> "It has been difficult for those involved. We have a redundancy process for a reason, so that employees can make their voice heard," they said. "But it feels as if our concerns have fallen on deaf ears."
They’re doing layoffs. In what scenario does negative feedback from employees change the minds of management? “Oh shit we didn’t know this negatively impacted you all. My bad.”
In the UK there is, in summary, a right to a fair process – where _roles_ are eliminated, not _people_. That when there aren't enough roles for the people left, they are selected for layoffs in a fair way with transparency on how choices were made. And finally, that when someone is laid off, that they are treated with respect and, for example, allowed legal representation in their meetings with the company.
Unfortunately there have been issues with all of these steps in the UK redundancy process. I don't want to go into detail in public, but there are multiple, very specific points on which employees feel that necessary standards have not been met.
So go to court? I highly doubt Google is susceptible to a walk out or a strike.
However as far as i remember, in the UK you can take an employer to an employment tribunal and you receive free legal representation. Although i do remember something about the Tories trying to remove or limit the legal representation, not sure if it happened.
because it's a for-profit company, not a jobs program.
Employee works to maximize benefit for themselves at the expense of their employer: "Ugh, what entitlement."
People are just sick of corporations causing havoc in our lives.
Corporations have brought most of us ridiculous amounts of prosperity.
That's only true in the vaguest sense, and not something that's inscribed in law. According to a link someone else shared[1], the only real requirement is for google to do a "consultation". There's no requirement or duty to keep people employed.
It's up for debate but I do think this indicates that the UK government is concerned about companies laying off a large number of people. In my opinion, this and the rules around the fair selection process are designed to make mass layoffs less attractive to companies.
In regards to how the activities of a company like Google appear to any regional government, I do think the two most important functions of that company are to employ people in the region and pay taxes to the regional government. They do not seem vague to me and, in this case, we have laws on both sides: some that deal with taxes and others that deal with employment and layoffs.
[1]: https://nhglobalpartners.com/employee-redundancy-in-the-uk/
[2]: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/redundancy-paymen...
The absolute cost to not laying them of is a small proportion of the cash in the bank, and the company would have maintained the pretty great culture it had, kept the loyalty that has otherwise been burnt, and saved on future hiring costs.
This shows an utter misunderstanding of how businesses or finances of any kind work and would completely discredit anyone who tried to use it as an argument.
https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-google-others-...
So why are you not the one that has to adopt to society?
I dont know that, but I know they should keep their employees if they made 13 billion in profit last year. I would like to understand if this is anything apart from greed.
The fact that so many commenters here seem to think it’s akin to a law of nature is an absolutely fascinating study in the effectiveness of propaganda.
Yet, somehow, people are failing to understand this and attributing it to propaganda? To tweak the parent poster's words, the fact that so many commenters fail to realize that is an absolutely fascinating study in how common ignorance is of how people's bread is buttered, even their own.
The fact that you do not like reality doesn't make it less real.
Companies are created to make money for founders and investors. And if they need to shed load to make those people more money, this is how it is going to be. You can always boycott Google and use/buy any of their products if it makes you feel any better about them firing people.
Big tech expanded a LOT during the pandemic. Too much.
Google hired 30,300 people in 2022! (and 21k in 2021)
While layoffs are tough for everyone (especially those losing the job), if you expanded too fast, I think that an early reset is probably better than burning through more cash to deal with a bigger problem later, when you then might have to make deeper employee cuts than if you'd acted sooner.
After these layoffs Google will still be a LOT bigger than it was a year ago.
That's the thing though, its not tough for everyone. Its only tough for the employee, the employer gets more money. Its not tough for them at all.
That said, I meant it was tough on all employees, not just those fired, to be going through layoffs.
The company with billions of dollars in the bank will have teams of people assessing risk management. But apparently those assessments didn’t address the human risk of over hiring tens of thousands of people to such a degree that they ‘need’ to dispose of them at the first sign of trouble.
Other sectors of the economy didn’t see such drastic layoffs so they can’t claim it’s a widespread and unforeseeable problem. They made a risky bet that had a real human cost, and people are right to wonder what’s the point of mega corps if they’re not any better at this than a small or medium business.
Personally I think society could benefit from being a little more people focussed rather than profit driven.
Sorry I implied your job isn’t a human right guaranteed for life.
It's like the AI alignment problem, but between corporations and people.
Hi pjmorris! I'm the person from this thread > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34400463
But now I'm throwayayes_2 due to losing lots of my personal data during house flooding last month.
I wonder if you still have any spare laptop for me! Sorry to disturb this thread & thank you!
At big tech, efficiency matters more than people. It has always been the case, but it's more exacerbated lately. Google know they will probably never take Apple's #1 spot, but they want to get as close as possible.
I suppose for the same reason as even if you have money in the bank I'm sure that you don't keep subscriptions and running costs that you've determined are no use to you or you think are not worth it.
In this case we're talking about a lot of people at a pretty far remove from the employees being laid off. This is very different from what is happening at Google UK. So much so that I don't believe the comparison is at all useful.
It'll lead to fractional joblosses based on the amount you reduce your spending. Are you upset because Google is bigger than you and if you and they do the same relative actions, their absolute numbers will be much bigger?
If you dump your trash in the park, it'll be barely noticeable. If Google does it, it's no longer a park. Yes, but it's still the same thing, you're just a lot smaller than Google.
Reduced spending on goods and services reduces revenues, which reduces profits and often leads to lay offs.
Sure your individual decision to cancel Disney+ doesnt mean someone gets fired.
But if you and 500,000 other subscribers cancel, people do get fired and you contributed to it.
