[HN Gopher] Googler... ex-Googler
___________________________________________________________________
Googler... ex-Googler
Author : namukang
Score : 891 points
Date : 2025-04-11 20:19 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (nerdy.dev)
(TXT) w3m dump (nerdy.dev)
| snvzz wrote:
| That's just how it is for a lay off, in megacorp and elsewhere.
|
| Not sure how this is HN-worthy.
| sangeeth96 wrote:
| Adam was a very prominent Chrome DevRel and top voices of the
| web platform. I personally owe to his content (blog, snippets,
| podcast, talks, youtube, social media etc.) to stay up-to-date
| on things.
|
| It's a bit of a shock to me that he of all people is getting
| laid off and that too in such an ugly way.
| ycombinatrix wrote:
| What was specifically ugly about it? It seems ugly like any
| other layoff except maybe he liked his job more than most.
| fragmede wrote:
| the obligations listed on the page that he got rug pulled
| off of seem kinda ugly to me.
| snvzz wrote:
| Ugly, but not uncommon.
|
| A company will often try and avoid letting a candidate
| know that they are being considered for firing, or that
| the decision has already been made, until the trigger is
| pulled.
| decimalenough wrote:
| That's normal. What's uniquely ugly/American is conveying
| those firing decisions by locking the fired employees out
| of their email at 6 PM on Friday. In most countries this
| is illegal.
| phtrivier wrote:
| I suppose organizing departure in an adult manner (Offer
| some time to finish task, pass on knowledge, etc... AND
| let the people leave earlier if they prefer - you know,
| the whole "think about the team" thing) would also
| violate someone's meritocratic free speech ?
| roman_soldier wrote:
| Replace/Cancel the talk he had scheduled or forgo the
| $500k+ in savings and keep him. Not a hard decision.
| physicsguy wrote:
| DevRel is unfortunately something that's going the way of the
| dodo though now that interest rates are up. A position that
| doesn't directly contribute to the bottom line of a company,
| so it's easy to justify getting rid of.
| grandempire wrote:
| > blog, snippets, podcast, talks, youtube, social media
| etc.
|
| In ZIRP every cent is positive ROI
|
| (Not intended to be a comment about OPs individual
| performance or skill)
| switch007 wrote:
| And Chrome has an insanely dominant position now. Devs need
| Chrome, not the other way around
| musicale wrote:
| Does Google (or whoever is making these decisions) think that
| layoffs are in the long-term best interest of the company? If so,
| are they correct?
|
| Or is it related to the possibility that Google may have to
| divest itself of Chrome due to anti-trust enforcement?
| amputect wrote:
| None of the people making these decisions care about the long-
| term best interest of the company. Sundar doesn't give a shit
| about Google's future, he is laser focused on what really
| matters to him and the people he reports to: the stock price. A
| big round of layoffs can juice the stock, and it's a nice way
| to keep the numbers going up in between industry events where
| they can show off deceptively edited product demos and
| knowingly lie about the capabilities of their current and
| future AI offerings.
|
| To put it another way: Google doesn't want to be a software
| company anymore. Google does not care about making software, or
| products, or the people who make or use their products. Google
| wants to be a growth company where the stock price goes up by
| two-digit percentages every quarter. That is absolutely the
| only thing that Google cares about. Google has realized that
| the best way to make this happen is to commit securities fraud
| by lying to their investors about their products, and by drip-
| feeding layoffs to show that they're serious about their
| underlying financials. It's theater, playing pretend at being
| business people. The individual products are allowed to go
| about their business as long as they don't cost too much money,
| but Google doesn't want to make money by having good products
| that people love to use, Google wants to make money by being a
| hyper-growth unicorn again, and they will do anything at all to
| recapture that kind of growth even if they're slitting the
| throat of the company to do it.
|
| Whether this attitude is good for Google or its users is left
| as an exercise to the reader.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| It may be a bet that AI will reduce the need for developers.
| Even if it can only write boilerplate, boilerplate still has to
| be written and is time consuming, so if it were to remove 20%
| of time that needs to be sunk into a project, the work of 5
| people can now be done by 4 (less if you account for the
| reduced coordination overhead).
|
| Whether these savings actually play out and whether management
| has accurate expectations and metrics remains to be seen, given
| messaging that makes it sound like AI saves huge percentages of
| time, when it at best saves huge percentages of something
| that's actually only a small percentage of day to day work.
| xyst wrote:
| Wake up, buddy. This is the neoliberal/neoclassical economy we
| are living in. They are pumping the books to make their
| quarterlies look good.
|
| Pump the stock, deliver "shareholder value", and make
| billionaire class richer is the game. Oh, and also make room
| for stock buybacks of course!
| musicale wrote:
| It can be shock to discover how little the company as an entity,
| and its upper management in particular, actually values you (or
| any other employee.) Employees are indeed cogs in a megacorp, and
| the relationship is transactional. The company demands loyalty
| because it can and because it is profitable, not because it will
| be reciprocated.
| hyperliner wrote:
| Even those in "upper management" are cogs.
| greesil wrote:
| Everybody responds to incentives. Not everyone is competent.
| And, the higher you go the less accountability there seems to
| be.
| windward wrote:
| We pay a lot because we need these people who are capable
| of making tough decisions (copying everyone else by
| overhiring at a premium during low interest rates), they
| can't be kept accountable for their own mistakes like the
| rest of us (fired myopically as a sacrificial lamb during a
| down-market because investors demand executives copy
| everyone else (they're invested in everyone else))
| roman_soldier wrote:
| When it comes down to it everyone has their own interests as a
| priority so if a manager is told to let folks go they will
| gladly do it to keep their own job.
| commandersaki wrote:
| It sucks and especially the abruptness, but I find it hard to
| muster sympathy. Google employees receive some of the highest
| renumeration in the industry. Combined with the prestige of
| Google on his resume he'll land back on his feet in no time.
| kweingar wrote:
| > Combined with the prestige of Google on his resume he'll land
| back on his feet in no time.
|
| I wouldn't count on that. The job market is really bad.
| ivraatiems wrote:
| The reality of one's lack of value to one's own employer is often
| baffling. It makes you wonder how anyone manages to stay employed
| at all, since apparently everyone is replicable and unimportant.
| I have been through layoffs where other people on my team, doing
| the same job I did approximately as well, got laid off. No
| explanation given for why them and not me. And it could happen to
| me at any time.
|
| It doesn't matter how good my evals are or how big my
| contributions. It doesn't matter that there are multiple multi-
| million-dollar revenue streams which exist in large part due to
| my contributions. It doesn't matter that I have been told I am
| good enough that I should be promoted to the next level. Raises
| barely exist, let alone promotions. Because theoretically some
| other engineer could have done the same work I actually did, the
| fact that I'm the one who did it doesn't matter and I deserve no
| reward for doing it beyond the minimum money necessary to secure
| my labor.
|
| Under those conditions, why should I - or anyone - do any more
| than the minimum necessary to not get fired for cause? If the
| company doesn't see me as more than X dollars for X revenue, why
| should I?
| hyperliner wrote:
| If you do only the minimum necessary to not get fired, then
| wouldn't you be the person that needs to be fired the next time
| the the budget is cut, since you are the lowest ROI of all, all
| other things equal?
| ivraatiems wrote:
| No. It's clear individual level of effort doesn't matter.
| That's the point.
| lazide wrote:
| Cheer up - Sometimes it's also a convenient cover for
| reprisals, back stabby office politics, racism/sexism, etc.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| In theory, you'd think so.
|
| In practice, due to the phenomenon described here
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43662738, it's less
| relevant than you think. Specifically at Google, there have
| been reports of high performers, recently promoted with
| excellent ratings before _and_ after the promotion, getting
| the sack.
|
| In my experience, people who do good work do so because they
| enjoy the work and feel motivated, not due to any kind of
| performance management system or threat. Destroy the joy or
| motivation, and you've just destroyed a large part of the
| performance of these self-driven people.
