←back to thread

Microsoft to Cut 9k Workers in Second Wave of Major Layoffs

(www.bloomberg.com)
209 points htrp | 1 comments | 02 Jul 25 13:26 UTC | HN request time: 0.199s | source
Show context
idkwhattocallme ◴[02 Jul 25 15:02 UTC] No.44444622[source]▶
For the most part, I'm indifferent to layoffs. Companies over hire and then course correct. It's part of the game. But for MSFT, it rubs me the wrong way. In the past 5 years, their stock has soared (150% on stock and doubled in valuation). They are insanely profitable ($82B profit). They are diverse (no existential business risk). The fact that they are unceremoniously laying off 30K of the people that helped them get there drives home it's just a paycheck, do your job, but know it can and will end when convenient for the company. I know folks will argue, low performers, but really. This "productivity apps" company hired them, onboarded them, made $82B in profit, surely they can figure out how to uplevel folks. Also how do you have a layoff every couple of months for 3 years. Thinking about the middle class in the previous generation, it was unions that effectively ensured a labor job meant a secure future. I wonder if that's the solution (again).
replies(22): >>44444692 #>>44444744 #>>44444872 #>>44445007 #>>44445352 #>>44445600 #>>44445621 #>>44445705 #>>44445722 #>>44445743 #>>44445758 #>>44445853 #>>44445888 #>>44446540 #>>44446696 #>>44447236 #>>44447339 #>>44447678 #>>44447824 #>>44452199 #>>44452368 #>>44457573 #
toomuchtodo ◴[02 Jul 25 16:01 UTC] No.44445352[source]▶
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_and_unions

I know, I know, "union bad." I guess people will say that until all that is left is a person to watch the Machine, and a dog to bite the person if they touch the Machine. Or all the jobs are offshored to the cheapest labor on the globe.

replies(3): >>44445538 #>>44445640 #>>44457676 #
sokoloff ◴[02 Jul 25 16:17 UTC] No.44445538[source]▶
10 unions was evidently not enough to avoid this outcome. Perhaps if it went to 11, it would be “unions good”?
replies(1): >>44445627 #
toomuchtodo ◴[02 Jul 25 16:24 UTC] No.44445627[source]▶
It took us decades to get to this outcome (since the Reagan era), I assume it'll take decades to get out of it. Mental models are rigid, progress occurs one funeral time (Max Planck), ~2M people 55+ in the US age out every year (~5k per day), so the opportunity is with young folks who will or already are in the workforce, etc. It ain't happening overnight.

Solutions such as "try harder," "be more lucky," or "just find another job" are...not very actionable when you consider that ~60% of Americans cannot afford a basic quality of life and the current labor macro.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/what-you-need-to-kn...

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/12/majoritie...

https://news.gallup.com/poll/510281/unions-strengthening.asp...

https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Labor-Unions-And-...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_Sta...

(i am once again asking you to think in systems)

replies(1): >>44445788 #
sokoloff ◴[02 Jul 25 16:38 UTC] No.44445788[source]▶
If someone wants to work in a union shop, they can choose a job that is unionized or try to unionize their current/next workplace.

People who don’t want to work for a union shop should have the same amount of voice as people who do (1 vote per employee). I think unions have struggled to gain traction because it’s obvious that they cost money to run (which is fine and proper) but it’s not obvious that that expense pays off for the typical member. If a median tech worker pays $1300-2600/yr in dues (1-2% of median salary), I think it’s reasonable for them to expect more than that on a net-present-value basis.

Plenty of people are strong advocates; plenty are strong detractors; I suspect that a well-run union (efficient in its own ops and partnering effectively for the long-term health of the company and its union members) would be good on balance and also fairly “under the radar” making it hard to know how good it actually was.

replies(3): >>44445820 #>>44446439 #>>44457734 #
1. Konnstann ◴[02 Jul 25 17:27 UTC] No.44446439[source]▶
When I first started my current job I was upset that I'd have to pay $20/paycheck to get some unknown level of benefits, which comes out to around $500/year but all I had to do to understand the benefit was compare my health insurance premium to someone working a non-union gig for the same employer and realize that they're paying a way higher percentage of the monthly premium than I was. Not to mention that the union provides guaranteed unemployment benefits if you get laid off and help finding jobs, transportation funds, childcare funds, and guaranteed me a salary increase this year when the employer has declared a freeze on raises for non-union positions. I agree there should be more advertising on the part of the union with regards to benefits but they are pretty obvious if you do any reading.

A lot of the benefits my union provides might not matter to the average HN user making $X00,000/yr though so who knows?