Most active commenters
  • scarface_74(7)
  • ryandrake(4)
  • piva00(3)

←back to thread

Googler... ex-Googler

(nerdy.dev)
975 points namukang | 20 comments | 11 Apr 25 20:19 UTC | HN request time: 2.474s | source | bottom
Show context
abdj8 ◴[14 Apr 25 05:08 UTC] No.43678249[source]▶
Layoffs are a difficult thing for employees and their managers. I have seen people (one was a VP of Engineering) escorted out of the building, sent in a cab to home along with a security guard (this was in India), not allowed access to computer or talk with other employees. But, recently have had a very different experience. The current company I work for announced 30% layoffs. The list was made public within one hour of announcement. The CEO detailed the process of selecting people. The severance was very generous (3-6 months pay) along with health and other benefits. The impacted employees were allowed to keep the laptop and any other assets they took from the company. They even paid the same severance to contractors.

After the announcement, the laid off employees were given a few days in the company to allow them to say good byes. I love the CEOs comment on this ' I trusted them yesterday, I trust them today'. This was by far the kindest way of laying off employees imo. People were treated with dignity and respect.

replies(18): >>43678291 #>>43678464 #>>43678562 #>>43678693 #>>43678739 #>>43678898 #>>43679191 #>>43679316 #>>43679496 #>>43680833 #>>43680865 #>>43680993 #>>43681111 #>>43681356 #>>43681653 #>>43681730 #>>43681941 #>>43682960 #
apexalpha ◴[14 Apr 25 06:20 UTC] No.43678562[source]▶
Weird, as someone from Europe I've never experience anything else.

Layoffs here are always done in conjunction with the unions. People are moved to different jobs, helped with training etc...

Only in very critical jobs they'd walk you out immediately but then you still get the pay.

replies(16): >>43678588 #>>43678595 #>>43678619 #>>43678634 #>>43678662 #>>43678680 #>>43678811 #>>43678984 #>>43679117 #>>43679189 #>>43679718 #>>43679848 #>>43679924 #>>43681489 #>>43681924 #>>43692198 #
asadalt ◴[14 Apr 25 06:29 UTC] No.43678595[source]▶
that’s very business hostile tbh. I wouldn’t start a company there.
replies(7): >>43678601 #>>43678620 #>>43678624 #>>43679011 #>>43679087 #>>43679610 #>>43682229 #
1. ryandrake ◴[14 Apr 25 06:36 UTC] No.43678624[source]▶
Treating people with dignity is “business hostile”… welcome to Hacker News comment section.
replies(3): >>43678701 #>>43678842 #>>43680041 #
2. piva00 ◴[14 Apr 25 07:13 UTC] No.43678826[source]▶
Plans change, and so they should be communicated and negotiated with the employees going to be affected by the change. It's the dignified way of doing it, people are people, not fungible commodities, treat them as people and unions won't be an issue at all.

> unions are just corporate blackmailing.

This is such an absurdly ignorant take that is hard to start educating you, it also depends a lot on what society you live in since your view on unions will be tainted by what you see in it.

In places like the Nordics, unions are one of the cornerstones of a free labour market, look up how Sweden has a freer labour market than the USA to learn something at least :)

replies(1): >>43678947 #
3. izietto ◴[14 Apr 25 07:15 UTC] No.43678842[source]▶
It's more like "welcome to US mindset" IMHO
replies(1): >>43683677 #
4. Majestic121 ◴[14 Apr 25 07:34 UTC] No.43678947{3}[source]▶
I don't even disagree with you, but your way of argumenting is terrible and actively deterring people from your point that union are a core component of a healthy free market.

If your point is to score virtue point, keep at it, but if you actually want to change anyone mind, avoid terms like "is hard to start educating you", it just makes you sound like a douche

replies(1): >>43678974 #
5. piva00 ◴[14 Apr 25 07:39 UTC] No.43678974{4}[source]▶
I was being very honest, it is hard to start educating someone coming from that position since there is so much bullshit wrapped around a statement like "unions are just corporate blackmailing" which is hard to pull apart without knowing how the person came to that conclusion.

I don't even think it's possible to change someone's mind who already think that way, since it's purely from a point of absolute ignorance and I'm not willing to put enough effort to cite literature that could give them good starting points to understand something they are very likely not even willing to start understanding. They have a lazy position, I reply lazily.

