There are lots of legal regulations around terminating employment and one of the easier legal ways is to remove a particular job or position. That's why generally people are not made redundant, their job, position or title is. It's a legal method of cutting costs by pruning the organisation.
It's nothing to do with whether you are a worthy employee. Redundancies don't work that way. They are a practical, legal way of reducing numbers - payroll and staff. In the video, he's wondering why they couldn't simply find another position for him where he could apply his expertise. It's probably because they had to state his job is no longer viable and so the job (and the person occupying those jobs) are let go. If the company were to find other positions for their favorite employees, it opens all kinds of legal problems for HR.
Working at one company for a long time can be interpreted in many different ways. More like a person, who isn't excited about looking for new opportunities. Or a person who is just lazy to not make a move etc etc. Also if you stay at a company for a very long time, unless the company gives you a generous raise every year your salary will be way behind market standards. And if you are OK with your work being valued so little for so long, it only means two things either you just agree that your work or contributions aren't very important to be paid enough, or you are just lazy. And both are negative indicators.
Its pointless to show loyalty that spans across 1.5 decades to a mega corporation where the boss two layers above probably doesn't even know your name, let alone the work you do. No wonder they don't blink twice before letting go some one. As much talented you might be, and how many algorithms you've memorized or how many nano seconds faster you can make a program run.
I fail to understand why anybody would stay so long, its like setting yourself up for a big meltdown sooner or later.
As an interviewer assessing a candidate, I would like to believe that I'm thoughtful enough to see that corporations lay people off for any number reasons. The macro-scale conditions at Microsoft likely have no bearing on the candidate's quality.
Imagine if the candidate were from RIM. We'd hardly question the reality that RIM has to lay off people, many of whom are competent.
It can still be devastating, though. It depends heavily on how general your skills are. Being laid off is much worse for someone whose knowledge and skills were mostly institutional.
The hard part about this is convincing the HR department that you can self-relocate and don't want relo money.
It seems disrespectful to judge an employee based on the negative perception of an entire company. For all the broken things within a company like Microsoft, I think it would be foolish to mark the company's talent pool as tainted.
Perhaps this reflects a subtler form of the fanboy-ism that exists in technology culture today. The sentiment is that companies we dislike must have incompetent employees. Competent employees would surely build a better product, right? Obviously this is naive.
Absolutely right, ageism plays into this as well. If you're hiring, keep in mind that, while fashionable, it is illegal to discriminate based on age. I wish this law was slightly easier to enforce.
I don't think it's a perception of incompetence, but more of inflexibility. The thinking that a microsoft employee of 15 years is set in their ways.
Of course - Node, Rails, Django, Spring etc wouldn't be bad to learn.