←back to thread

Googler... ex-Googler

(nerdy.dev)
974 points namukang | 4 comments | 11 Apr 25 20:19 UTC | HN request time: 0.687s | source
Show context
ivraatiems ◴[12 Apr 25 03:57 UTC] No.43661224[source]▶
The reality of one's lack of value to one's own employer is often baffling. It makes you wonder how anyone manages to stay employed at all, since apparently everyone is replicable and unimportant. I have been through layoffs where other people on my team, doing the same job I did approximately as well, got laid off. No explanation given for why them and not me. And it could happen to me at any time.

It doesn't matter how good my evals are or how big my contributions. It doesn't matter that there are multiple multi-million-dollar revenue streams which exist in large part due to my contributions. It doesn't matter that I have been told I am good enough that I should be promoted to the next level. Raises barely exist, let alone promotions. Because theoretically some other engineer could have done the same work I actually did, the fact that I'm the one who did it doesn't matter and I deserve no reward for doing it beyond the minimum money necessary to secure my labor.

Under those conditions, why should I - or anyone - do any more than the minimum necessary to not get fired for cause? If the company doesn't see me as more than X dollars for X revenue, why should I?

replies(10): >>43661523 #>>43662032 #>>43662738 #>>43664956 #>>43678264 #>>43678520 #>>43678568 #>>43678789 #>>43679236 #>>43684555 #
weinzierl ◴[12 Apr 25 07:01 UTC] No.43662032[source]▶
"I have been through layoffs where other people on my team, doing the same job I did approximately as well, got laid off. No explanation given for why them and not me. And it could happen to me at any time."

Usually there is a hidden variable that you don't know. It is your salary. That is why it sometimes looks surprising when senior roles are cut that look extremely valuable to the company from the outset. Maybe they were that valuable but still deemed to expensive.

replies(3): >>43662979 #>>43664978 #>>43669058 #
marcusb ◴[13 Apr 25 00:30 UTC] No.43669058[source]▶
> Usually there is a hidden variable that you don't know.

This is frequently the case. I've worked at big employers (comparable in level of corporate-ness to Google if not absolute size) where the layoff process, roughly was:

1. Aggregate layoff target gets set and apportioned amongst functional leaders, then targets cascaded down to the line manager level.

2. Managers fill out a stack ranking spreadsheet for their team across a few metrics including a boolean "diversity" field[0]. There were many rumors about the "diversity field", most notably that anyone so flagged would not be fired, but so far as I could tell these were false (see point #4)

3. People to be fired are developed based on these lists (I.e., if a manager has to fire two people, then the two lowest-ranked employees per the spreadsheet are selected.)

4. HR does a meta-analysis of all to-be-fired employees, ensuring that a disproportionate number of employees from protected classes are not impacted. If too many are, then some of the next-lowest-ranked employees are selected to be fired in their stead.

As far as I could tell, the only part of the process where any sort of individual, human consideration was occurring was maybe at the line manager level if they decided to tweak the stack rankings based on who they felt deserved to be protected. And then, to the extent that happens, you have all the problems with bias and favoritism that come into play.

0 - I realize this is probably controversial, but I saw it with my own eyes.

replies(2): >>43669464 #>>43678135 #
ricardobeat ◴[13 Apr 25 02:07 UTC] No.43669464[source]▶
For some perspective, the bulk of this is simply illegal in the Netherlands, likely other countries in the EU as well:

- layoff plans must be communicated ahead of time. Minimum 30 days notice, usually much more

- Needs to be negotiated with worker representatives (works council, syndicate if there is one)

- LIFO principle for layoffs, newest employees are let go first. Stack ranking not possible

- Any kind of discrimination is forbidden

- At a minimum, you get 2 months pay + accrued holidays

It's baffling to imagine that you could learn about your job disappearing from one day to the next, and be immediately left out in the cold.

replies(5): >>43669660 #>>43671097 #>>43672015 #>>43678220 #>>43678767 #
1. lurking_swe ◴[13 Apr 25 08:28 UTC] No.43671097[source]▶
it’s also a bit baffling that someone who’s been at the company longer than myself could have an advantage simply for being born before me, or for applying before me.

Is work performance not a key deciding factor? One could argue that’s absurd.

I don’t think the way it’s done in the U.S. is “right”, but i don’t think what you listed is right either.

replies(2): >>43671369 #>>43671753 #
2. lazide ◴[13 Apr 25 09:22 UTC] No.43671369[source]▶
Seniority based systems are ‘I got mine, f u’ or ‘politics in action’ depending on how you look at it.

More senior employees have usually figured out how to get leverage on the employer over time.

Non-seniority are usually ‘cheapest is best’, or ‘do what I say, or else’.

Both have pros and cons for everyone involved. There is always some system though, even if it’s emergent.

3. ricardobeat ◴[13 Apr 25 10:33 UTC] No.43671753[source]▶
Layoffs are for companies to reduce the size of their workforce and lower operating costs, skill distribution remains the same – there are various exceptions to ensure this.

If some employees are underperforming they should already be on their way out. That also is a process protected by law (no at-will employment here), otherwise layoffs would just be an excuse to expedite firings without going through the necessary steps. In short, being employed assumes you can perform at a satisfactory level, which makes sense to me. The flipside is that hiring is a much bigger commitment as people are not disposable.

Voluntary severance packages are usually offered ahead of layoffs, and include compensation based on years worked, so things can balance out a little.

The whole regulations are more about the social impact. Younger employees have an easier time re-arranging their lives and finding new jobs, are less likely to apply for welfare, and still have time left to switch careers, so this benefits everyone.

replies(1): >>43678954 #
4. bryanrasmussen ◴[14 Apr 25 07:36 UTC] No.43678954[source]▶
>Layoffs are for companies to reduce the size of their workforce and lower operating costs, skill distribution remains the same – there are various exceptions to ensure this.

But since this subthread is discussing LIFO layoffs, the problem is that generally the last in is also the lowest paid - not always of course - but if so it means that to hit your operating cost point you might need to reduce more people than you would if you could pick and choose.