Hacker News Reader

Comment by ta1243 | Hacker News Reader

Also maybe it's true for OPs country, not in mine. It costs a lot of money to get rid of someone in my country. So that makes laying people off less profitable.

"it's profitable" hides a world of problem though. "it's profitable" over what timeline - just because an employee isn't doing something profitable this week, doesn't mean they won't be next week. It costs a lot to fire someone even in "at will" countries where you literally just tell them to F-Off

View on HN

I have a friend who was laid-off from Google in Switzerland. The guy got salary for months but wasn't allowed in the office. So stupid. Seems like this "we must do lay-offs" is such a modus operandi for us big tech they would do it even if it cost them far more than utilize the pretty talented developer.

Perhaps because of the robust European labor protections that Google had to comply with?

That’s why they have to give him money. That’s not why he’s not in the office.

They don’t want him in the office to prevent espionage or sabotage. I’m sure you can think of other potential negatives, too.

Contrast this with the presumably US situation of a reported Google firing by email, instantly gone forever, can’t even say goodbye to colleagues.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40944098

The (nation-)state you work in matters a lot.

> So stupid. Seems like this "we must do lay-offs" is such a modus operandi for us big tech they would do it even if it cost them far more than utilize the pretty talented developer.

Unless they consider that it is still profitable because they will stop paying him after those 2-3 months. Which would not be stupid.

When saying “it’s profitable to lay someone off”, isn’t it implied that it’s profitable in a long-term perspective? Otherwise, it would according to the definition to be profitable to lay someone of as soon as they take their first lunch break.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com