Google Fires Employee of over 16 Years with Automated Email
medium.com
medium.com
Some companies stay lean, plan for difficult times. Others spend like crazy in good times and cut back in bad. Google always prided itself on being small and scrappy. That changed under Sundar, the current CEO. They started hiring a ton and now they're cutting back. The CEO still hasn't come to terms with the fact that he fucked up. He made comments in leaked meetings like, "Just imagine if we continued to grow and didn't have all of those extra people. Where would we have been?" Dude, you would have been fine. You don't grow a business by sticking more people in it. This is how accountants think about business, not leaders.
Fresh, starry-eyed people enter the workforce every day. As long as new humans keep being born, there is no point at which anyone is ever finished teaching the same lessons over and over again.
In other words, this is a company that is making at least $50 billion a year in profit yet is pretending to be so poor that layoffs are necessary! Even if Google lost a billion or 2 in a lean year, that's still a drop in the bucket compared to their profits and what an actual leader would do.
[0]: https://9to5google.com/2023/02/02/alphabet-q4-2022-earnings/
[1] https://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG/revenues
[2] https://abc.xyz/investor/static/pdf/2022Q4_alphabet_earnings...
First to the employee laid off: I’m not against layoffs in principle (maybe I’ll change my tune if/when it happens to me) but companies can take a more human-centred approach to things. Publicly shaming them when they don’t is one of the few tools people in this position have left to try and push them to better behaviour.
Second to Sundar: he’s not crying “woe is me,” he’s explaining the company position. I don’t even think he “fucked up” here because these situations are simply difficult to make the right call. Yes, maybe Google would have been “fine” but CEOs aren’t paid to keep things “fine.” They’re paid to put the company in a position to go after opportunities when they crop up. Even these layoffs will factor that goal in. Only time will tell who made the right decisions and who didn’t.
That guy doesn't have what it takes to be the CEO of one of the most important tech companies in the world, just like Trump/Biden are probably not the most talented leaders of the most important country either.
Eric Schmidt was great, and Google has lots of other much more talented leaders who understand programming on a deep level.
When we asked Eric Schmidt years ago of why some stupid things are happening (Christmas present of donating Google laptops to US children especially when most of us are from poorer countries), his answer was ,,I'm not the CEO''.
This is the problem with FAANG, to a very large extent with all VC-funded companies, and to some extent with capitalism in general. Everyone looks at total dollar value, not at efficiency (loosely revenue per employee) and certainly not at anything hard to measure in dollars (e.g. quality of life). The only way to keep driving that number up is to grow, not to improve. Growth is mandatory, necessary even, and ultimately becomes like that other thing that keeps trying to grow without bound: cancer. Innovation is an uncertain route to growth over the long term. The sure routes are monopolization, regulatory capture, rent seeking (especially in the form that Cory Doctorow has called "enshittification"), and so on. So guess which one CEOs - whose pay is tied to that growth and not to more human-oriented metrics - go for. Every time.
One of the 10 000:
The article's author is absolutely right, and I agree.
But the long term damage this is already doing & has done to the industry is maddening. People — rightfully so — don't stick around long enough. Before you can take a new engineer from "new hire" to "has learned our systems and has a good understanding" to "is productive and can make changes on their own in the system" to — and this is about the point where most people have found greener pastures — "understands the theory of the system and is actively poking holes in it, and is coming up with far better ideas on their own", but they're already gone, and those super long-term insights are gone with them.
So many times — easily multiple times per week if not per day — I am having to answer "ah, that system. Alice would know the answers, be able to guide you, is the resource you need … alas, she left/was laid off." We'll get the job done without her, but it'll take us 5×? 10×? as long.
The C-Suite are out of their minds.
This begs further reflection.
Is it because Alice was amazing? Is it because the code is bad? Is it that the other engineers aren’t seasoned enough? Maybe that system is badly implemented.
Also, people leave all the time so you have to be ok with an Alice leaving (or die). You cannot depend on people being around for ever to ensure continuity.
