I think they were the exception, the lay offs are likely execs realizing they can get the same or better by hiring someone remotely in a developing country to do the work.
Not saying this is a better outcome for anyone specifically, but surely it's compelling?
Could be. I check that sort of news less these days - jaded.
But it sort of reinforces my point that companies do layoffs. Sure, some Indian companies have started doing it too, whatever the pros and cons may be.
Founders and CEOs in the US like the ability to hire and fire, and the idea of employment at will. Some employees, less so.
India has historically been a country where paternalistic management practices were common, and firing was seen as something to be avoided as far as possible, considered as a big deal, the news and impact of it to be minimized or played down (I know this last point is so to some extent in the US too), and as a huge social stigma (for the person being fired or laid off). That has been changing some recently, due to Western influences. There can be both pros and cons to the matter. Don't have a final viewpoint on it.
Edited to change "been a company" to "been a country".
Edit: Quoting myself:
>India has historically been a country where paternalistic management practices were common, and firing was seen as something to be avoided as far as possible
This is also the case in government service - as in, in India, for long, and maybe even nowadays, it was almost impossible to fire a government employee, whatever the reason. Job security (along with poverty) was a huge reason why, in earlier years, many, or even the majority of people preferred government jobs - because even though the pay, environment, perks were all mostly shitty - though getting cheap owned or rented housing was seen as a good perk by many - again, a house was seen as a major asset to strive for - you could not be easily fired from your job. In a country with devastating annual floods / droughts (both still the case) / somewhat frequent famines, poverty, etc., those were factors to be considered. I remember even a classmate of mine (this was many years later than the start of the period I am talking about - the start was at Indian Independence or even years before), exulting to a few of us friends that "I 'got' DOTE!" (where DOTE == Department Of Technical Education", meaning that he got a "seat" in a government engineering college, meaning that if he did his stuff even just adequately, a secure lifelong government job was guaranteed - as witnessed by his answer when someone asked him why he went for it - his answer in one word was - "security" (of livelihood, of course, not computer security).
Bosses haven't seen any problems with laying off the workers that were under their thumbs for decades, replacing them with outsourcing half a world away. What changed?
That has never happened in my experience, and I've been through a lot of layoffs. It's usually the exact opposite. They lay off all the peons and keep the few high level experts. They're a lot harder to replace.
There are a bunch of different people reacting to a stressful change in economy and its effects on the job market. That's all.
It may be 'easier' to fire people when you don't have to deal with their physical presence, but I doubt that factors much into the decision overall. My bet is that companies are battening down the hatches because they see strong headwinds economically (or are using other layoffs as an excuse to clean house).
Good companies will retain good talent. They won't jettison their valued contributors just to have their competition scoop them up.
The emphasis here is on Good. Bad companies likely will jettison many of their good employees, either by setting bad policies and having them opt out, or by firing them direction because they aren't paying attention. Remote work is one of those factors that some companies are struggling to set policies for.
Unfortunately, there are many 'bad' companies, and many people on HN work for them.
Can you elaborate on how that works? If the victims are their best people who are doing solid, profitable work, laying them off seems like it would create a state of uncertainty which, in this climate, might just cause people to jump ship because competitive jobs are just around the corner.
Or was there some issue with the group where they had to sacrifice the good with the bad due to lack of overall profitability?
I think the execs got peer-pressured into it. Other companies were doing it, and they ignored the fact that other companies were in much more dire straits.
As a result we now have all the psychic costs of the layoff, but few of the benefits, as it wasn't really even necessary anyway. I'm betting that our headcount will be back up to where it was before the layoffs by summer.
I wonder what hidden benefits there are in these layoffs. Sure, companies lose skilled staff and nominally taken a hit in overall corporate output.
On the flipside, people work twice as hard, eager to show their worth. That may be the cynic intent behind these industry-wide layoff. Scare the crap out of everyone and make them do the extra mile.
Yeah, a lot of layoffs make a lot more sense when you re-evaluate the assumption that these CEOs are hiring people with the intent of keeping them indefinitely. For many, I'd bet this was the plan all along
I know of one company that keeps track of layoffs at a single multinational, and hires all of the engineers who get laid off. Inevitably, the company seeks out the laid-off engineers to hire them back and has to hire them as consultants. This only works off of companies with this style of management.
What I don't understand is the organisations they are laying off are also hiring. For eg. I saw Miro firing bunch of people last week and then hiring new people. I feel this is like bait and switch. CEOs take responsibility of the layoff but it feels like they dont really care. If employers are not loyal then why should the employees be.
Yes, that's part of it. It's a bit of a double-edged sword, but when it's easy to fire people, it also makes it a lot easier to hire them, because there is less of a risk when you make a mistake or need to change direction of your business.
While it's an upheaval to be sure, the vast majority of these laid-off employees have in-demand skills in a growing industry. Who I really feel for is people who get laid off in shrinking industries, where it's basically a game of musical chairs and there are fewer seats each round.
In some countries layoffs like this are done as redundancies though, like in Sweden they have to declare a work shortage and cannot re-hire in the same roles (in Sweden) for a few months.
That said, internationally they'll be different subsidiaries so they can do whatever they want. We have global capitalist power but not global worker power.
Our company has not experienced this paradox. In fact, it seems easier to hire good people right now because few other companies are hiring. Maybe this is more of a problem if you are hiring outside your network. So far, I don't think anyone we have hired has been layed off. They all are top people who see the writing on the wall at their less successful companies and are happy to find a better job elsewhere before things get really bad.
I'll flip that on its head: if a company will benefit from layoffs, those people should have already been fired. The fact that they weren't is probably contributing to the dire straits forcing the layoffs.
I think the only other time that layoffs are a good idea is if you're closing an entire business unit/department to retreat from a market and focus on your strengths.
Yeah, obviously depends from country to country, but for a layoff the company often has to be in some problems. It's difficult to do a layoff when you have record profits.
Of course there are other ways to fire employees but those have their own rules.
Not saying this is a better outcome for anyone specifically, but surely it's compelling?
reply