this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2024
1096 points (98.7% liked)

People Twitter

5274 readers
862 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
1096
Layoff season (lemy.lol)
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by King@lemy.lol to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] hOrni@lemmy.world 99 points 10 months ago (9 children)

Da fuck is layoff season? Is that a real thing?

[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world 50 points 10 months ago (1 children)

As an American I have not heard of it either

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 9 points 10 months ago

First time I'm hearing of it and apparently I've already been infected.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 41 points 10 months ago

End of fiscal year, companies will sometimes do a round of layoffs to juice reports (e.g. lower ongoing costs expected for the next year). Some industries also ditch older (read: more highly paid) employees for a new batch of interns to keep average salaries down.

[–] Fermion@mander.xyz 39 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/01/1101505691/short-term-profits-and-long-term-consequences-did-jack-welch-break-capitalism

The CEO that managed to take GE from being the single most valuable technology company and turn it into a poorly performing stagnant mess popularized the idea of survival of the fittest within companies. He asserted that by cutting the bottom performers and even whole divisions regularly that it would leave a stronger, better company. He set targets to lay off the bottom 10% every year regardless of whether it was financially necessary.

In the short term, this strategy makes efficiency metrics look really good, and with good looking metrics, the stock goes up temporarily. However, there are major costs to layoffs that take months, years, and decades to materialize. Eventually, forced churn ruins the best of companies, from GE to IBM. Unfortunately, this management style is still incredibly popular amongst publicly traded companies. Most of the investors are willing to accept the eventual demise of a company if it means a decade of really good returns in the meantime.

[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 28 points 10 months ago

In addition to what you said, laying off the bottom 10% performers gives your employees a conflict of interest. Now it's better for them if their coworkers perform worse, and worse performing coworkers hurts the company. This may crop up in workers not helping each other out, or deliberately writing bad documentation.

[–] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's absolutely insane how big and important a company GE used to be compared to how trash they are now. Same with IBM, HP, Xerox, all those old tech companies. They didn't fall to pieces because the new generation were just better, they were killed from within.

GE, for example, built a bunch of our early nuclear reactors.

[–] Fermion@mander.xyz 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They weren't just great at technology, they were great to work for. My father worked for IBM in the 80's and again in the 2000's after they acquired the company he was working for. He said it was like two entirely different companies. The 80's IBM cared about family, work/life balance, generous healthcare, had a pension. They were an engineering company that could solve any technical problem their customers could come up with. By the 2000's IBM had become a sales and management company. They had software to give employees the bare minimum pay and benefits tailored to their zip code. They were succesfully sued for age discrimination. They successfully convinced my father that he had absolutely maxed out on salary amd would never make any more. His raises didn't even match 3% inflation. He was laid off in the 2010's after a decade and a half of exemplary performance.

Five years later his salary had doubled and he was loving working on novel projects again. It was wild too see how the corporate gaslighting had convinced him he didn't deserve any better and was just lucky to have his job when in reality he was majorly underpaid and had very valuable and unique hardware design expertise. Getting laid off sucked but turned out to be one of the best things that could have happened to him.

My uncle worked at HP for the majority of his career and watched a very similar decline.

If the suits take over your engineering company, it's time to start asking colleagues if their company is still engineering focused. Don't stick around for the decline.

[–] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 months ago

Man, i remember back when we called Google "the engineering company". Not anymore...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 19 points 10 months ago (3 children)

It is 100% a real thing. American tech companies go through this cycle where they over-hire (on purpose) and then later on they lay a bunch of people off to "cut costs" and appear "financially responsible". This is also easier to manage (if you're a lazy dipshit) because you don't need to worry about your exact headcount so much, you can adjust later if you have too many or too few people. (It also gives a good excuse to get rid of people you don't like but who would otherwise be very hard to fire.)

Investors eat that shit up.

Since companies tend to report earnings and things around the same time, companies engaging in this strategy all tend to lay people off at the same time.