They have an ideological position, based on ignorance, and from a single statement it's pretty clear they aren't curious and willing to change their mind.

Hence why I cite to look into how unions work in the Nordics, at least that is a starting point if they want to learn more about labour movements. It takes someone being curious though.

In the end, it was absolutely honest: it is hard to start educating someone who holds that position a priori and based on pure ignorance, and if not ignorance it's maliciousness, there's not much of a spectrum in this case.

6. scarface_74 ◴[14 Apr 25 11:11 UTC] No.43680041[source]▶
I work for a paycheck. I can’t exchange “dignity” for goods and services. The guy got paid nice compensation for his labor.
replies(1): >>43683262 #
7. ryandrake ◴[14 Apr 25 16:47 UTC] No.43683262[source]▶
Therefore, let's throw everything non-monetary under the bus because work should be purely transactional?
replies(1): >>43683457 #
8. scarface_74 ◴[14 Apr 25 17:05 UTC] No.43683457{3}[source]▶
What else should it be? Do you believe that your company is like “your family”? Your coworkers or especially your manager are “your friends”?

Why else do you go to work?

replies(2): >>43684526 #>>43685410 #
9. asadalt ◴[14 Apr 25 17:19 UTC] No.43683677[source]▶
This mindset is what moves us forward. Union of soft nations don’t add much these days.
replies(1): >>43691942 #
10. ryandrake ◴[14 Apr 25 18:27 UTC] No.43684526{4}[source]▶
I don't believe my office is my family, but I expect to at least be treated with a baseline level of decency, civility, dignity, respect, and kindness, which are non-monetary and (by my reading of your post) unnecessary in your office full of Vulcans.

The fact that these things are seen as optional and unimportant explains a lot of what's happened to public discourse.

replies(1): >>43685452 #
11. grudg3 ◴[14 Apr 25 19:42 UTC] No.43685410{4}[source]▶
You're taking "Human resources" a bit too literally.
replies(1): >>43685484 #
12. scarface_74 ◴[14 Apr 25 19:46 UTC] No.43685452{5}[source]▶
Was it indecent for Google to lay someone off, remove all access and give him 16 weeks of severance + two additional weeks for each year of service?
replies(1): >>43685870 #
13. scarface_74 ◴[14 Apr 25 19:48 UTC] No.43685484{5}[source]▶
We are resources. The one Big Tech company I have worked for has 1.556 million employees. What else was I besides a “resource”?
replies(1): >>43688264 #
14. ryandrake ◴[14 Apr 25 20:19 UTC] No.43685870{6}[source]▶
I didn't say anything about Google.
replies(1): >>43685894 #
15. scarface_74 ◴[14 Apr 25 20:21 UTC] No.43685894{7}[source]▶
The submitted article was about Google…
16. int_19h ◴[15 Apr 25 01:54 UTC] No.43688264{6}[source]▶
It's not a binary between "we are family" and "we are resources", it's a spectrum.

In your case, yes, you were absolutely a resource. This is exactly why companies of that size simply shouldn't exist - because they cannot not treat their employees as resources, with all the inhumanity this implies.

replies(1): >>43688665 #
17. scarface_74 ◴[15 Apr 25 03:13 UTC] No.43688665{7}[source]▶
Yes because a small company could deliver a national same day shipping infrastructure and worldwide network of cloud servers including its own undersead cables.

And again, work is a transaction. I’m perfectly fine with being treated as a resource when I was getting a quarter million a year and working remotely…

replies(1): >>43688759 #
18. int_19h ◴[15 Apr 25 03:35 UTC] No.43688759{8}[source]▶
I'm okay with not having same day shipping if this means that companies don't have to treat their employees like dirt.

But, more importantly, a company that large is simply too much concentrated economic power (which then translates to political power). Even if it was all just robots, I'd still say no. Our political system is in shambles in large part because of these kinds of entities.

replies(1): >>43688861 #
19. scarface_74 ◴[15 Apr 25 04:00 UTC] No.43688861{9}[source]▶
So exactly what “power” does Amazon have over your life?

Our politics is in shambles because of religious nutcases, anti science, anti intellectuals, who are afraid of the country becoming majority-minority and straight out racism and bitterness.

Amazon has nothing to do with that.

20. piva00 ◴[15 Apr 25 12:48 UTC] No.43691942{3}[source]▶
Define "forward".