|
| People often talk about "10x engineers", but not how it's
| possible to destroy a 10x engineer and turn them into a
| (let's be generous) 2x engineer, and I think capricious
| layoffs are a _great_ way to do just that.
| weinzierl wrote:
| _" I have been through layoffs where other people on my team,
| doing the same job I did approximately as well, got laid off.
| No explanation given for why them and not me. And it could
| happen to me at any time."_
|
| Usually there is a hidden variable that you don't know. It is
| your salary. That is why it sometimes looks surprising when
| senior roles are cut that look extremely valuable to the
| company from the outset. Maybe they were _that_ valuable but
| still deemed to expensive.
| lazide wrote:
| The part here too is 'valuable to whom'. If they can saddle
| the middle manager or director with the same
| responsibilities/expectations, while cutting 10% (say) of the
| costs - guess what they are going to do.
|
| Is it ultimately short sighted? Probably. But good luck
| connecting point A and point B in these situations when
| everyone is thinking quarter to quarter.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| ok, and also "big thieves hate little thieves." Very-well
| paid executives (stock) remove very well paid employees
| (salary) and benefit from the actions. This is an old
| situation in industrial business -- the high tech crowd are
| filled with self-grandeur and do not believe it, on a large
| scale IMHO.
| lazide wrote:
| Eh, or you could think of it as 'cut 10 people to move the
| needle x percent, or cut 1'.
|
| If you need to hit a specific number, guess which one is
| going to be less paperwork....
| marcusb wrote:
| > Usually there is a hidden variable that you don't know.
|
| This is frequently the case. I've worked at big employers
| (comparable in level of corporate-ness to Google if not
| absolute size) where the layoff process, roughly was:
|
| 1. Aggregate layoff target gets set and apportioned amongst
| functional leaders, then targets cascaded down to the line
| manager level.
|
| 2. Managers fill out a stack ranking spreadsheet for their
| team across a few metrics including a boolean "diversity"
| field[0]. There were many rumors about the "diversity field",
| most notably that anyone so flagged would not be fired, but
| so far as I could tell these were false (see point #4)
|
| 3. People to be fired are developed based on these lists
| (I.e., if a manager has to fire two people, then the two
| lowest-ranked employees per the spreadsheet are selected.)
|
| 4. HR does a meta-analysis of all to-be-fired employees,
| ensuring that a disproportionate number of employees from
| protected classes are not impacted. If too many are, then
| some of the next-lowest-ranked employees are selected to be
| fired in their stead.
|
| As far as I could tell, the only part of the process where
| any sort of individual, human consideration was occurring was
| _maybe_ at the line manager level if they decided to tweak
| the stack rankings based on who they felt deserved to be
| protected. And then, to the extent that happens, you have all
| the problems with bias and favoritism that come into play.
|
| 0 - I realize this is probably controversial, but I saw it
| with my own eyes.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| For some perspective, the bulk of this is simply illegal in
| the Netherlands, likely other countries in the EU as well:
|
| - layoff plans must be communicated ahead of time. Minimum
| 30 days notice, usually much more
|
| - Needs to be negotiated with worker representatives (works
| council, syndicate if there is one)
|
| - LIFO principle for layoffs, newest employees are let go
| first. Stack ranking not possible
|
| - Any kind of discrimination is forbidden
|
| - At a minimum, you get 2 months pay + accrued holidays
|
| It's baffling to imagine that you could learn about your
| job disappearing from one day to the next, and be
| immediately left out in the cold.
| klooney wrote:
| > LIFO principle for layoffs, newest employees are let go
| first. Stack ranking not possible
|
| Newer employees often see this as incredibly unfair.
| SR2Z wrote:
| Because it is unfair. It just tends to benefit people
| employed today
| lazide wrote:
| The only fair system is a random lottery - which is also
| the most terrifying for everyone.
| ncruces wrote:
| It's not about being fair to the individual, it's about
| producing a better outcome for society. In this case,
| saving money on welfare (that's also in great measured
| pooled across society, not an individual account).
|
| Parents being able to take sick days to care for their
| kids, or 50yo being able to take leaves to take care of
| their dying 80yo parents are also unfair to kids in their
| 20s just starting out.
| kergonath wrote:
| If it's the rule, everyone knows it. There is no guessing
| about randomness or hidden variables, and ultimately less
| favoritism than a line manager coming up with a stack
| ranking.
|
| Looking at the larger picture, what otherwise tends to
| happen is that older people get pushed out. Then we have
| a massive issue of them ending up unemployed because
| nobody wants to hire them. This is compounded by the
| retirement age being pushed further and further away.
| lurking_swe wrote:
| it's also a bit baffling that someone who's been at the
| company longer than myself could have an advantage simply
| for being born before me, or for applying before me.
|
| Is work performance not a key deciding factor? One could
| argue that's absurd.
|
| I don't think the way it's done in the U.S. is "right",
| but i don't think what you listed is right either.
| lazide wrote:
| Seniority based systems are 'I got mine, f u' or
| 'politics in action' depending on how you look at it.
|
| More senior employees have usually figured out how to get
| leverage on the employer over time.
|
| Non-seniority are usually 'cheapest is best', or 'do what
| I say, or else'.
|
| Both have pros and cons for everyone involved. There is
| always _some_ system though, even if it's emergent.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| Layoffs are for companies to reduce the size of their
| workforce and lower operating costs, skill distribution
| remains the same - there are various exceptions to ensure
| this.
|
| If some employees are underperforming they should already
| be on their way out. That also is a process protected by
| law (no at-will employment here), otherwise layoffs would
| just be an excuse to expedite firings without going
| through the necessary steps. In short, being employed
| assumes you can perform at a satisfactory level, which
| makes sense to me. The flipside is that hiring is a much
| bigger commitment as people are not disposable.
|
| Voluntary severance packages are usually offered ahead of
| layoffs, and include compensation based on years worked,
| so things can balance out a little.
|
| The whole regulations are more about the social impact.
| Younger employees have an easier time re-arranging their
| lives and finding new jobs, are less likely to apply for
| welfare, and still have time left to switch careers, so
| this benefits everyone.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| >Layoffs are for companies to reduce the size of their
| workforce and lower operating costs, skill distribution
| remains the same - there are various exceptions to ensure
| this.
|
| But since this subthread is discussing LIFO layoffs, the
| problem is that generally the last in is also the lowest
| paid - not always of course - but if so it means that to
| hit your operating cost point you might need to reduce
| more people than you would if you could pick and choose.
| marcusb wrote:
| > layoff plans must be communicated ahead of time.
| Minimum 30 days notice, usually much more
|
| In the United States, employers with more than 100 full-
| time, non-probationary employees must provide 60 days
| notice of most planned layoffs[0]
|
| > - LIFO principle for layoffs, newest employees are let
| go first. Stack ranking not possible
|
| This is functionally equivalent to a stack ranking in
| that it is a forced-distribution scheme. It is just based
| on a single factor that is outside of the employee's
| control. Say what you want about stack ranking, but
| people do have a large degree of control over their job
| performance.
|
| > Any kind of discrimination is forbidden
|
| In the United States any kind of job discrimination
| against members of protected classes[1] in illegal. Even
| inadvertently disparately impacting[2] members of a
| protected group is illegal.
|
| 0 - https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/termination/plantcl
| osings
|
| 1 - https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-
| protecte...
|
| 2 - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/disparate_impact
| whatshisface wrote:
| There's no such thing as a protected group in US law - a
| protected class means a certain property of someone that
| employment decisions can't depend on, not a value of that
| property.
| marcusb wrote:
| First, I'll say it is pretty common to use the terms
| interchangeably. I don't think anyone was confused by
| what I wrote, or that your "clarification" was in any way
| helpful. See, for example, these legal groups using the
| term "protected group" in relation to US employment law:
|
| * https://www.osbar.org/public/legalinfo/1095_Discriminat
| ionEm...
|
| * https://pedersenlaw.com/practice-areas/discrimination/
|
| Secondly, I used the phrase "protected group" referring
| to _disparate impact_ , and here, your assertion (to the
| extent it has any validity at all) is simply incorrect.
