[HN Gopher] Google offers 'voluntary exit' to all US platforms a...
___________________________________________________________________
Google offers 'voluntary exit' to all US platforms and devices
employees
Author : unsnap_biceps
Score : 130 points
Date : 2025-01-31 23:06 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| guiambros wrote:
| [dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42880529 _(53
| comments, 110 points)_
| jey wrote:
| Hm. Why create this environment where the people with the most
| options will preferentially be induced to leave? Also the impact
| on the company project seems less predictable. Aside from
| avoiding the extreme difficulty involved in doing layoffs and
| choosing folks to let go, what are the upsides of this approach?
|
| EDIT: I see that my take was wrong and too narrow. Thanks to
| everyone who replied.
| dullcrisp wrote:
| Enough rounds of layoffs and I bet that would happen anyway,
| but across the whole company.
| vkou wrote:
| > Hm. Why create this environment where the people with the
| most options will preferentially be induced to leave?
|
| Because the alternatives are all worse, _and_ also result in
| the same thing.
| throwaway13337 wrote:
| I feel like this is a cynical take on an admitedly hard
| reality. It's becoming a meme here in response to these
| creative fires so I'd like to give a different perspective.
|
| I can say from my own experience that when you hate your job,
| you're usually not very productive, either. Maybe selecting for
| people who want out is more efficient than it seems.
|
| The take that only those who can get a new job will take the
| offer implies that people working there are only there because
| of a calculation that involves money and nothing else. I don't
| think it's realistic and I hope others don't live in that world
| - it sounds pretty miserable.
|
| In a non-cynical world, a great exit package would allow those
| that wanted to do something else to do so.
|
| Those that wanted to keep at it - because they're engaged with
| their work - would have colleagues that also want to be there.
| The company would have a happier, more productive culture.
| Everyone wins.
|
| It might be that there is an element of this calculation
| wherein low performers stay, but those people are definitely
| more desperate than most at FAANG.
| User23 wrote:
| If an exit package increases your agency, then take it!
|
| If an exit package doesn't increase your agency, then
| increase your agency in your current role!
| danso wrote:
| > _Aside from avoiding the extreme difficulty involved in doing
| layoffs and choosing folks to let go_
|
| Preventing massive emotional turmoil and political conflict
| sounds like a pretty huge upside, I'd even go so far as to
| argue that it's precisely the reason why everyone would prefer
| this situation. What alternative approaches are you thinking
| about that have more upsides?
| jey wrote:
| That's true. I happily concede!
| jonas21 wrote:
| This seems like a pretty bold and employee-friendly move. Google
| recently merged two large divisions, so there's going to be some
| redundancy. Most companies would resolve this with a layoff, but
| it sounds like they're trying a buyout at the request of their
| employees. From the article:
|
| > _Some employees at Google have recently been circulating a
| petition that calls for CEO Sundar Pichai to offer exactly this
| type of optional buyout before resorting to involuntary layoffs.
| "Ongoing rounds of layoffs make us feel insecure about our jobs,"
| the petition said, according to CNBC._
|
| Conventional wisdom is that with voluntary buyouts, high-
| performing employees who have the most options will leave and
| lower-performing employees will stay.
|
| We'll see how it turns out.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| If I'm a highly-paid, high-performing employee, I'm not walking
| away from a big paycheck and lots of clout. If I was a middling
| employee without a big paycheck, looking at the prospect of
| months of job searching once I get laid off, I'd take the
| buyout and use it to start searching full time.
| refulgentis wrote:
| The trick is knowing you're in the second group (and
| conveniently, this came roughly a week after everyone got
| their performance review results)
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Seems like the opposite happens. The high-performing employee
| is getting unsolicited job offers all the time -- can skip
| off to a higher salary somewhere else. Middling employee
| knows a bird in the hand when they see it.
| epicureanideal wrote:
| Theoretically, but in practice I'm not sure recruiters or
| other companies can tell the difference between a high
| performer and a mid-performer.
| tracerbulletx wrote:
| I agree, they can't, unless we're talking like true
| experts in a field. Which is a very small % of the
| people.
| strunz wrote:
| You may think Google cares about your performance but when
| the involuntary layoffs come, it's the highest earners who
| are first cut. Google is hoping the high earners leave
| because that saves the most money. There is no long/term
| thought here, it's short-sighted stock bumps from a company
| already rolling in money.
| deadmutex wrote:
| Also, for a lot of people working on hardware, the
| alternatives aren't great. Big Tech players like Apple, Meta,
| Amazon, etc. all have downsides. Startsups are extremely
| risky, and don't pay employees as well (ex: Humane, Rabbit,
| Peleton, etc.)
|
| A slightly better story for those working on software (e.g.
| Google Photos App or Backend). They have more options, but
| relatively good jobs (high pay, flexibility, great coworkers
| non-crazy hours, etc.) as still hard to come by. They exist,
| but not sure about the quantity.
| Karrot_Kream wrote:
| Why?
