←back to thread

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

(www.bloomberg.com)
209 points htrp | 5 comments | 02 Jul 25 13:26 UTC | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
stego-tech ◴[02 Jul 25 16:43 UTC] No.44445853[source]▶
> 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).

It is, and they are. It’s why Reagan fired ATC strikers and blackballed them. It’s why private enterprise stockpiled machine guns and chemical weapons against strikers back in the Gilded Age. It’s why companies will spend billions to block Unions rather than just give workers the few million or so more they need over a decade to just maintain a standard of living. It’s why they’ll close down stores, warehouses, offshore jobs and outsource to contractors to penalize Unions.

Unions are a direct response to the inequality of Capital allocation and distribution.

replies(2): >>44446002 #>>44446952 #
aydyn ◴[02 Jul 25 18:07 UTC] No.44446952[source]▶
Unions are not effective when there's such a surplus of labor and people willing to break lines. It wont work in today's tech labor market.
replies(4): >>44447366 #>>44448020 #>>44449626 #>>44457592 #
silisili ◴[02 Jul 25 19:46 UTC] No.44448020[source]▶
Sure it would. There are way more employed tech people than unemployed. Imagine if every single person at a company like MS up and went on strike tomorrow.

Could MS replace them all with scabs? Sure, with enough time and money. But it wouldn't happen overnight, and things would get very dire if not company ruining in the meantime.

replies(2): >>44449647 #>>44451103 #
1. billy99k ◴[03 Jul 25 02:37 UTC] No.44451103[source]▶
With remote work? good luck. Unions only work where all the work is localized.

I'm in tech and I would never join a union. Why do I need collective bargaining to set my salary (and not give me raise until it's collectively raised) when I can bargain for my own raises?

In addition to this, unions don't bode well for innovation and technology. Look at the Taxicab unions. We could only get a cab in person or through the phone, because the unions had no incentive to innovate. It look a non-union startup to push them to actually make it convenient and better for the customer.

replies(2): >>44451531 #>>44457626 #
2. ethbr1 ◴[03 Jul 25 04:04 UTC] No.44451531[source]▶
> Look at the Taxicab unions. We could only get a cab in person or through the phone, because the unions had no incentive to innovate. It look a non-union startup to push them to actually make it convenient and better for the customer.

OTOH, gig drivers are being paid below minimum wage, with no benefits, no retirement plan, and no stability of work.

As a customer, yay technology and UX! But as a human, it's objectively worse for society.

replies(1): >>44454215 #
3. billy99k ◴[03 Jul 25 12:14 UTC] No.44454215[source]▶
"OTOH, gig drivers are being paid below minimum wage, with no benefits, no retirement plan, and no stability of work."

Gig work is not supposed to be stable, have benefits, or retirement. It's supposed to be there for someone to make extra money. I know lots of people that used it to make extra money and now can't make anything because of new regulations.

If you wanted to drive a Taxi in NYC, it was a million dollar investment for a medallion and the whole system was a monopoly that shutdown any new advancements.

How was this better for humans or customers?

replies(1): >>44457653 #
4. johnnyanmac ◴[03 Jul 25 18:00 UTC] No.44457626[source]▶
I work in games. Salary is honestly fine for the most part, even if lower than traditional tech.

I just want to not be laid off every 3 years becsuse some executive wants numbers to look 1% better for shareholders. I'd gladly join a union that ensures there's proper warning for layoffs and proper payout if it goes through.

>Look at the Taxicab unions.

So you're complaining about regulation because unregulated tech was convinent for you for a few years? That thinking is how we got here.

5. johnnyanmac ◴[03 Jul 25 18:03 UTC] No.44457653{3}[source]▶
>How was this better for humans or customers?

The workers got paid, couldn't be laid off easily, and can make a career.

But i guess I see this line of thinking and see exactly how we got to trumpism. The current system has flaws and bad actors, let's instead burn it down and replace it with even worse actors who make all the money. Don't bother using anti trust or regulating the new industry, the old boogeyman ruined it.