| The entire idea is to ferret out subtle acts of
| discrimination that have an outsize impact on a group
| consisting of members of a protected class, and in the
| case law you see the phrase "protected group" used
| explicitly. For example: On the contrary,
| the ultimate burden of proving that discrimination
| against a protected group has been caused by a specific
| employment practice remains with the plaintiff at all
| times (Watson v Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 US 977 -
| Supreme Court 1988[0])
|
| 0 - https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=63794561
| 1431669...
| lazide wrote:
| Companies in the US have been blatantly discriminating
| against some classes for years, and now must turn around
| and blatantly discriminate against other classes now
| (based on the current 'anti-DEI' stance). Racism and
| sexism in hiring in Europe and Asia has always been a
| thing, and quite blatant too.
| saghm wrote:
| > In the United States, employers with more than 100
| full-time, non-probationary employees must provide 60
| days notice of most planned layoffs[0]
|
| This seemed quite surprising to me, and from reading your
| reference, I don't think it's nearly as broad a
| protection as it seems to me like you're stating it. the
| law seems to apply to companies that you describe, but
| the types of events that they need to provide notice for
| don't seem like "most planned layoffs" to me; the
| employee guide lists the following as potentially being
| covered:
|
| * A plant closing (see glossary)--where your employer
| shuts down a facility or operating unit (see glossary)
| within a single site of employ- ment (see glossary and
| FAQs) and lays off at least 50 full-time workers;
|
| * A mass layoff (see glossary)--where your employer lays
| off either between 50 and 499 full-time workers at a
| single site of employment and that number is 33% of the
| number of full-time workers at the sin- gle site of
| employment; or
|
| * A situation where your employer (see glossary) lays off
| 500 or more full-time workers at a single site of
| employment
|
| I don't think most layoffs in the US are due to shutting
| down an entire office, a third of an office with at least
| 150 people, or 500 people from the same office. I'd
| expect most layoffs to either be much less concentrated
| in a single location or not large enough to hit the
| defined thresholds.
|
| [0] https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/layoffs/warn [1] htt
| ps://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/Layoff/pdfs/Worke
| ...
| shagie wrote:
| Most states have a WARN act that covers even more. For
| example, California - https://edd.ca.gov/en/jobs_and_trai
| ning/Layoff_Services_WARN...
|
| While federal law has: Plant closings
| involving 50 or more employees during a 30-day period.
|
| California law has: Plant closure
| affecting any amount of employees. Layoff of 50 or more
| employees within a 30-day period regardless of % of
| workforce. Relocation of at least 100 miles affecting any
| amount of employees. Relocation of a call center to a
| foreign country regardless of the percentage of workforce
| affected.
| eloisant wrote:
| > In the United States, employers with more than 100
| full-time, non-probationary employees must provide 60
| days notice of most planned layoffs[0]
|
| I'm not sure how that works, because I've been at a US
| company that did layoffs and they suddenly announced the
| layoff saying the impacted employees would be notified
| within a day.
|
| Except for France and other European countries, where
| they announced the beginning of the process meaning the
| number and list of people let go wasn't decided yet (it
| would have been illegal).
| coolgoose wrote:
| I think you need to look at some of the recent Dutch
| firing sprees and figure out if that'd actualy respected
| ;)
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| Thank you for sharing this important information. What
| does a company in the Netherlands do when an employee is
| underperforming? Do they get "PIP'd" like Amazon? Then,
| eventually let go with some standard severance package?
| eloisant wrote:
| I can't talk about the Netherlands but if it's like
| France: the process is very different in the case of
| layoffs, where you want to reduce the workforce for
| economical reasons (e.g. shrinking revenues), and firing
| an individual employee. In the first case employees are
| not let go on the basis of the performances.
|
| Firing individual employees for performances or because
| they made a serious offense is a different completely
| process. Whether they get a severance package or not
| depends on the reason of the firing.
| sublimefire wrote:
| Yes and no, as it is a difficult process because employer
| needs to prove it is not their fault that employee is not
| performing. To begin with you need to collect data over
| time, so pip is kind of a choice you'd go through to
| start collecting detailed info, then it might be that a
| simple course could help solve this if it is a knowledge
| based issue, then maybe there is another job in the
| company the employee could switch to, etc. Without any
| doubt employers do not like the process, it is easier to
| eliminate positions instead because it is not technically
| firing.
| goldchainposse wrote:
| > diversity field
|
| If this was even in the spreadsheet, whether or not it were
| used, the current administration would love to hear about
| it.
| marcusb wrote:
| This was more than a decade ago, so I doubt they care
| that much, and if you want to accuse me of being a liar,
| please have the integrity to just say that.
| somesortofthing wrote:
| Layoffs in particular are like this because they're planned
| very quickly by very small groups of people. Rumors of
| impending layoffs obliterate morale, so the people in charge do
| everything they can to maintain secrecy and minimize the time
| between people hearing about layoffs and the layoffs taking
| effect. This basically always translates to random-seeming
| decisions - priority 1 is to cut costs by X amount, choosing
| the right people to cut is secondary. This means that, for
| example, engineers that have received performance-based raises
| are punished since, on paper, they do the same job as lower-
| performing but lower-paid engineers.
|
| Not defending the process(the right way to break this
| equilibrium is statutory requirements for layoffs a la the WARN
| act) but that's why you see the outcomes you do.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| > _Rumors of impending layoffs obliterate morale_
|
| Granted, but it seems like the current way of salary-first,
| performance-blind cutting obliterates it even harder.
| rincebrain wrote:
| Really, all options obliterate morale.
|
| Laying off people who you rank as "low end" on the
| acceptable performance scale, might mean you kill
| structurally important bricks that were not optimizing for
| being higher than "high enough" on that scale, and
| cannibalizes people working on anything valuable long-term
| but hard to justify to management short-term.
|
| Laying off high performers means people don't want their
| head to be poking up, so they sabotage their own visibility
| to try being "good enough", while also killing people's
| motivations.
|
| Laying off randomly kills people's morale directly worst of
| all, because that implies there's nothing they can do to
| change the outcome, and impotence is worse, arguably, than
| anything else for many people.
| thesuitonym wrote:
| Any style of layoff is going to be bad for morale, but
| rumors floating around tank morale for as long as those
| rumors exist, and then moral takes another hit on the
| actual day. In that way it makes sense to just rip the
| Band-Aid off.
|
| Of course, if you ask me, a more sensible plan to keep
| morale and lower costs would be getting rid of a few
| executives, but what do I know? I'm just a number on a
| spreadsheet.
| gizmondo wrote:
| In this particular case the impending layoff was basically
| obvious to everyone months in advance (see
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42893463).
| mandelbrotwurst wrote:
| It seems rather disappointing if typical management would
| make such impactful decisions so rapidly that their "on
| paper" analysis couldn't be made clever enough to consider
| more than a single variable.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Managers don't have the kind of information necessary to plan
| layoffs that don't seem random. Anything they know is already
| being used for the usual hiring/promotion/compensation
| adjustment process.
| pjmlp wrote:
| This is a lesson that all senior developers know pretty well,
| that is why companies rather hire naive juniors, instead folks
| that already mastered how the game gets played, and cannot be
| sold on company mission, values, or whatever snake oil gets
| talked about during interview process.
| neilv wrote:
| Not _all_. You 're talking about douchebag companies.
|
| If I try to hire someone in the future, and I'm talking
| straight with a candidate, about how we do things and what
| we're looking for, and they just nod their head, like I'm
| going through BS rituals that your stereotypical MBA thinks
| is professional to say but not mean... I will be sad.
|
| And if, while they're BSing me, they're congratulating
| themselves on having "mastered how the game gets played"... I
| will be angry.
|
| (This is another reason I won't Leetcode interview. It's
| signalling that the company is all about disingenuous baggery
| theatre.)
| denkmoon wrote:
| Which are the non douchebag companies?
| gorbachev wrote:
| Start by eliminating all publicy traded companies from
| the list, and you've increased the percentage of non
| douchebag company in your list by quite a bit.