I compare it to a maze that I've traveled many times. I know my way around the maze, but I don't think the team that I'm KTing this too is going to figure it out.
I predict they're going to just freeze the code and leave any existing bugs as is.
Now it all has to be pieced together from what code and configuration exists. Nobody documented the shortcuts, the rationale for why it is coded/configured that way, or the quirks or bugs in the system.
Of course none of this can be put into a spreadsheet thus it doesn't exist, as far as management is concerned.
It is because Alice knows how to log in, where to click to get to the right place and what to fill into fields to enable the button.
Even where we have documentation, what experience buys you — what Alice in the example has — is that she's going to the documentation to spur her memory, as a quick double check, and just to give her a good guide rail to make sure she hasn't missed anything. But because she knows the area, she can still be quick about it. Someone new to the system are stuck using the docs not for reference, but for tutorial and basic understanding. They're going to need to read every word, and worse, comprehend every word, and that will take far, far more effort than the "I'm a bit foggy on detail D, what did the docs say? Oh right." that Alice would be doing.
But let's accept your "Maybe that the system is badly implentmented" — quite possibly! But it's the experience of having worked with it, learned how it modeled its problem, and learned how its model falls down and then, finally, that insight into "this would be a better way". That takes time and understanding, if you want to build a next system, particularly one that avoids a second-system effect.
Oftentimes, the questions or problems are of the form "we have tool X, and it does job J, but we have this other job, J', and it's … sort of like J? Can tool X do it?" Now tool X has never encountered this particular problem — by definition it cannot be documented — and it might be we need to change tool X. Again, experience makes this take a lot less time. Even for a well designed system, it still requires someone new to it to dig in and figure out first how it ticks before they can even approach such a question.
The reality is, of course, far less rosy, and there are many places where the docs could be better, often a lot better. But we've lost the most qualified person to improve them!
"Who knows about this data?"
"X and Y do, but they're gone. These people know a little bit about it."
C'est la vie.
Business rules are usually what drives complexity, and a spaghetti of interlinked SaaS is unlikely to be better than a spaghetti of code you have full control over, at least if you have a software team.
But the details matter a lot. Some businesses are better staying as just a spreadsheet instead of trying to bring in or build software. Some businesses really do need custom software for their business requirements.
Edit: Since the original article is about Google, I should perhaps clarify that Google is big enough that it can do get away with having all or some of the above. But they are wise to open source most such things, so that they ensure their versions stay competitive rather than becoming a drag.
It is the zombie disease. Companies start off, have people with tons of knowledge, people don't get into higher positions, politics happens, they leave, and now you have someone that's there just for the job and is surviving off of limited knowledge. They leave because they don't own the system, and now the org is inefficient and cumbersome, effect becomes worse with the next hire, etc.
Company dies, another spawns, cycle continues.
There should be additional proper internal training and discovery of hidden talents and diversity, also retention measures (this automated firing method seems to be the opposite) if they want to avoid stagnation into predetermied style by standardised persons. With the dynamicity of the industry stagnation puts giants in danger of stepped over or trip in a shorter period than a top manager's tenure (earlier stagnating giants could live for decades due to their mass, for the pleasure of top executives).
Only way to scale is to hit your knees in every two years to get a proper pay raise. Even if detrimental to your knowledge and work place.
But you accepted a salary that does not pay overtime and the trend is that people will work the overtime to meet the totally made up deadline. C suite doesn't care about Alice and is hoping cutting her loose will make everyone else work harder to keep their jobs. They normally do. Who's out of their mind in this scenario again?
To get to the "you get overtime for working more than 40h/week" people need to switch from being salaried to being hourly (and then they would be paid for all hours worked - note that exempt employees don't get a 1.5x overtime increase).
However, I will note that a lot of people start saying "don't track me", complaints of time sheets, and there's a fair amount of boasting of only working 20h/week.
