Amazon set to begin new round of layoffs affecting over 18,000 people
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
I was around for a big Microsoft layoff many years ago and it was well communicated internally and empathically. We were given audience (10:1) with directors upon request to ask questions and plead for our fallen. The individuals let go were eulogized with authentic tears by the humans who were given headcount by corporate and then had it taken away. It wasn't the bottom or some biased subset that was culled, but a seemingly random selection across bands to hit a target. (I'm inclined to believe this, given what I saw). We lobbied for our people, and actually got one hired back in a different division that wasn't subject to the layoff.
Isn't that always the case? It is hard to keep something like a huge layoff secret, it will invariably leak as soon as the cogs are set into motion and before the CEO can message the ranks.
It's quite exhausting even for just a 4 year stint previously, I can't imagine what it must be like now with the constant headlines about layoffs.
Are you implying it is better to fire a random selection than "the bottom"?
But we were given an outlet, and through that an explanation of why we lost an essential engineer and friend. I'd like to believe that it had an effect on the management team. If not for them to bear some of the emotional load, then to inform them XYZ project is going to take a major hit and this week or so is a write off for the rest of us.
...and because the huge companies are so closely followed on wall street and financial news, once news is released to the media - they are going to run with it as soon as they get it - not wait until employees get notified first.
Hedge funds tracking parking lots with low orbit satellites have more insider information than any official channel.
Even tweeting information to the whole world simultaneously can breach II rules when it doesn’t really apply since it automatically puts everyone on more equal footing.
That's not an example of an insider abusing their inside position for their benefit, it's an example of a hedge fund deciding that investing in low-orbit satellite photography gives them an edge in estimating market movement.
But what I'm talking about is there were layoffs in the news and not a single peep about it in my email inbox or slack channel, nor even during 1:1 with my direct manager later that week.
Ok so it breaks to the news first, it seems common courtesy for the person managing your career path to check your pulse.
SEC insider information laws were the same during the DotCom boom/bust of 2000. Yet firing practices were quite different despite the fact that employees also had stock options/shares like they have now.
[1]: https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/a-team-update-...
He was half way through a meeting that he was driving/leading when he got the notification.
Of course we understand what you mean. But on the other hand, it's kind of not relevant at all. OPs life is not that one of a coal miner. In theory this person has worked hard all his life, studied, dedicated time to companies. This is what he is doing. Then it's kind of taken away without his control.
Saying "well at least you don't work in a mine" is minimizing his real problem so much.
Should it be put in perspective? Sure. But it also doesn't really make it any better.
Infact I would argue that kind of response is kind of like "hey why should we give everyone free healthcare? At least you have access to healthcare for money, 100 years ago we barely even had medicine so you should feel lucky!". True.. but also completely misses the entire point.
Yes, it's super lame if someone loves their job somewhere and gets laid off. It's a bit less lame if that person is highly paid and can find work doing almost the exact same thing somewhere else without leaving their house.
Of course, they get mad when you tell them that.
This is the problem (not the actual problem, but the one you can control). Your job isn't your life. I used to think/act this way. Then I was eliminated in a rather soulless manner myself. I realized it was an abusive relationship. I had actual PTSD for a couple of years. I no longer define myself by anything that is so transactional. Business relationships are just that. I am happier, I make more money at job, and I've got several things prioritized over work that fulfill me.
I can totally seeing someone who joined early in their career falling for that BS
A very large number of marriages and romantic relationships are too.
Sounds like you need to step back and re-evaluate your approach. Your work for a large, soulless corporation should not be what you devoted your life to. It's work, not your life.
Having a giant corporation kill off your occupancy with no pre-warning is raw meat for union reps who would love to sue on your behave.
Why do you expect it? Large corporations have stacked the deck against workers for decades (at least). If you really want to be able to work the same job forever, you can try to get yourself a special contract, but you'd have better luck getting such worker protections by working with your state government or fellow workers.
If you're worried that too many benefits, compensation, insurance, ability to rent, etc. are tied to employment, you're right there, and we can do better as a society to expand unemployment insurance and get affordable health care that isn't tied to employment, etc. This way, when we do lose a job, not everything is taken is from us.
The other part is they want to lay everyone off at the same time, so people aren't finding out at different times and wondering if they are safe or not. An email, sent to everyone at the same time, achieves that much better than trying to rapidly schedule a lot of simultaneous meetings.
Perhaps there is a better way, but that is the conventional wisdom that I've heard from folks planning layoffs.
Managers can pick before the announcement and then HR can do the actual if not enough people left willingly.
And there's always a chance of wrongful termination lawsuits...
... the real reason this is done this way is because that's the culture of these companies, mostly due to US culture (and labor laws are a synergic manifestation of this).
If you announce layoffs before telling people who will get cut, the people who tend to leave voluntarily are often those most able to get jobs elsewhere because they are high performers in positions that are hard to staff -- so exactly who the company wants to keep.
I knew a guy who was in the middle of a consulting engagement when he got an email that he was part of a layoff. He finished the day with the customer since he had a relationship with the people there and figured he was being paid for that day anyways.
But yeah, that's a really nasty way to be let go.
