) save you money. Assuming you don't really fuck things up in the process. Yes you fired three engineers and hired one back at 3x. But his salary is now Opex, and it's much clearer to management who's actually keeping the ship afloat. (At least for the time being)
u/bedake Jan 23 '23
This is why I feel like engineers need to be peer reviewed instead of top down reviewed by managers or possibly some kind of combination. Our company just went through a re-org, my previous team i was trying to get a promotion but was being unrecognized for work accomplishments by my boss. After the re-org, i was placed on a new team and was immediately promoted as they saw my competencies and familiarity with our systems was actually greater than the senior leaders on this new team and i was leading discussions and solutions. On this new team, i have also noticed there are members that have been with the company significantly longer than myself and appear to be utterly incapable of doing any work outside the tiny little niche they are familiar with. I'm finally seeing how low performers can squeek by undetected and basically last years at a company without any meaningful work.→ More replies (2)
u/jjseven Jan 23 '23 edited Jan 23 '23
Precisely that: knowing who is valuable and who is not in a large organization is not straightforward.
From that are some lines of thought: first, Price's Law generally holds, that is, relatively few contribute the majority of value produced in any organization with it being more marked in the larger groups; second, that the C-suite is not exempt from that observation; and, three, that studies have suggested that a truly random selection of employees chosen for separation could improve the outcome.
Too often, layoffs are a knee jerk reaction to what exists or what is thought will soon exist. It is a general lack of creativity or foresight. (Recall Price's Law and the C-suite.) An article about layoffs in the HBR talks about some of pitfalls of the executives not thinking through layoffs.→ More replies (18)
u/kavien Jan 23 '23
Well, dude DID manage to stay for 16 years. That is kinda impressive.→ More replies (7)
u/Tigris_Morte Jan 23 '23
All business sees staff as 100% disposable. You are not Family. You are not valued. You are not going to be taken care of nor rewarded, unless they have no choice.
→ More replies (20)
u/Squidsoda Jan 23 '23
Wait till he finds out ageism also exists
→ More replies (10)
u/AnnaLovesBobo Jan 23 '23
I’m thinking they’re going to have a hard time finding a job with equivalent pay→ More replies (3)
u/CidO807 Jan 23 '23
After 16 years at alphabet, dude is probably financially set. Just retire at that point, or do a passion project/ small company gig.→ More replies (1)
u/Bargadiel Jan 23 '23
The sad part is a lot of people really ARE looking for purpose in life and want to feel like a part of a healthy work culture and take pride in their work. Many companies will do layoffs like this, then complain that nobody wants to take ownership of their work/be productive.
If you truly want to build a positive work culture and have passionate, creative, and productive workers...you can't pump and dump with over-hiring just to make billions of dollars in a 2 year period, then lay everyone off before subsequently complaining about a lack of workforce.
When these layoffs happen, upper-level executives at these tech giants show off crocodile tears when reporters come to them, but are wealthier than they've ever been and simply do not care about anyone but themselves.
→ More replies (1)
u/getitreddit1 Jan 23 '23
Fkn hell mate. That’s what a corporation is. Psychopathic by proxy.
→ More replies (14)
u/Cheap_Blacksmith66 Jan 23 '23
ALL EMPLOYERS SEE YOU THIS WAY. We owe them absolutely nothing.
→ More replies (1)
u/vacuous_comment Jan 23 '23
Of course they do and they always did.
As tech was in an expansionist phase, they could keep hiring and growing and were flush with cash.
Once this sector reaches some form of equilibrium in the marketplace this will change.
They had a little bump during COVID because lots of people spent a lot of time online at home while remote working, but that is gone now and all of a sudden google is just another company in a saturated marketplace.
→ More replies (1)
Jan 23 '23
→ More replies (3)
u/formerNPC Jan 23 '23
As a union member with a no layoff clause in my contract, this is the only way to go. Companies will spend millions to stop their workers from forming a union and the reasons are obvious. Tech companies offered useless perks instead of job security and made themselves out to be worker friendly and all the while they knew that they would sacrifice their employees for their own bottom line and bonuses.
→ More replies (1)
u/Killersavage Jan 23 '23
There was a woman I worked with at a bank who was there 32 years. All she wanted was to work the office closest to her house. She made this very well known. Every time they relocated her they moved her further and further from her house. Until finally it was just one relocation too far and she decided to retire. There were other ways that they had screwed with her also that my memory is foggy on. In any case 32 years and that bank gave zero fucks whatsoever. That was a large chunk of that woman’s adult life she gave to them and it meant zero. When it comes to these corporations and large businesses you don’t owe them shit either. As soon as anything becomes inconvenient or less beneficial for you it is time to find another employer. Work hard and do well for your own satisfaction that is all good. Do your best to not a business squeeze more out of you than is equitable. You are very unlikely to see a return on it.
u/Daimakku1 Jan 23 '23 •
At the end of the day, employment is a business transaction. Don’t ever believe this “we’re all family here” BS. You are there to make money, and so are they. That’s it.