You want to get to "no unpaid overtime" - the path there is through working hourly rather than salary and only getting paid for 20h if you only work 20h.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/17a-overtime
> However, Section 13(a)(1) of the FLSA provides an exemption from both minimum wage and overtime pay for employees employed as bona fide executive, administrative, professional and outside sales employees. Section 13(a)(1) and Section 13(a)(17) also exempt certain computer employees. To qualify for exemption, employees generally must meet certain tests regarding their job duties and be paid on a salary basis at not less than $684* per week.
https://www.hourly.io/post/salaried-employees-overtime
> Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), any employee that’s categorized as an exempt employee is ineligible for overtime pay—even when they put in more than 40 hours of work in a week. Because many salaried positions are categorized as exempt, they would fall under the overtime exemption umbrella—and, as such, not be entitled to overtime pay.
> So many times — easily multiple times per week if not per day — I am having to answer "ah, that system. Alice would know the answers, be able to guide you, is the resource you need … alas, she left/was laid off." We'll get the job done without her, but it'll take us 5×? 10×? as long.
I think that in particular is problem with knowledge transfer and retainment, sure, it will usually take longer for someone else to pick up but it should be documented enough (and cross-trained if needed) that it isn't x10. After all Alice might just be on long vacation instead of leaving the company and stuff shouldn't stall because one person takes a vacation.
I don't know an honest owner that wouldn't pull even their worst worker aside and tell them why they're fired at a minimum. I've seen CNC shops where the owner finds new jobs for the people they had to lay off.
Hold the wealthiest corps accountable.
I am not saying we should not write software, but don't go crying when the realities of capitalism come for your cushy privileged tech job too.
I think automated emails for layoffs are par for the course; we don’t complain about tools like AWS that have automated whole swaths of stuff we used to have to do and manage ourselves…
Automated firing is just inevitable
I understand the sentiment in the context of being laid off, but I respectfully disagree.
IDK, maybe what is meant here is that we should not be too much emotionally attached to our employer. Makes sense, although depends on the context (like, not the same if you own a part of the company).
Unless you achieved FIRE (which not many did), work is a part of your life for a big part of it. The sheer amount of time is 7-8 hours per day: that's at least half of your day time. What is left for the "life" then? I do not want to concentrate a lot on the amount of time alone, but it is a good graphic example. What I want to say is that work is a part of our life and our life experiences.
I am not evangelizing the Aristotle's "do what you love and you won't work a single day of your life" either, because I understand it is not always possible, is a bit too rosy, and the work is not always pleasant even if you generally do what you love, and you can be laid off, etc.
What I think is that if possible, we should consciously choose what we do as work, and explain its place in our life to ourselves. I understand this sounds cliché a lot, but I truly believe that setting goals and giving the meaning to things is a powerful tool in our minds.
Laying off an employee of 16 years in such an undignified fashion is even more distasteful than firing them as such.
semantics.
Now, you raise another point. Unfortunately in the US, being laid off is not supposed to carry a stigma. But ironically in fact, possibly illegally, it really does. Because companies think "gosh: google has 120,000 people. They laid off 12,000, therefore you are in the lowest 10%". Companies are also often very reluctant to fire for incompetence. So a layoff can serve as a cover for "cleaning house". The consequence is that it is always a question afterward: did this guy get laid off because he was the problem child? Why him/her?
When you have a job the recruiters beat a path to your door. When you are laid off, you are in a cycle of endless interviews and are regarded as damaged goods for the fault of bad management.
Legally they could have asked him to work for x more weeks but they said they don't do that: concerns about fired people not performing well or even trying to sabotage something, steal documents, complain to co-workers, etc.
After 12 years in the EU he got a very nice package: I think one year full salary paid.
That accesses are cut off before or at the same time the email is sent is normal.
I know it feels brutal but that's how big companies roll.
"We need more staffing on this project." --> OK
"We need more engineers on this project." --> OK
"We need more people on this project." --> OK
"We need more resources on this project." --> Not OK. Go to hell.
No, you are firing people, not "reducing roles."