My teammates (if they are still employed) can sort it out.
if required by the employer to leave immediately, then there is no choice in the matter, rendering OP's question moot. if not, and you ditch your team, then you're (editorial you, not parent poster you) the asshole. do your fellow human a kindness, as opposed to just selfishly passing along the garbage, and you'll make the world a marginally better place.
Layoffs impact everyone at the company, even those who remain. There is no "passing the garbage", it's already there, on top of everyone.
It's okay to be human, kindly wish your teammates well, and exit.
Probably no, so, I'd be out. Also a good opportunity to highlight how it's weird to be fired while leading a meeting.
In case anyone is curious, at worst prices have been falling on a month-to-month basis but essentially nowhere are they falling year-over-year: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/home-prices-slip-for-f... https://www.redfin.com/city/16163/WA/Seattle/housing-market
If the goal of these layoffs is to "do more with less", then maybe we as technologists should find a way to do that ourselves.
Yeah, for the most part, asking those questions is a great way to get fired in many, many companies, especially if you ask those questions in a forum or format that makes leadership look bad. I am not sure where I stand on unions for tech workers (I grew up in a union mining town where the union saved lives by driving safety measures, but also got fined by the union on the first day of my first job for refilling an ink tray because the shop steward thought I needed a lesson), but at the end of the day, unions provide a method for engaging with the business to negotiate and ask these questions without fear of arbitrary retaliation.
This is one of many reasons to unionize because the reasons for layoffs may not be what we're being told.
I'd love to pay 5% or something like that for job insurance that would cover me if the company died, or they start laying off people in a downturn. That would be 5% you don't have though.
I want a co-op where the employee organization owns the company. Profits are bonuses for all the employees.
I don't want protection from company's goal of making the most money possible. I want the goal of the company to be the success of the employees.
US law makes this type of organization harder than it should be and a union is a good step towards what you're describing.
There are other ways to achieve what you're after: stock options, profit-sharing agreements, or even just a generous bonus structure based on hitting revenue targets are all quite common.
This makes the news a bit less shocking, I think. Many tech companies are suffering — and laying off — due to the economy, and didn’t “swell” quite to the level Amazon did during the pandemic.
While I’m sure the economy is still certainly a factor here, it would make sense for a company that needed to expand to meet the sudden demands brought on by the pandemic to need to course-correct once that died down.
Especially since it was felt:
> primarily in its human resources and stores divisions
Both of these probably had to ramp up disproportionately to meet the sudden demands of the pandemic.
To be clear, this is still sad/unfortunate news for the affected folks. But I believe it's not quite the shock other news of layoffs has been.
Do they really? I regularly find 30% cost optimisation potentials in large organisations. It is just easier to fire people than optimise workloads and infrastructure.
On the other side, I haven't seen companies giving extra bonuses when the economy is booming.
However it turns out that’s not the case. Most of this seems to be profit grabbing while the market expectation is, “economy bad.”
I guess we’ll find out in hindsight.
I'm sure horse and sparrow economics[0] will start working any day now...
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics Mr. David Stockman has said that supply-side economics was merely a cover for the trickle-down approach to economic policy—what an older and less elegant generation called the horse-and-sparrow theory: "If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows."
sounds like a framing error to me. “Trickle-down” is a term used by critics to reframe the creation of wealth as essentially a zero-sum game. The same Wikipedia article[0] cites Thomas Sowell [1] and I find him more compelling.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
1. https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents...
(I'm sure it's the same with Stock Options, that people just assumed they'd go up, probably why all the memes about Total Comp are all over social media?)
And what memes about Total Comp?
Options and even RSUs only have value if they go up above initial grant or strike price.
same thing happened in the 2000s... mass layoffs resulted in a wave of new startups and competitors in the 5-10 year timescale. forest fires clean out the accumulated undergrowth and allow a new lifecycle to begin. not to imply that it sucks any less for anyone who lost their job, but, this is a release of anticompetitive pressure and it'll probably be a long-term net positive for the market overall.
Don't confuse the relatively tiny tech company wrapped inside the worlds largest logistics and fulfillment organization.
That’s one way to characterize companies making billions of dollars in profits.
Assuming the press was correct in November, it's 8,000 today.
* Nov 14, 2022: 10k layoffs coming soon
* Jan 5, 2023: Correction. 18k layoffs coming soon
* Jan 18, 2023: 18k layoffs commence
The article headline seems to imply it’s a fresh round of 18k as opposed to the same we’ve known about.
18k quit in a given month? Nope.
Obviously, layoffs in the tech industry should concern all of us.
Guess some lone wulfs currently rediscovering unions aka packs for themselves.
Also, this quota is on top of the 6% of mandatory attrition, not replacing it.
A 7% layoff affects some people who are good employees, did nothing wrong, and are safe from a PIP -- but their position just no longer makes sense for the company to keep.
I once advised someone like this - take the Amazon offer. First of all, YOU (this guy was excellent and driven) aren't likely to be in the bottom X percent.
And even if you are, the X years you spend at Amazon will teach you skills (not to mention resume) you won't get anywhere else. So even if you got laid off, you'd be better off long run.