It sucks to have a corporation say "okay we'll have a discussion and come to a solution that achieves our goals while also maximizing your goals" and then turn around and say "nah, we are just going to do it our way with no changes."
In the US there are little protections so the company just gets to say "you are all fired" but the policies are supposed to be different in some other countries. Since the end result was that Google just picks however they want it feels like crap that the UK folks had to wait 2.5 months to figure out who was going to be fired with no influence at all in the process.
What were the specific list of proposals? The only one you mentioned (voluntary layoffs) is a bad idea because it leads the most talented people to leave.
When the company stops listening to the employees.
Oh wait, Google already has that. If that's not working well, that's its own problem. These layoffs were somewhat indiscriminate, with high-performing people getting fired.
They might leave anyway...?
I am blending the Zurich case with the UK case in my mind, though. There's a lot to keep track of here.
DO you have any information on the Zurich case? I'm not aware of any layoffs there.
Roughly, voluntary redundancies, pay cuts, unpaid sabbaticals, job trades, and various other implementation details.
They also presented a range of options for those at risk of, for example, deportation, including those at risk of deportation to face legal consequences at home or conscription. None of these suggestions were accepted.
Sabbaticals tend to increase retention, as those with long tenure can take a break without quitting.
And anyway, the company doesn't necessarily only want to cut the "bottom talent", they may want to cut expensive talent.
Not necessarily.
Also people who have been sticking around out of inertia and doing the bare minimum. People ready to retire a bit early. Etc. Basically, it's reasonable to think that most people who would volunteer--especially at a very top-tier pay job--might well not be there in a year or so anyway. (There is I guess an argument that the people who are going to leave anyway will leave with or without a package so why pay for the package?)
While you might not want to choose people purely based on volunteers, it's not clear that taking at least some volunteers doesn't benefit both the company and workers.
I'd be willing to bet that whatever 94% Google ended up deciding to keep would not be the "best" working on the most important/strategic projects and unlikely to leave Google anyway in the next 6-12 months.
The “it”s you are referencing here are different things. There is a formal process. And employees did give negative feedback.
I was never suggesting the formal process is negative feedback. In fact that seems non-sensical which makes me wonder how you thought that I thought that made sense. It seems like a lazy dismissal, quite frankly. In what way could someone think an overarching policy is negative feedback on a particular event?
I can't imagine many development staff would be in a union? - though maybe some are. And even if not, some might be sympathetic if Google are being a bit careless about their legal obligations to the people being made redundant.
Of course, the companies just pay lip service to this.
Earning wages way above average does do that to some people.
In my home country I'd estimate 3/4 tech workers are completely out of touch with the harsh reality most people live in, and because of this, nobody will shed a tear for highly paid tech workers loosing their jobs.
They'll be fine though, they'll find other jobs.
The same way CEOs say "I take personal responsibility for this layoff". Thoughts and prayers.
It basically just means “I deserve the blame.” To which people puzzlingly reply as if they are trying to escape blame.
While ultimately hollow, we have far more robust employment laws than US counterparts.
Legally mandated advice, negotiatations, worker councils and voting are all things i've experienced in my short time being de-employed constantly
Why? This is basic capitalism, every party cares about their interests. On one side you have companies laying off people to increase profits (some of them have billions in their account), on the other side people walking out to prevent future scenarios for their own interest
> In what scenario does negative feedback from employees change the minds of management? “Oh shit we didn’t know this negatively impacted you all. My bad.”
Imagine a scenario where everyone walks out from that company, would it change the mind of management?
In no scenario this will happen. People have competing interests, and very few actually care what happens job-wise to his/her colleague.
Expects Google to do things differently… out of touch. For the exact reason you cite - Google will act out its best interest.
But here's all I found, from [1], basically:
> Your employer needs to show they have a redundancy process. They can decide what the process is, but it should always include a meeting with you to talk about:
> * why you’re being made redundant
> * the next steps in their process
> …Your employer’s process has to explain: how they’ll choose people for redundancy; how long the decision will take; what meetings you can go to and when; how you can appeal if you’re chosen for redundancy…
> …You should get invited to at least 1 meeting between you and your employer. Your meeting should happen before your employer has made their final decision about who will be made redundant…
> …You might be able to challenge your redundancy by making a claim for ‘unfair dismissal’ if your employer hasn’t told you these things
That, which is apparently legally required, is definitely not something that is guaranteed to happen in the USA, or really probably ever happens quite like that. (internal appeals process for a layoff? Unheard of in the USA).
I don't know if this law was followed or not by Google; or if this website I found is completely accureate, or if there are additional UK customary practices we should know about. (The OP article was not great, actual reporting would be including something on if Google broke the UK law or not). Perhaps someone from the UK could give us some context? But it doesn't seem like "these people are out of touch", it seems like possibly the commenter is out of touch with law and practice in the UK (and Europe)?
I suppose someone, perhaps the person I'm replying to, could say, who cares about this process, what difference does it make, in the end the employer still gets to lay off who they want, their decision, nothing in that process needs to change their minds, and people still won't be happy.
That may be; I'm still curious for a report from a worker in the UK of how this works out in practice.
I could see that process making people feel like they had a bit more dignity even when getting laid off, which is not nothing.
In general, I agree with the workers that it would be better if the decision of who to layoff is not solely the employers, but the employees actually do have a say in it. The legal process above is not necessarily that. To get that, you usually need a union, and this is one of the things union contracts often cover.
[1] https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/redundancy/check-your...
They are walking out because unlike the US there is a process to this, the company is supposed to listen when it's employees make alternative suggestions to save costs.
Companies are now correcting the overhiring spree they did in the pandemic boom.