Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_j8edlhu wrote

Reply to comment by Justice4Ned in Twilio to lay off about 1,500 employees, or 17% of its workforce by ChocolateTsar

Some companies are doing it because they just want to do it. E.g Google, Meta, and Amazon. These companies have literal piles of cash but they would hide behind "stock is falling" to let people go.

47

4_teh_lulz t1_j8empyl wrote

Just because they have cash reserves doesnt mean they should hold on to employees. Employee headcount should match the size of the needs of the business.

41

bubba-yo t1_j8h7xkp wrote

Yeah, but it used to be if you were rolling those profits, you'd rely more on attrition to bring your staffing back in line and hold onto those employees you had already invested in. Hiring and releasing isn't cheap. You have good people, you work hard to hold onto them.

9

[deleted] t1_j8enkjl wrote

[deleted]

−11

pyrophire t1_j8eob20 wrote

Because its easier to throw more people at projects, than sort out lower performers.

When theres a want to reduce head count, then they can go look at lower performers and drop them.

27

red_dawn t1_j8evjxd wrote

Yep. Many times I saw a ‘Throw bodies at the problem’ band-aid instead of a proper ‘Let’s figure out why this problem is happening and come to a solution’ resolution with deficiencies.

Supports survey metrics tanked due to poor training and documentation or just flat out lazy teammates? Let’s put more bodies on the front line to offset it.

Did that fix it? No. You have more bad surveys because you now have MORE poorly trained people.

Tech debt/bug riddled code? Let’s throw more people at it. Surely more cooks in the kitchen will solve it. Not reviewing the problem and identifying where fixes need to be made.

Customers aren’t buying our software? More salespeople. Nothing to do with throwing everything and the kitchen sink into the initial package or their account teams now blowing them off since they got their commission. Now clients use 10% of the things you sold them and have no need for the other products…but your looking for the next thing to have them cut a check for?

It may be different at other companies but that’s what I saw at the one I was at before moving on.

15

dopef123 t1_j8h2cdv wrote

Because the economy was going up And tech was killing it because of all the demand from people doing work and school from home.

I work in tech and as frustrating as layoffs are they're part of the deal.

The average tech worker is finding a new job in 3 months. Many are also getting large severance packages. You don't really need to feel bad for us.

I make almost 200k and I wfh 3x days a week. Feel bad for people getting shitty wages and commuting not us

1

Butterykrisp t1_j8fhm7w wrote

Also, keeping talent to themselves so competitors can’t hire them might also be a reason.

0

4_teh_lulz t1_j8epna1 wrote

It's not inhumane. It is business.

They hired them in the first place because they poorly projected their revenues post-pandemic. Now they're correcting. If they hold on to these employees they risk putting the entire business at risk, which would be a far bigger disaster. That would un-employ everyone, not just a fraction of their workforce.

−3

ErnestT_bass t1_j8f3h49 wrote

I was contacted by a recruiter from meta asking if I was interested In a position they thought I would be a good fit...

Fk now you just literally announced layoffs.. WTF

6

BurstEDO t1_j8gtonu wrote

Yes and no.

Yes. They're trimming labor to adapt to a cooling economy and possible recession.

No; the rest of your speculation is financial illiterate.

The firms (large and small) trimming labor are doing so because so many others are as well, whether they need to or or not.

But "having cash reserves on hand" has no bearing on that. Publicly traded companies are not operated like your bank account.

−5