> We have some difficult news to share. We are reducing our workforce and are very sorry to tell you that your role is impacted and we no longer have a job for you at Google.
Hard agree on this. Did this employee expect Sergey Brin to call over to his desk with flowers and a hamper of fancy goods, and lament their loss?
A few friends of mine were let go last month in a tech company in Portland, and similar thing, automated email followed by people openly weeping at desks. It's never a pleasant thing I know, but I suspect they bought too much into their company's "culture" declarations of being at one with the universe and loving everyone etc. etc.
NO!
Family means you will stick by people no matter what. Your Brother is an ass, he stole your PS5 to score some fentanyl, he is still your brother, you're frustrated with him, but he will always be family. That is a very different loyalty to the people you work with. Fuck up and they will drop you like a hot rock.
For those having the opportunity working for such groups long the world works differently.
According to https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united..., Apple has a market share of ~58% in the US, but (https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/europe) ~36% in Europe.
Here’s the chart for Switzerland, which is on par with the richer areas of the states: https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/switze...
TLDR - Apple market share is 58%
Connecting Google and Intel self destructing leaving a company that isn't on the list of firing its staff becoming successful enough.
News flash, almost every company in the world is mostly Microsoft, using either Windows machines and/or running Windows servers and/or using Microsoft Cloud services.
Yet I don't see you mentioning them as part of this walled garden. When you slap together Active Directory, a Domain Controller, Microsoft Sentinel and a feet of Windows machines, you have yourself a heavily Microsoft reliant company.
I think we will be fine in comparison with what China have implemented.
Apple is only 17% for personal computers.
Do you have other data that shows the near monopoly for laptops owned by individuals?
1. While Apple is popular they're not in EVERYONEs hands, Samsung still has a large hold on consumers globally. Not just in the computing space but appliances as well. 2. Microsoft is still the operating system of choice for gamers and many other enthusiasts. I can quite easily build myself an excellent PC using an enormous market of hardware that is highly compatible, if not even more compatible that it has ever been. 3. Linux for a long time as it always has been will be for enthusiasts. Furthermore Linux is used in many corporate environments as it is an extremely reliable operating system.
I don't like this idea of breaking things down into distinct supposed realities from complete conjecture.
I also don't see why there is so much hate for SOME monopolies. If a company continues to make excellent products that people buy, then they inevitable become a monopoly. It is OKAY for a company to hold a large market share. It is NOT OKAY if they use that power to reduce competition.
I have had Macbook's since 2008 because I think they're excellent products. I have switched from Nokia to Windows phones, to Android and back to iPhone and I have stuck with Apple because I've had the best experience. I have built PC's for the last 13 years because I enjoy it and I enjoying gaming.
What do Samsung appliances have to do with computing devices? Are you going to mention their shipbuilding division next? Samsung cargo ships have nothing to do with smartphones or other computing devices.
In Europe, Apple is way less common thank you think.
Windows OEM's are all about selling useless IT solutions, "support", and lying to get people to buy their products. They shove defectively designed things all the time, yet corps around the U.S. still buy the crap.
I also expect it has discontinuities at vesting times.
Some employers (Cisco, old HP maybe) fire engineers who can't transition out to senior roles almost as a matter of policy.
This has been the case for many non-tech/software companies for awhile... Welcome to the real world.
So they could have had a one-on-one face-to-face time with each one of them. But they decided to treat them like Cloud resources.
They've scaled up to setting up whatever hundreds of new employees every monday. There's no way they're ready for 12,000 HR 1:1s in one day.
Can you imagine the chaos in a company if layoff certainty takes a week or two weeks to achieve? This is not a time for eventual consistency.
Workers' interests are often at odds with their boss's interests. If you're just figuring this out then I sympathize with you on that point, but I side with the workers here.
I'd much rather get fired by email [or "all clear" by email] on the first day layoffs begin than to get fired in person 10 calendar days after layoffs begin. I don't think I'm an outlier here.
You may disagree with the very idea of laying off tens of thousands of people at once, but this is still the only reasonable way to execute them.