Here's a page tracking this phenomenon.

[–] Surreal@programming.dev 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

All these companies playing the layoff game at the same time, destabilizing the lives of million of people and their family. Is there any report on the damage to the economy at a whole?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 18 points 10 months ago

I think that's a virtual "season", more like time period until market stabilizes enough not to throw away people just in order to show pretty graphs to shareholders

[–] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 9 points 10 months ago

It's also an election year, gotta keep everyone one their toes during our quadrennial Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich festival.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 7 points 10 months ago

My largish company has had layoffs at roughly the same time of year for the past few years. I think of it as a season. I think when it happens depends on upper management/board at each company.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 57 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I got a huge severance package after only 1 year at my company. That's because of labor laws im Canada. It equates to over a year in salary.

My US counterparts didn't get that, not sure if that 35% applies to the US, but if it does it's much more expensive everywhere else. And yeah, all this so it looks good on paper.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 20 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Labor laws vary by province and I don't know of any labor law that makes it an obligation to pay over a year of salary after a year of employment, the most probable reason you got that is the employment directives/your employment contract you had with your previous employer.

[–] RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (9 children)

It's the law in almost every Canadian province for collective layoffs. 50-100 people is like 8 weeks, then 100-200 is 12 weeks and 200 plus is 16 weeks, or something. It's on all the provinces labor law websites. My teammates in BC and Alberta got the same type of protections from what we discussed.

They had to pay out my stocks that would have vested if I kept my notice. Then because it was a mass layoff of more than a few hundred people they had to give me 16 weeks notice, plus my schedule and accrued vacation up until then and up until the notice period ends (in 16 weeks). Meaning the have to keep me on payroll with full benefits.

To sever that and entice me to hop off payroll and benefits, they gave me an addition 3 months pay. That gives me roughly my yearly salary.

Here is the law in Quebec

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] 000@fuck.markets 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

90 days is pretty standard in the US, at least with bigger companies that have to abide by the WARN Act

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca 51 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I’m in Canada and my bank sent out the annual layoff season email about how there is support for me (in the form of a high interest loan).

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 26 points 10 months ago

It's good to know they have your back(pocket).

[–] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 41 points 10 months ago (19 children)

Layoff season being thing should remind everyone why you should always do the minimum and why you should never have loyalty to an employer

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] stevehobbes@lemy.lol 31 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Yeah… that’s probably sometimes true. But I also work in a tech company and holy fuck do we have a lot of dead weight.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 40 points 10 months ago (3 children)

That's a management problem. Managers should be getting poor performers up to speed (or firing them). Dealing with it through layoffs juices the stock and makes investors think the company is LeAn

[–] stevehobbes@lemy.lol 12 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I think thats a (shocker) overly simplistic approach to the dynamic. Layoffs are never a good look - and we’ve had an unprecedented boom time in tech for the last 20 years.

Companies were hiring just so competitors couldn’t. That doesn’t really happen anymore outside of AI.

We had what felt like make-work jobs, some nice guy or gal that no one wanted to fire who was “involved” but literally not responsible for anything.

Broad layoffs in the industry gave everyone cover to make unpopular decisions because everyone is doing it.

I don’t think - at least the ones I saw directly - it was the wrong choice.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 7 points 10 months ago

Everything you described is still mismanagement.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] vexikron@lemmy.zip 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I agree with you but boy, here in America, employees are disposable assets, not potentially highly useful and reliable experts worth any kind of actually useful investment in or training.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 months ago

I know. And that's not how it should be. I've had the privilege/luck of working in orgs where my management actually gave a shit and tried to do the best by their employees. If someone is struggling we do our best to get them back to performing or find them a position that works. I don't think we've ever had to fire anyone.