That doesn't work for everyone of course.
They all got jobs at other big companies, but without that stress.
The company also has significant growth opportunities compared to mid-sized startups or legacy companies hiring tech workers.
There are also many really talented people and mentors there. The forced attrition makes it mostly suck however.
I don't necessarily agree with this. Myself (and others) in the Seattle area are vocally biased against hiring Amazon alumni (especially for leadership positions) as we've found they're a significant risk to our company culture.
PS: I'm with you though; prefer not to have ex-Amazon because somehow that company can turn good people into sharks preying on others when moved on. Maybe because in order to survive there one must learn and adapt, therefore "becoming" as ruthless/cutthroat as them.
I mentioned that there are plenty companies would love to hire ex-Amazon as the earlier poster suggested due to Prestige (among other thing).
I merely stating that we (me and the poster I replied) might be the tiny minorities.
(Seinfeld laugh track plays)
the middle management layer is way more mixed, and where a lot of the putative toxicity comes from. Those people often bring the bad part of Amazon culture with them (especially those from more recent vs. earlier years).
Solution: block emails from @amazon\.(com,co\.uk)\.?
You might not get your purchase information any more. But that's not a problem if you just stop using Amazon. But that also begs the question: why might someone be a customer of Amazon if they don't like their employment practices?
The person may not want to work on retail or cloud technology. They don't like the corporate environment. They don't like the work life balance, etc.. It doesn't always reflect their opinion on the overall company. It may in this case, but your confident tone is an odd one to take.
The company has around 1.5M employees. It fires 18k people. This is 1.2% of the headcount.
Many more people resign on their own on any given month, most likely.
Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-secret-terms-only-wor...
The company also has a metric called “unregretted attrition rate” (URA), which represents the percentage of employees it would like to see leave the company – voluntarily or otherwise – in a given year.
https://www.hcamag.com/us/news/general/leaked-amazon-memo-sh...
Within every org of ~100+ people, they stack rank and cut the bottom K%. It used to be 4%. Now it's 7%.
They get put onto a PIP, and very few improve enough to stay.
PIP - performance improvement plan
lol = laugh out loud
An intelligent and empathic enough person can use statistics to inform themselves while also remembering there are individual tragedies.
Statistics is necessary to be able to understand things that are happening around us. Otherwise the information we are getting would be largely meaningless.
Next time you encounter human suffering in your life - put things in perspective. Parent died? Well, did you know it’s just 1/8B people on the planet?
The exception would be total warehouse closures, but I don't think we've seen a lot of those because each one is such an enormous capital investment. Though maybe they closed one in response to a union activation effort?
Why haven't people talked about the effects of these layoffs on dog-walkers servicing these former employees? They are talking about it on my dogwalking reddit forum.
On the one hand, part of me thinks "Yeah but this is corporate employees! This is people like me!".
And then another part of me steps in and asks "So what, the more than a million logistics employees aren't people? They don't count?".
I guess the point is that there are two classes of employees at Amazon. Most of us here on HN aren't used to seeing our class being impacted by job losses.
Tech is a big risk, big reward business. Charge ye Teslas while ye may.
Re re-training yourself as a software engineer... I wonder how often people really need to do this either... to keep getting top possible salary maybe, but just ("just"!) to keep getting a better salary than most of the USA? Maybe sometimes. But, I mean, there are still people making very very good money writing Fortran and COBOL... probably better money than you can make writing PHP -- and you can still make better money than most of the USA writing PHP! OK if you specialized in, like, Flash or ColdFusion, you probably had to learn something different.
That’s probably not true, but either way, it’s irrelevant. Voluntarily resigning, most likely with another job already lined up, is not the same as being laid off.
Assuming no discrimination here, I believe it is not and the constant talk of it is just a clickbait and trying to find news where there aren't any.
It would be different if this was large portion of the said company, but it is not.
A large number of the million+ headcount is warehouse.
This layoff impacts corporate workers only, so it's a much higher percentage of total corporate workers.
Majority of Amazon workers are essentially blue collar jobs. This primarily affects salaried corporate workers in towers in Seattle etc. So the impact to those types of jobs is clearly more than 1%.
You call my view silly, and at the same time you make distinction between corporate and warehouse workers as if these were two separate classes of people presuming firing warehouse workers was not a big deal but corporate is.
Amazon employs 1.5M people total and I don't care if somebody works in a warehouse or an office. They all have their lives to continue and families to feed.
I hate it when manufacturing jobs get cut. I hate it when warehousing jobs get cut. But these numbers do not directly relate to what happens in my field, so in order to understand what happens in my field, these numbers must be considered separately.
Bezos surely is concerned, not just for the org and lost growth but his own personal fortune.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-tech-company-la...
- carzoo, walmart, getir, carvana, doordash, hellofresh, tesla, rivian, peloton: not really tech companies. Mostly teched-up logistics companies.
- the twitter layoffs aren't (only) due to "the market", they're due to the unpredictability of its owner.
The source for the data is https://www.trueup.io/layoffs, which is better and also has a source for the black bars in visualcapitalists' graphic.