←back to thread

161 points unsnap_biceps | 8 comments | | HN request time: 0.825s | source | bottom
Show context
jonas21 ◴[] No.42894769[source]
This seems like a pretty bold and employee-friendly move. Google recently merged two large divisions, so there's going to be some redundancy. Most companies would resolve this with a layoff, but it sounds like they're trying a buyout at the request of their employees. From the article:

> Some employees at Google have recently been circulating a petition that calls for CEO Sundar Pichai to offer exactly this type of optional buyout before resorting to involuntary layoffs. “Ongoing rounds of layoffs make us feel insecure about our jobs,” the petition said, according to CNBC.

Conventional wisdom is that with voluntary buyouts, high-performing employees who have the most options will leave and lower-performing employees will stay.

We'll see how it turns out.

replies(6): >>42894834 #>>42894883 #>>42895044 #>>42895095 #>>42895826 #>>42896579 #
1. 0xbadcafebee ◴[] No.42894834[source]
If I'm a highly-paid, high-performing employee, I'm not walking away from a big paycheck and lots of clout. If I was a middling employee without a big paycheck, looking at the prospect of months of job searching once I get laid off, I'd take the buyout and use it to start searching full time.
replies(5): >>42894914 #>>42894950 #>>42895022 #>>42895030 #>>42895119 #
2. refulgentis ◴[] No.42894914[source]
The trick is knowing you're in the second group (and conveniently, this came roughly a week after everyone got their performance review results)
3. JKCalhoun ◴[] No.42894950[source]
Seems like the opposite happens. The high-performing employee is getting unsolicited job offers all the time — can skip off to a higher salary somewhere else. Middling employee knows a bird in the hand when they see it.
replies(1): >>42895054 #
4. strunz ◴[] No.42895022[source]
You may think Google cares about your performance but when the involuntary layoffs come, it's the highest earners who are first cut. Google is hoping the high earners leave because that saves the most money. There is no long/term thought here, it's short-sighted stock bumps from a company already rolling in money.
5. deadmutex ◴[] No.42895030[source]
Also, for a lot of people working on hardware, the alternatives aren't great. Big Tech players like Apple, Meta, Amazon, etc. all have downsides. Startsups are extremely risky, and don't pay employees as well (ex: Humane, Rabbit, Peleton, etc.)

A slightly better story for those working on software (e.g. Google Photos App or Backend). They have more options, but relatively good jobs (high pay, flexibility, great coworkers non-crazy hours, etc.) as still hard to come by. They exist, but not sure about the quantity.

6. epicureanideal ◴[] No.42895054[source]
Theoretically, but in practice I'm not sure recruiters or other companies can tell the difference between a high performer and a mid-performer.
replies(1): >>42895145 #
7. Karrot_Kream ◴[] No.42895119[source]
Why?

I was an early hire at a company that became a Big Tech in this position and I left even without a buyout. Well compensated employees might not be top 1% rich but they're usually wealthy enough to find a different shop and tolerate some risk while living comfortably. I found over time that my peers at Big Tech became way too disinterested in making things and more interested in corporate politics or maximizing compensation for unit effort spent. If I had been offered a buyout I would have taken it in a heartbeat.

(Consequently, when I read these threads I'm reminded of my good fortune of building my career in Silicon Valley. The kind of work environment I like is hard enough to find in the Valley but would have been impossible to find outside.)

8. tracerbulletx ◴[] No.42895145{3}[source]
I agree, they can't, unless we're talking like true experts in a field. Which is a very small % of the people.