Cutting an arbitrary 10% of people (or a few underperforming products) is absolute bullshit. It's unfair to the employees because it doesn't give them a chance to improve, and it's unfair to customers because stuff they rely on disappears.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately cuts don't usually target the dead weight. I've worked in IT consulting for a while now, and cuts to consultants is always the first step. Just across the board, companies slash their consulting budgets blindly. Most of the time, we are leaving behind company critical systems to be supported by the "dead weight" people that couldn't tell their ass from a hole in the ground.

I'm currently on an integrated team, meaning half our developers are consultants and half are regular employees. The consultants consistently put out significantly higher quality work in a fraction of the time. But as of Jan 1, we cut almost all of them. And as of June, we're cutting the rest. What's going to be left behind is half the number of people that will put out less than a quarter of the results than before.

But the reality is that consultants are easy to cut. You don't have to call them layoffs or pay them severance.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 5 points 10 months ago

That's because the better people leave to become consultants. People aren't going into consulting to make less money.

[–] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 13 points 10 months ago (5 children)

And does the dead weight get cut during layoff season? Or does it affect people who are capable but won't take bullshit from management?

[–] squirmy_wormy@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

I've seen both, sometimes middle management gets gutted and things are reorganized, sometimes it's more focused on the grunts.

You can only generalize it so far

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] 000@fuck.markets 8 points 10 months ago

I'm in tech and there's a lot of dead weight in my company, but our layoffs don't really target those people. We just lost several of the best engineers in my department for stupid reasons (introducing a new c-suite position), and it caused problems immediately.

[–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today 24 points 10 months ago

3rd Quarter Report: "Wow, they've cut operating costs by nearly a third!"

1st Quarter Report: "Wow, they've taken their profits and hired thousands of new employees!"

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 21 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I didn't realize it at the time but I was part of this horrible trend. I was doing support for a large software company that's big in system administration circles.

I was laid off just prior to the end of the year. December 15, if I recall correctly (somewhere around there regardless). Shortly after me, will into layoff season, my entire support center was decommissioned and all of my co-workers joined me in unemployment. Within a few months the center went from hundreds of employees to zero.

They took the companies name off the building a year later. This was a bit less than 10 years ago and I'm still bitter; especially since the CEO visited the center about a month before he laid off the entire center, directly in the wake of laying off the front line customer support team in my center and outsourcing their jobs to low cost geographies; he had the gall to lecture is about how the layoff of the CS team didn't and shouldn't imply anything about the support team. Blah blah blah, different business unit, different operating criteria, yadda yadda yadda.... All bullshit to try to get us to work harder right up until the bitter end.

They gave everyone two months pay as severance with no consideration to how long you had worked there. Many people were shown the door after the better part of a decade, with no additional consideration than what people who were there less than a year recieved. I still don't like that CEO, and he's doing rounds in the tech circles with people singing his praises. Makes me sick.

[–] ThickQuiveringTip@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I don't understand why we can't name and shame these days. They shamed you. They have tarnished your rep by making you redundant. They showed no professional courtesy. Fuck them. Name and shame.

These cunts continue to do the rounds because no one ever outright calls these cunts out.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 17 points 10 months ago (1 children)

But we cut costs by 5% for the quarterly report and got a nice bonus for that. That's all that counts, after all.

[–] RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

Line goes up!!

[–] sevan@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago (2 children)

For my company, layoff season is traditionally Q4. I assume they do that so they can load all the expense in the year ending as a "one time" charge that they then subtract from the adjusted earnings, as if it never happened. And then do it again every year.

Unfortunately, starting last year in Q2, we seem to have moved to rolling layoffs. There's a high likelihood that my team will be reorganized twice in 9 months (while still implementing the last round). That will also be the 3rd round of layoffs in 9 months. My boss thinks I'm safe in the next round, but I'm doubtful.

[–] yaaaaayPancakes@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

I've been in your shoes. I hope you are interviewing. Your boss will not tell you the truth, but what you need to hear.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rabiddolphin@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

Layoff the C-Suites

load more comments
view more: next ›