| hobs wrote:
| Unfortunately for you you work and live in an environment
| created by other companies and its likely that if your
| company succeeds its one acquisition or bad top level
| management play from invalidating everything you implicitly
| or even explicitly promised.
|
| I have worked for "good companies" before - and they have a
| tendency to make money and be targets for bad companies,
| add enough zeroes and even the good guys sell.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| And while I was still employed as a seasoned developer
| (before recently retiring) I felt it was my role to pass
| along some of my cynicism to the new hires and younger devs.
| Some of them seemed a little surprised to see me call
| bullshit in a group meeting. (Good luck to you boys and
| girls.)
| pton_xd wrote:
| Meanwhile, they all roll their eyes at the "jaded
| greybeard" advice. I know, because many years ago I was
| doing the eye rolling. I guess some lessons really can only
| be learned through experience.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| You spend half your waking hours at work.
|
| Having a shitty attitude for that much of your life is no way
| to live.
| saghm wrote:
| On the contrary, being stuck in a situation where your
| livelihood can disappear at a moment's notice due to factors
| beyond your control is no way to live, but it's also not
| really something most people will ever be able to avoid. I
| don't at all buy into the idea that somehow pretending the
| situation isn't shitty is somehow more virtuous or
| fulfilling; what you call a "shitty attitude" sounds more
| like "being realistic about how one's work is valued" to me.
| roenxi wrote:
| > being stuck in a situation where your livelihood can
| disappear at a moment's notice due to factors beyond your
| control is no way to live
|
| That is literally the only way to live. Disaster stalks us
| an is only ever one misstep away (sometimes literally). In
| rare instances people can even just fall over and die.
|
| In the sense that there should be food and shelter for
| everyone, even poor people; strictly speaking I think most
| countries have already agreed to that. Although how well
| that gets implemented is open to a lot of debate. But
| beyond that everything can always change at a moments
| notice.
| thawawaycold wrote:
| Nor is sticking your head in the sand.
| nine_k wrote:
| Check out the book called "The Gervais Principle" which
| develops this kind of cynical approach to a significant depth.
| anal_reactor wrote:
| > Under those conditions, why should I - or anyone - do any
| more than the minimum necessary to not get fired for cause?
|
| No, you shouldn't. I know it feels like "but I thought that if
| I like cleaning my own apartment then getting a job as a
| janitor would leave me deeply fulfilled" but that's not how it
| works.
| Ferret7446 wrote:
| Your relationship with your employer is no different than any
| other business relationship. You can do the bare minimum, just
| as there are many businesses that do the bare minimum toward
| their customers, and those businesses often have a low
| subsistence level of success; if you do the same, you may have
| the same level of success in your career.
|
| An employment relationship can offer a lot of things for both
| sides. For the employer, your labor of course. For the
| employee, a salary of course. But it can also offer experience,
| access to other talented and intelligent individuals and access
| to capital to learn and try things, networking, relationships,
| opportunities for promotion and perhaps opportunities to find
| better employment elsewhere, or the skills and/or connections
| to start your own business.
|
| Your attitude toward work should be the same as the attitude
| you take towards the rest of your life. You can "rot" or you
| can make the most of every opportunity.
| windward wrote:
| You're right but our current model of society depends on there
| being people who don't ask the same question.
| jimt1234 wrote:
| I've noticed a disturbing trend in the last year or so where a
| company announces a significant layoff, saying it needed to let
| go of "underperforming employees" or similar wording. I've been
| in this industry for a long time, experienced several layoffs,
| but this way to announce a layoff (publicly calling-out
| "underperforming employees") feels new to me. It also feels
| shady - like, announcing to the industry, _" Don't hire these
| losers we just got rid of. LOL"_
| dumbledoren wrote:
| These megacorps will have so much fun in the upcoming recession.
| They turned public opinion against them through sociopathic
| profiteering and then mass layoffs. When the cows come home it
| won't be fun and games like before.
| nsm1 wrote:
| > sociopathic profiteering
|
| That "sociopathic" profiteering funds the 401(k), IRAs, and
| pension plans of tens of millions of Americans. God forbid
| these companies be run for the collective benefit of all
| shareholders (including special ed teachers, utility workers,
| and airline mechanics) and not just the lottery winners who
| scored the high-paying jobs at these companies.
|
| > mass layoffs
|
| The "Day in the Life" videos that made the rounds on TikTok
| sapped the general public of whatever sympathy they may have
| otherwise had for the FANMAGers getting sacked from their
| $100-300k jobs.
| rdtsc wrote:
| Sadly two management levels above we're just a line in a
| spreadsheet. Maybe even one level above.
|
| "Hey look, this one is cog is spinning at a cost $200k/year, why
| don't we replace it with a cog from a low cost country and save
| some money?" Or "remove it and make this one other cog do the
| work of this obe?" People doing the replacement have to show they
| did something, as well!
| lazide wrote:
| Upper management has targets they need to meet. If they don't,
| they're out the door even faster than your typical junior
| engineer who is struggling to code.
|
| The targets often aren't what you'd think though.
| uptownfunk wrote:
| Google is one of those places where you never need to ask if
| someone worked there.
| fragmede wrote:
| self fulfilling prophecy though, because the people who worked
| at Google but don't tell you about it, won't tell you about it,
| so you don't know they did so you're only going to hear about
| it from the ones you hear about it from
| jsemrau wrote:
| Can you explain for the uninitiated what that means? Is that
| like PTSD?
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| "You don't need to ask, they'll tell you" - a claim that the
| people who work there will brag about it.
|
| And while there may be some truth to it, keep in mind that
| you hear about the ones that will tell you, you don't hear
| about most of the ones that don't.
| walterbell wrote:
| https://www.sfchronicle.com/tech/article/google-layoffs-andr...
|
| _> Google laid off hundreds of employees from its platforms and
| devices unit, the team responsible for the Android operating
| system, Pixel phones and Chrome browser. The move, first reported
| by the Information, comes months after Google offered voluntary
| buyouts to all 20,000 employees in the division, signaling deeper
| structural changes at the tech giant._
| danpalmer wrote:
| Correction, they did not offer buyouts to the entire division,
| they offered the ability to apply for a buyout to US-only
| employees, and application did not guarantee you'd get it.
| zem wrote:
| having been in your position a year ago, I can definitely
| sympathise :(
|
| the one thing I can say (again, from experience with having
| worked for google while engaging with the open source world as
| part of my job) is that the relationships you have been building
| up might well survive the loss of your job, especially if your
| next job ends up being in the same general area. also, i can
| highly recommend starting a group chat with your ex-team, that
| was really good for all of us in the time following the layoff.
| Velorivox wrote:
| My condolences. Both to Adam and Google. Here is a relevant poem
| I found once. [0]
|
| [0] https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/54305/the-cloud-
| corpo...
| sfmike wrote:
| Google rips away people via tos with no explanation everyday
| should have argued for more toil during your tenure
| tuna74 wrote:
| The most important takeaway is this:
|
| "I really was just a fuckin cog in a mega corp."
|
| Remember, if you don't own it this is always the case.
|
| ALWAYS!
| h4ckaerman wrote:
| > Googler...
|
| Whole things reads like someone leaving a cult.
|
| It's ok to be sad about leaving a job but your identity shouldn't
| be so tied up in it that you're crying in a blog post online.
|
| We all lose jobs and we all get on with it. Obviously they're
| talented and will land fine somewhere.
|
| I'm not trying to be mean but it's bad that a person can get
| upset to this point around a job. The corp isn't caring.
| nehal3m wrote:
| I disagree. This person apparently had a great time working
| this job and I imagine it's difficult to end up with the
| responsibilities they had without being intrinsically
| motivated. It's perfectly alright and valid to be sad about
| losing the ability to express that part of yourself to make a
| living. The whole point of the post is that yes, the company
| doesn't give a damn about anything but the bottom line, but the
| author did.
| antisthenes wrote:
| > This person apparently had a great time working this job
| and I imagine it's difficult to end up with the
| responsibilities they had without being intrinsically
| motivated.