|
| I was an early hire at a company that became a Big Tech in
| this position and I left even without a buyout. Well
| compensated employees might not be top 1% rich but they're
| usually wealthy enough to find a different shop and tolerate
| some risk while living comfortably. I found over time that my
| peers at Big Tech became way too disinterested in making
| things and more interested in corporate politics or
| maximizing compensation for unit effort spent. If I had been
| offered a buyout I would have taken it in a heartbeat.
|
| (Consequently, when I read these threads I'm reminded of my
| good fortune of building my career in Silicon Valley. The
| kind of work environment I like is hard enough to find in the
| Valley but would have been impossible to find outside.)
| refulgentis wrote:
| > Google recently merged two large divisions, so there's going
| to be some redundancy
|
| I don't see why - it was corporate games of thrones stuff, the
| hardware VP got the software VP's toys. (disclaimer: worked 7
| years in P&E until I left in 2023)
| thevillagechief wrote:
| Perhaps you can help me answer a question I've had for a long
| time. How is that hardware VP still there? It seems to me
| from the outside much better fits have been pushed out, but
| he's still hanging on. Is he really that good that these
| games?
| refulgentis wrote:
| My thinkings basically the same as yours. I probably also
| have about as much info as you on the matter, but then
| again, even knowing the "facts on the ground" aren't _mis_
| aligned with that conclusion says something.
|
| I honestly don't really know if there were better
| alternatives. But I definitely lost a lot of faith
| somewhere between the Google IO where they packed _every_
| announcement for the next two years they could think of,
| managing to announce AR glasses again, only to have to
| cancel them a year later.
|
| If the sell was professionalism via Motorola experience,
| that's not what happened.
|
| But quite the loyal soldier, I think the public record has
| a very clear accounting of how many boneheaded decisions
| were made at the altar of Good Budgeting*, and the MBAs
| have thoroughly ate the company in general. They must enjoy
| his work.
|
| * bungling maintaining the tablet; marching onto a
| nonsensical goal to have Android eat ChromeOS while
| embarrassing themselves publicly mumbling about how its
| because AI, when really, its because politics. Meanwhile
| fantastic software work that would have fit right into a
| world with LLMs was shitcanned at the altar of
| Efficiency(tm) and focusing on getting products out.
| aoeusnth1 wrote:
| I believe the ChromeOS -> Android move was because the
| CrOS model of having Google pay for the testing support
| of partner devices was not working out, and moving
| towards Android's model would cut costs while also
| cutting duplicate development costs.
| jarjoura wrote:
| I imagine it's mostly going to be folks who were planning to
| leave anyway, and this is the nudge they needed to do it
| sooner.
|
| The downside to this approach is that they will probably tilt
| more towards senior and staff engineers who have been driving
| important projects and likely were going to leave once the
| project ships (or cancels).
|
| Now, they leave 6 months earlier, and leave teams full of new
| or junior level employees without much context. The company is
| full of smart folks though and they will recover. It will just
| be a painful year as teams scramble to figure everything out.
|
| It's also a potential F-U to Meta's approach who just did
| broadcasted performance based layoffs. Future employees will
| keep note and it will make it harder for Meta to recruit.
| randmeerkat wrote:
| > This seems like a pretty bold and employee-friendly move.
| Google recently merged two large divisions, so there's going to
| be some redundancy. Most companies would resolve this with a
| layoff, but it sounds like they're trying a buyout at the
| request of their employees.
|
| Or they're afraid the union at Google will gain more traction.
| The employees should unionize now before the layoffs happen.
| golly_ned wrote:
| > high-performing employees who have the most options will
| leave and lower-performing employees will stay.
|
| How do you figure? High-performing employees will stay because
| they're not worried about impending layoffs. Lower-performing
| employees will leave because they know they're on the chopping
| block.
|
| Google is also notorious for having tons of talented deadwood,
| since they don't want them to go to other companies. Such
| companies are ripe for cutting the fat.
| ericd wrote:
| Off topic, but The Verge's bottom cookie banner is truly absurd:
|
| "Privacy Notice We and our 868 partners store and access personal
| data, like browsing data or unique identifiers, on your device."
| dylan604 wrote:
| at that point, calling them partners is beyond perverted. they
| are essentially saying that they are willing to sell your data
| to body that knocks on their door
| ycombinatrix wrote:
| I'm embarrassed for Verge employees
| OnionBlender wrote:
| Does this mean I shouldn't bother apply?
| aoeusnth1 wrote:
| Google, maybe. P&D, no.
| Animats wrote:
| Does this mean Google is exiting the phone business?
| rawgabbit wrote:
| I once worked at a BIGCORP. The newly appointed CFO said the
| new philosophy was that if a division which was its own
| corporate entity was not number one or two in its industry, it
| was best to sell and exit. They did this for many years and
| wound up selling everything. I would argue this is a net
| negative for society and consumers who have less choice less
| competition and higher prices.
|
| In 2015 YouTube was separated from Google with both owned by
| Alphabet. My guess is that Sergey Brin couldn't care less if
| both companies went out of business. All they care is ROI.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-02-01 08:01 UTC)