Ask HN: Who's Most Likely to Get Laid Off During Layoffs? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Who's Most Likely to Get Laid Off During Layoffs?

4 pointsmetayrnc15 comments

I’m curious how leadership decides who gets laid off. Have you noticed any patterns? Do you have any suggestions for people in situations where they might be impacted by layoffs? Thank you!

View on HN

I've only been laid off once, and it was from one of the top 10 multinational companies in the world. Head office in New York decreed a headcount reduction. I was positively not highly paid and did above average work. I had an excellent relationship with both my direct manager and the country managing director. But my manager's manager disliked me for being outspoken and pushing back on bad decisions. So he made the effort to hit me with a heavy handed legal document and a generous severance payment.

Contrary to common opinion, I think that politics trumps concerns about performance or pay levels.

People in the part of the org that's cut. In my experience most layoffs aren't about cutting x% across teams, they're about the company deciding that they don't need entire functions altogether and getting rid of entire teams.

The most recent cut in my org was x% across functions. (Just one data point tho…)

This was my experience at Microsoft. Cut our entire group, decided with higher interest rates the investment wasn’t worth it. If you’re in a group that is a long-term play and not immediately earning revenue, that’s a big risk when hard times come.

> Who's Most Likely to Get Laid Off During Layoffs?

Dave! Always a Dave pays the price! https://www.reddit.com/r/recruitinghell/comments/13qk89s/due...

last-in-first-out is often the way to go. In many jurisdictions, it is simply easier to fire your newer employees as certain employment protection rights only kick in after so many months or even years. Also, the newest people in are likely to be of some of the lowest immediate value to a company as new hires usually require training and expected to run at a loss for a while before eventually becoming useful and profitable. So I’d say you’re most likely to get laid off if you’ve just been hired. Life is kind of funny like that.

i’ll also expand upon my answer to say that, in tech at least, the need to fire is often after a hiring binge. if there is a general feeling that the hiring binge went too then it is natural to assume you need to fire those you have just hired.

I think this varies so much between different companies that it's nearly impossible to make a blanket statement about it that would be useful.

It can even vary a lot between different layoff events at the same company. Every layoff is its own animal.

Those that are under performing and those that are paid the most.

This would suggest that everyone laid off in recent waves were mostly under performers or over paid?

That's typically what I've seen. If you are indispensable you won't get laid off as easily.

Careful. I've seen "indispensable" people get laid off. It's a reminder that everybody is dispensable.

A better phrasing might be "if someone was laid off in recent waves, then there is a higher probability that they were an under-performer, or over-paid, compared to the workers who were not laid off".

(And try not to use the phrasing "everyone X were mostly" near old math teachers.)

This ^

And those approaching significant milestone payment obligations (e.g. long service pay)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com