|
| I think you can have a great time and build good
| relationships with teammates while still realizing you are a
| cog in the machine.
|
| The way author writes the blog, you'd think they were working
| on the first Moon flight or the Manhattan project, whereas
| the reality is they were working on some CSS spec at Google,
| which tens of thousands of other people have been doing for
| probably 2 decades now.
|
| It's routine maintenance work on existing stuff.
| nehal3m wrote:
| Not to disrespect you, but I don't think your opinion on
| the value of their work is relevant, the author's is.
| antisthenes wrote:
| Sure, and water is wet.
|
| Yet the blog was posted in the public domain, so saying
| what is and isn't relevant is...irrelevant.
|
| It's in a public forum, up for discussion. End of story.
| nehal3m wrote:
| Of course you're free to discuss. You're belittling the
| author's expression of grief because their job was
| 'routine maintenance' of 'some CSS spec (...) which tens
| of thousands of other people have been doing for probably
| 2 decades now' and I'm saying they're entitled to their
| grief regardless of how you feel about the job's content.
|
| Yes, they're a cog, as almost all of us are, and it would
| have been better for their own sake to realise that, but
| losing something you enjoy still sucks.
| margalabargala wrote:
| I'm fine with "Googler". Google employs 180,000 people. There
| are cities half that size with their own demonym.
| neilv wrote:
| You're criticizing people for caring so much because you think
| the best that employment can be is transactional money in
| exchange for competent work?
|
| Wouldn't you want to hire and nurture people who cared so much
| about what they were working on and who they worked with, as
| the author seemed to be?
|
| (Not that you'd want them to be upset if it ever had to end,
| but you'd want the goodness part to happen? Better to have
| loved and lost, than never to have loved at all?)
| noisy_boy wrote:
| > Wouldn't you want to hire and nurture people who cared so
| much about what they were working on and who they worked
| with, as the author seemed to be?
|
| From the companies perspective: absolutely! If I can get
| people who will put in 10x for 1x of pay, nothing like it!
|
| From employees perspective: Care for your work like a good
| construction worker does. They don't cut corners, speak-up
| when they spot issues and put in their body and mind. But
| they don't come back to the site at 11PM to take one more
| look at it (I do sometimes because solving the programming
| problem is fun, not because my corporate overlords will pat
| me on the back). It is indeed important to make sure that the
| building is strong but remember that you don't own it.
| greatgib wrote:
| A strong but constant reminder that companies are not your family
| or friends despite what will say the corporate bullshit.
|
| You should never invest more of your time and energy than what is
| expected for your position. And keep your side activities and
| hobbies as personal things using your personal email and
| accounts.
|
| This is also why you should not owe fidelity to your company and
| don't hesitate to switch if you have a good opportunity because
| on its side the company will not hesitate.
|
| Everything might be good and you can generate money, and still
| the day you are in a redundancy for whatever reason you will be
| worthing nothing to the company. Like that, just like a
| replaceable cog. And you will be badly handled because "it is the
| company policy and we can't do anything than being harsh in such
| a situation".
|
| The worse is that usually the decision is non-sense but the one
| deciding is not the one that has to deal with the decision and
| with you. So you will try to argue, and they will try to invent
| reasons to rationalize the decision that is imposed on them also,
| you will try to contest, and they will become angry to have their
| bullshit called and will double down... And you will feel bad,
| not understand the situation.
|
| The only thing I can tell you is the that if you are in such a
| situation is to not worry and go on, except in rare cases, for
| everyone I saw it happened, the event was finally for the best
| because the next step in their life was better in the end: better
| job, better salary, better project, being able to do what you
| always dreamed to like create a company or evolve your career.
| minraws wrote:
| I have been in a similar situation, on a Saturday morning right
| after a farewell for a colleague and planning for next big
| release and timelines, late Friday.
|
| I got an email from my company early on next Saturday, so I tried
| to log into my laptop which was now wiped(to my horror).
|
| At that very moment I checked my DMs and realized most of my team
| was out the door.
|
| No warnings, no justification. I had been promised promotion, I
| had been promised growth, and I had already seen a round of
| layoffs with promises to not do more. We were the "valued"
| members and we were needed.
|
| Well not so much I guess.
|
| Now I don't care, tbh maybe I still do. I want to, just not care
| though, and I am always prepared, if even a single bad sign comes
| up I will be out. But I don't know if I will still see it coming.
|
| I just want to tell to anyone else in a similar situation, don't
| be sad often it might be a good thing.
|
| I managed to land jobs within the same month and my next job paid
| me over 2x my previous one. And it helped me grow in my career.
|
| I have changed a lot more jobs till date and I love what I do
| now, but I still often care too much.
|
| I hope people can find hope here.
|
| Also a couple of my friends had similar luck and one of my former
| colleagues also now has a startup of their own, they built it on
| top of their open source project that got surprisingly popular.
|
| Best of luck, world can be rough but, I hope folks just don't
| stop trying to do something to improve it for themselves and rest
| of us.
|
| And F execs, I guess. :)
| ein0p wrote:
| As an ex-Googler I say: blessing in disguise. When working at a
| $MEGACORP it's easy to think there's barren wasteland out there
| beyond the walls, so it's scary. But that is very much not so. I
| get that opportunities to work on browsers are relatively few and
| far between, but if you can do something else, try working for a
| smaller company which treats you more like a human being, and
| less like a replaceable cog.
|
| Not much of a consolation, I'm sure. I've never been laid off, so
| I can only hypothesize what that'd feel like, but know this: this
| too shall pass.
| lazide wrote:
| It is much easier to handle when departing is voluntary.
| Layoffs, especially surprise ones, are the opposite.
|
| For someone young with no dependents, it can be scary but
| doable. For those with kids? Not so much.
| ein0p wrote:
| OP spent several years at Google. Kids or no kids, if they
| managed their finances well, they have a lot of latitude wrt
| next moves.
| bdangubic wrote:
| outside of having stupid money what percentage of people
| (excluding people living paycheck to paycheck) manage their
| finances well, especially in the first decade of their
| career? I'd ballpark that at 0.78%
| 2muchcoffeeman wrote:
| Are you pessimistic or is that a serious estimate? It's
| so ... low.
| bdangubic wrote:
| being a realist ... I think in the US no one is
| (purposely) thought basic financial literacy and it
| spills over into probably the first decade of working
| life
| ryandrake wrote:
| Not necessarily. Nobody on HN knows OP's finances. He might
| have extended family relying on him. He might have
| crippling student debt. He might have expensive health
| problems. Do you know? I don't.
|
| Also, not all Google employees make great money. People act
| as though you work there for 5 years and that automatically
| means you're off to buy your third house in Monaco.
|
| Point is, he might "manage his finances well" and still be
| on insecure footing.
| trinix912 wrote:
| Exactly. Plus I think we're forgetting a lot of Google
| employees are on visas, meaning they might have expenses
| _both_ in the US and in their home country.
| jansan wrote:
| You may be correct in general, but in this particular
| case I do not see how Adam should have any difficulties
| in finding a very good paying job at another company.
| omoikane wrote:
| The finances are important but possibly not the first thing
| on their mind. The first thing on their mind is likely how
| their entire world has just changed around them, beyond
| their control.
|
| People who left voluntarily can prepare for the lifestyle
| change, and maybe they can objectively look at this and say
| it's not all bad. For people who are laid off, it hits
| really hard in a gut wrenching way. The sense of despair
| about everything else comes first, the money part of it
| might not come until all the severance is exhausted.
| goldchainposse wrote:
| I want to get enough time at $MEGACORP to have FU money. After
| that, my fear is a lot of smaller companies are working on
| thing even more boring, but with less scale. Gluing a domain-
| specific API to a few LLMs sounds boring. I got into tech
| because I liked learning it, but a lot of it is getting
| repetitive.
| ein0p wrote:
| No such thing as FU money. As you get more you want more, or
| if you don't then your spouse does. There is such a thing as
| "I can tolerate a 3-6 month job search no problem and not
| jump at the first opportunity" money. It makes 90% of the
| difference, especially in the long run.
| chucksmash wrote:
| Of course there is such a thing.
|
| Lifestyle inflation is a known phenomenon which you (and
| your spouse) can choose to avoid if you prioritize it, not
| some immutable rule of nature.
|
| If the treadmill of accumulation that lets someone believe
| "there's no such thing as enough" ever stops, I think they
| would be shocked at how quickly they realize what enough
| actually means.
| canucker2016 wrote:
| Tangentially, I thought the term Xoogler was used to refer to an
| ex-Googler.
|
| Or has that term fallen into disuse now?
| decimalenough wrote:
| The term still exists, but it's not one you'd expect people
| outside Google to be familiar with.
| biztos wrote:
| Is it pronounced like "shoogler" or like "zoogler?" Or do
| they buy a vowel and say "exoogler?"
| decimalenough wrote:
| "Zoogler". But it's used more in writing, you'd probably
| use "ex-Googler" when speaking instead.
| throwaway58670 wrote:
| Please test your site on a phone. 2fps while scrolling text is
| not ok.
| etse wrote:
| Hmm. Maybe you should test the site on a different phone. Not
| seeing an issue with responsiveness here.
| latency-guy2 wrote:
| I'm personally seeing quite terrible things on desktop, here
| is a snapshot of the homepage:
| https://i.imgur.com/VfNwqi7.png
|
| Here is a snapshot of the post itself:
| https://i.imgur.com/61b7ADn.png
|
| To note, I cannot click on any of the buttons in the top-
| right to control what I could or learn more about this
| person.
| throwaway127482 wrote:
| There's definitely something wrong with the scroll
| performance. I'm seeing bad performance as well on a pixel 8
| pro. If I weren't on mobile I'd pop open devtools and check
| for excessive layout recalculations
| xyst wrote:
| I noticed this as well on my underpowered MBA. Might be the
| bluesky integration causing the slow down.
| stevenhuang wrote:
| yeah I was lagging as well on desktop and no wonder... the
| site made 2659 requests to what appears to be display
| pictures of people who commented on the post.
| riknos314 wrote:
| This comment would be much more useful it it included the model
| of phone, OS version, and browser (ideally with version) you're
| using as context.
|
| All of these variables are highly relevant to performance and
| any attempt to reproduce/fix the issue you're reporting.
| trinix912 wrote:
| MacBook Pro Late 2013, Core i7, Chrome (128.0). Same
| problems.
|
| (perhaps it's the fadeout effects while scrolling causing
| this?)
| sexy_seedbox wrote:
| Very choppy scrolling, if you delete the whole "mentions"
| section in dev console, then the page will scroll smoothly
| again.
| mediumsmart wrote:
| Important... ex-Important
|
| Welcome back dude and don't screw up your jungian walk through
| the fire. _You got this_
| Tinos wrote:
| "I really was just a fuckin cog in a mega corp"
|
| Yup. Must have been a horrific wake up call :(
| benoau wrote:
| ... and they haven't even spent all year searching for a new
| job yet!
| NooneAtAll3 wrote:
| my take on this is that "2 week notice" should probably apply to
| businesses as well?
| t-writescode wrote:
| We have it, it's called the WARN Act [0]
|
| Any company with more than 100 employees that does the "you
| were laid off today, but you'll be paid for the next 2 months"
| thing is following the WARN Act
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retraini...
| rsanek wrote:
| not quite the same, this only applies to mass firings. the
| giving two weeks thing is whenever an individual leaves a
| job. if you're fired as an individual not alongside a bunch
| of others the company has no requirements under WARN.
| grandempire wrote:
| For what? He's probably getting fantastic severance so his time
| is best spent on the next thing. The employer isn't going to
| get more work - it's not wise or safe to let layed off
| individuals roam around the office.
| iainmerrick wrote:
| _it's not wise or safe to let layed off individuals roam
| around the office._
|
| I don't really buy this. I take it you're worried about
| vengeful ex-employees abusing their access privileges to
| break stuff on the way out?
|
| It seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Probably some
| people would feel vengeful if you do shitty things to them
| like removing all their access and firing them with no notice
| whatsoever.
|
| Bad employees can already break stuff while they're employed.
| They might feel more inclined to do stuff like that if there
| are chilling effects that build distrust in the work
| environment, like jump-scare layoffs.
|
| Conversely, if people are getting "fantastic severance" _and_
| you treat them with dignity on the way out, aren't both they
| _and_ the people who remain more likely to feel more
| positively inclined?
| codr7 wrote:
| Agreed, the explanation for why this is standard procedure
| never made much sense to me.
|
| I just know it feels really shitty on the receiving end.
| grandempire wrote:
| So you've heard the risks. What would be the benefit? And
| why would it outweigh those risks?
| grandempire wrote:
| > I take it you're worried about vengeful ex-employees
| abusing their access privileges to break stuff on the way
| out?
|
| In extreme cases. But also just sowing discontent. Looking
| to grab value they think they are owed. Generally lots of
| people who are upset and probably feel mistreated and have
| very little to lose.
|
| I actually think there is a small but real chance of
| violence as people like OP feel like their identity and way
| of life is threatened.
|
| Have you been in a situation like this before?
| iainmerrick wrote:
| _lots of people who are upset and probably feel
| mistreated_ [...] _people like OP feel like their
| identity and way of life is threatened_
|
| But they feel like that because they're being ghosted by
| the company! Suddenly cut off, with no way to tie up
| loose ends and say goodbye to people on the way out.
| _That 's the mistreatment._ If you don't mistreat them
| like that, maybe people won't feel mistreated or
| threatened.
|
| I don't have tons of experience with layoffs. In the case
| where people in my team were directly affected, the
| company did not summarily cut off access overnight (they
| couldn't legally, as this was in the UK). It was
| completely fine and everybody was friendly and civil. It
| helps that the severance package was very generous, and
| admittedly the job market was good at the time so people
| would have been less worried about finding their next
| job.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| I'm not taking Google's side here AT ALL but it's likely this
| person was given much more than 2 weeks of pay as severance.
| jansan wrote:
| In 2023 they offered "a severance package starting at 16
| weeks salary plus two weeks for every additional year at
| Google". I think Adam was at Google for more than five years,
| which would make it half a year of severance.
|
| But as I see it he has not been complaining about the
| financial part of the layoff.
| windward wrote:
| 2 weeks of pay is very little comfort and doesn't stop any of
| the feeling that you've immediately become a social pariah,
| banished from the network.
| basfo wrote:
| I worked for a well-known SaaS company for 4 years. A few
| months after we were acquired, I decided it was time to move
| on. I gave a 3 week notice to ensure everything was properly
| handled before my departure.
|
| Two days later, I couldn't log in to my PC. I was, for all
| intents and purposes, fired from my actual work. Technically, I
| was still employed and paid for those remaining days, but I was
| locked out and never got the chance to say goodbye. It was the
| worst experience I've had, and I never had any issues with any
| manager or anyone before that. Apparently, it was just the new
| company policy.
| pton_xd wrote:
| That's standard practice for tech companies. Once you hand in
| your notice your access is cut and you'll be escorted off the
| premises that day.
| pkaye wrote:
| The 2 week notice is not a legal requirement in the US. I've
| seen a couple employees just do a silent quit and not turn up
| the next day.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| "I'm told this comes as a shock to my managers and other Chrome
| team leaders. I'm told it's not based on merit"
|
| If your manager is shocked by one of their team being laid off,
| the manager is probably next.
|
| Of course the OP was told it wasn't based on merit, or any other
| arguable-in-court characteristic.
|
| But it was. Someone decided Google was better off this way, or
| that OP was better off working somewhere else.
| silisili wrote:
| Managers often feign cluelessness because what else can they
| do? Tell you they submitted you for layoffs? Tell you they knew
| for weeks and said nothing? There's really no upside option
| here.
|
| I have no doubt that sometimes managers really don't know, but
| I'd wager that most who say they didn't know probably did.
| acjohnson55 wrote:
| From my personal experience, front line managers are often
| not privy to layoffs.
| DannyBee wrote:
| I'd wager they didn't.
|
| Lowest person who generally will know will usually be a
| senior director. Sometimes director. Sometimes VP.
|
| Google is pretty careful about this. While it's true
| sometimes those people share stuff, it's definitely not en
| masse, and you can get yourself in significant trouble if you
| share it when you shouldn't, so it's less times than you
| think.
|
| At most other places i worked it was different.
| DannyBee wrote:
| Eh - having had to do these myself _at Google_ for large orgs
| over the past few years, i would not assume it was based on
| merit.
|
| The cost disparities can be huge between team members and
| locations, and a lot of time it's being done to hit some EOY or
| mid-year budget number. They are also slowly trying to clean up
| location strategy.
|
| So it's entirely possible it was based on cost and location,
| and not merit.
|
| It would still be merit "under the covers" if everyone was the
| same cost/location, but they aren't.
| xyst wrote:
| In this neoclassical/neoliberal economy where the only thing that
| matters is "delivering value for the shareholders" and profits
| for the billionaire class. I am not surprised. A bit jaded,
| honestly.
|
| I have only started my career in the past 10 years and have seen
| this story unfold time and time again across many companies. Big,
| small, or medium company. It doesn't matter.
|
| You. Are. Expendable.
|
| I will say the problem is much more pronounced when it's a
| publicly traded American company; or a company that was recently
| acquired or funded by private equity, "angel investment", or a
| vulture capitalist firm.
|
| Folks. Our industry needs a trade union to protect our interests.
| We cannot keep relying on billionaire class to "do right by us"
| because quite frankly. They do not give a shit.
| windward wrote:
| >Our industry needs a trade union to protect our interests.
|
| Ding dong. There's no grindsetting yourself out of the path of
| an uncaring locomotive.
| Herring wrote:
| Yeah well this comment thread is right at the bottom of the
| page, so it's not gonna happen anytime soon.
|
| Top of the page indicates they're more interested in
| infighting (calling him spoiled).
| goldchainposse wrote:
| If Google realizes they made an oopsie, I hope he respectfully
| tells them "no, thanks." I could never go back to an employer
| that did this to me, then said it was just a mistake.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| I have a mortgage to pay. I certainly could.
| windward wrote:
| This is the 'anger' stage, where you fantasise that anyone
| other than your shockingly impotent immedate manager will care
| about you. Anyone who's been dumped will recognise the feeling.
| fitsumbelay wrote:
| FYI ex-Googler/Nerdy.dev !== OP
|
| was surprised to see this here tbh as its something that was
| posted to the author's (again, author, not OP) bluesky which made
| it maybe not _personal_ personal-news but ... I don't know ...
| way more personal than all up in HN I dunno ... shrugs ...
| abdj8 wrote:
| Layoffs are a difficult thing for employees and their managers. I
| have seen people (one was a VP of Engineering) escorted out of
| the building, sent in a cab to home along with a security guard
| (this was in India), not allowed access to computer or talk with
| other employees. But, recently have had a very different
| experience. The current company I work for announced 30% layoffs.
| The list was made public within one hour of announcement. The CEO
| detailed the process of selecting people. The severance was very
| generous (3-6 months pay) along with health and other benefits.
| The impacted employees were allowed to keep the laptop and any
| other assets they took from the company. They even paid the same
| severance to contractors.
|
| After the announcement, the laid off employees were given a few
| days in the company to allow them to say good byes. I love the
| CEOs comment on this ' I trusted them yesterday, I trust them
| today'. This was by far the kindest way of laying off employees
| imo. People were treated with dignity and respect.
| phamilton wrote:
| A nice addition to this I've seen twice now is a slack channel
| (via their personal emails) with continuing employees willing
| to help them practice interviewing and share their professional
| networks to help them find their next role.
| neilv wrote:
| * The Slack is under the company's control, and potential
| monitoring and retention? Over the life of someone no longer
| with the company?
|
| * Was there any sour grapes in the Slack channel? Or was it a
| bummer or distraction for remaining employees?
|
| * Did the Slack actually help the employees readjust and
| refocus on their new job search?
|
| * Why not encourage people to say goodbyes and exchange
| contact info, and pay for a job search coaching service (with
| no reporting back to the company)?
| biztos wrote:
| That's great, and the polar opposite of how I experienced
| layoffs (of others, then eventually of me).
|
| But one thing that could be better is transparency around
| severance, so you know in advance what it will be should you
| get laid off. (Six months may or may not be "generous"
| depending on tenure.)
|
| When I was laid off we got what was "customary" in that
| country, but before the offer was on the table nobody was sure
| we'd get it. It's so much nicer when this is a matter of law --
| I'm all for a ~ free labor market but severance requirements
| help to balance the risk so the employees can relax and do
| their best work.
| apexalpha wrote:
| Weird, as someone from Europe I've never experience anything
| else.
|
| Layoffs here are always done in conjunction with the unions.
| People are moved to different jobs, helped with training etc...
|
| Only in very critical jobs they'd walk you out immediately but
| then you still get the pay.
| hieKVj2ECC wrote:
| I have seen this in EU too
| eloisant wrote:
| In which country?
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| Austria
| asadalt wrote:
| that's very business hostile tbh. I wouldn't start a company
| there.
| viccis wrote:
| Pretty sure they wouldn't want someone like you to do so
| either.
| asadalt wrote:
| they are doing great!
| perching_aix wrote:
| Thanks.
| BlobberSnobber wrote:
| Always someone with a horrible opinion to give in this
| hellsite
| asadalt wrote:
| i have had to avoid hiring excellent candidate(s) from
| EU, just because they would become unflushable if it
| comes to that.
| noisy_boy wrote:
| > just because they would become unflushable if it comes
| to that
|
| Your choice of verb tells a lot about what you think of
| your employees.
| asadalt wrote:
| sure i am being dramatic but my point stands. if my
| company can't be fluid and can't react fast to market due
| to bs unions and backward laws of some land, that place
| is what i avoid.
| gavinflud wrote:
| How exactly would they become "unflushable"?
|
| Also, surely if they were excellent candidates then you'd
| be doing your absolute best to keep them around?
| weatherlite wrote:
| > Also, surely if they were excellent candidates then
| you'd be doing your absolute best to keep them around?
|
| Well to be fair excellent candidates are excellent on
| paper. It sometimes happens (not often, but not once in a
| blue moon either) that the candidate turns out to be
| completely unsuitable for the job.
| qmmmur wrote:
| If your business is contingent on the behaviour of one
| employee then you have failed to hire properly or build a
| resilient business...
|
| In many cases problematic employees can and are removed
| from EU companies.
| asadalt wrote:
| _many cases_ isn't competitive when i can find equal
| talent with no such restrictions.
| nkrisc wrote:
| The fact you refer to people as "unflushable" or
| "useless" is chilling.
| perching_aix wrote:
| "had to"
| rwmj wrote:
| Please post the name of your company so we can be sure to
| avoid it.
| asadalt wrote:
| done
| Sonnigeszeug wrote:
| Thats just not true.
|
| You don't sound like a big company ceo. If you have a
| good reason, even as a small company, and revenue /
| affordability is one, you can fire people.
|
| You just need to be able to pay them for min. 3 month if
| thats your contract length and as a business owner you
| should know how to calculate.
| asadalt wrote:
| vs. i can hire in canada/ukraine/india/pakistan/china for
| a more skilled person with no such bs restrictions.
| dani__german wrote:
| people are getting quite snippy about this comment, but
| hating this mindset means you lock yourself away from so
| much actual wealth. It means you confine and condemn
| people to significantly worse economic conditions by
| limiting people's ability to freely associate and
| disassociate.
|
| just to hammer this point home: Every mandatory employee
| benefit has a huge cost, and adding enough of them kills
| your economy. It makes it more expensive to have an
| employee than X many jobs can justify. That X grows every
| year, and that's X people who cant do that job and get
| paid money for it.
| asadalt wrote:
| exactly, as a startup founder i wouldn't commit to a
| yearly reserved ec2 instance for a year let alone an
| employee.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Treating people with dignity is "business hostile"...
| welcome to Hacker News comment section.
| izietto wrote:
| It's more like "welcome to US mindset" IMHO
| asadalt wrote:
| This mindset is what moves us forward. Union of soft
| nations don't add much these days.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| I work for a paycheck. I can't exchange "dignity" for
| goods and services. The guy got paid nice compensation
| for his labor.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Therefore, let's throw everything non-monetary under the
| bus because work should be purely transactional?
| scarface_74 wrote:
| What else should it be? Do you believe that your company
| is like "your family"? Your coworkers or especially your
| manager are "your friends"?
|
| Why else do you go to work?
| ryandrake wrote:
| I don't believe my office is my family, but I expect to
| at least be treated with a baseline level of decency,
| civility, dignity, respect, and kindness, which are non-
| monetary and (by my reading of your post) unnecessary in
| your office full of Vulcans.
|
| The fact that these things are seen as optional and
| unimportant explains a lot of what's happened to public
| discourse.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| Was it indecent for Google to lay someone off, remove all
| access and give him 16 weeks of severance + two
| additional weeks for each year of service?
| ryandrake wrote:
| I didn't say anything about Google.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| The submitted article was about Google...
| grudg3 wrote:
| You're taking "Human resources" a bit too literally.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| We are resources. The one Big Tech company I have worked
| for has 1.556 million employees. What else was I besides
| a "resource"?
| duiker101 wrote:
| People are more important than businesses
| asadalt wrote:
| that's only what employee handbook says.
| dreghgh wrote:
| Not even building and exporting widebody aircraft?
| asadalt wrote:
| outlier.
| ericjmorey wrote:
| You're not starting a business anywhere, so no one cares.
| asadalt wrote:
| too late
| michalstanko wrote:
| It really depends on the people you work for, it's not like
| Europe is some kind of paradise in this matter. I was working
| as a contractor for a company in Germany, after a few years
| working together, they cut me off from one day to the next
| (the new manager decided to start saving money), even though
| my contract included a clause about a one-month notice
| period. They didn't even bother to pay the invoice for the
| work I had already done that month (it was the 23rd of the
| month, so we're talking about a few thousand euros). And
| since I wasn't living in Germany, extracting that money from
| them was almost impossible.
|
| Yes, it may be different for full-time non-contract jobs, but
| once you're on a contract, nobody cares.
| apexalpha wrote:
| Yeah but that's kinda the point of being a contractor, no?
|
| Here in the Netherlands contractors are also 'at will
| employed' as the Americans say.
|
| But they pay you more so...
| aembleton wrote:
| OP said that they did this for contractors too!
| lnsru wrote:
| Sounds like a case every lawyer in Germany would like to
| take. 500EUR for first letter to send to the manager
| reminding the contract conditions. It is enough for most
| companies not to go further with shady activities. As a
| contractor one should know how to deal with the clients.
| hectormalot wrote:
| I don't think that's shady? When I was hiring contractors
| it was always project based with mutual understanding
| things could end quickly if the project or collaboration
| didn't work out.
|
| Yes, they get paid 1.5-2x, and that also prices in that
| it's not always 100% utilization. Only once had a
| contractor oppose that, but that was in the context of
| (severe) underperformance.
| tomjen3 wrote:
| In his case, the contract had something different, and
| they did not pay the actual invoice - that's the shady
| part.
|
| With contractors, you have more freedom of choice when
| you write the contracts, but whatever contract you agree
| on, you still have to honor the contract as agreed.
| hectormalot wrote:
| Oh my bad, I thought you referenced contractors in
| general. In that case I agree: agreements are to be
| honored.
| AstralStorm wrote:
| Sure it was possible, just not convenient. Small claims
| charges in EU court do work. One major benefit of EU.
| immibis wrote:
| Working as a contractor means you're self-employed and the
| relations you have with "your boss" are a B2B relationship
| where you agree to get something done in exchange for money
| - no different from renting office space or servers. Since
| you're a business owner, you're expected to be competent in
| the areas of business (which can be cut-throat) and law.
| You chose to take on this risk by being a contractor.
| chippiewill wrote:
| The legal responsiveness for contractor disputes is
| definitely not as good as employment. Messing up employment
| relations in Europe ends up really expensive in most
| jurisdictions because there'll usually be some mix of
| unions, government agency or charity that'll have the
| employee's back.
|
| Contractors don't have that kind of support pretty much
| anywhere (that's sort of the point), and it's just a
| standard contract dispute that lawyers argue about.
| Gasp0de wrote:
| So what you're saying is your company had a customer that
| breached contract and didn't pay. I wouldn't compare that
| to being fired?
| Sonnigeszeug wrote:
| Oo? It should have been no issue at all for you to get this
| money.
|
| We are a law and order country.
|
| You got yourself played
| perching_aix wrote:
| * Experience in Central- and Eastern Europe (CEE) _may_
| differ.
|
| Well, getting escorted out definitely doesn't happen here
| either at least.
| lproven wrote:
| > Well, getting escorted out definitely doesn't happen here
| either at least.
|
| It 100% does. It happened to me in Brno, Czechia, and this
| February I interviewed someone to whom the same thing
| happened and who was attempting to sue for unfair
| dismissal.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| That's not universal though. My dad's company was bought up
| by a foreign investor, shrunk over multiple reorganizations
| from its peak of ~500 people in the 70's or 80's down to a
| skeleton crew of ~50. They weren't fired, they were told the
| company was going bankrupt and needed to be emptied out.
| People who worked there for 40+ years were basically given a
| few months' pay if that and a "good luck". There's a formula
| for severance pay; years worked * month's wage, this would
| give people a lot of leeway to find a new job or just sit out
| until their retirement, but of course that's very expensive
| so they weaseled their way out of it through various
| constructions. Dozens of people fired a few years before
| retirement, most never found another job again. And the boss
| kept the company, which is now a shell company / sales /
| license holder, which the parent company was always after of
| course because production is cheaper to do in e.g. Poland.
| watwut wrote:
| > People who worked there for 40+ years were basically
| given a few months' pay
|
| Those few months pay thing is the key difference. That is
| legally mandated.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| You also get a few months pay in the US unless the
| company is truly broke.
| immibis wrote:
| Incorrect. It's at-will employment.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| "At-will employment" is a meme here. In reality, the
| company gives you a few months of pay and you sign a
| document saying you won't sue them for firing you during
| a layoff.
|
| If you get fired for fraud or for being incompetent, for
| example, it's often different.
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| That's the convention, but AFAIK it's not enshrined on
| law.
|
| Some states require payout for unused, earned vacation
| time.
|
| State-managed unemployment pay is also a thing, assuming
| the employee wasn't fired for cause. I think some states
| require employers to pay into this via a payroll tax.
| 331c8c71 wrote:
| > Layoffs here are always done in conjunction with the
| unions.
|
| Europe is vastly diverse and your experience is not
| representative of all Europe.
| Aeolun wrote:
| It sounds representative of every part of Europe I've
| experienced.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| You probably never worked in Austria.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Or southern europe
| j-krieger wrote:
| You have no idea about Switzerland or Northern Europe. In
| Denmark and Iceland, layoffs are swift.
| AstralStorm wrote:
| That's true. But contracts here usually have a set
| termination time, with a minimum notice time typically
| required by law, dependent on how long you've been hired at
| the company. Tends to be one month for below a year, three
| months beyond a year.
|
| As in after a termination there's a period during which
| you're still supposed to work and collect the salary.
|
| Exceptions are B2B contracts (but they still often have one
| of those) and some piece work contracts.
|
| Of course a particular bastard of a company can still
| immediately cut you off everything but the salary including
| the doors.
| varispeed wrote:
| > Exceptions are B2B contracts (but they still often have
| one of those) and some piece work contracts.
|
| In the UK big corporations got a loophole where they can
| get employees without affording them any rights. It's
| called IR35 that Tory government amended to facilitate
| this, as Brexit benefit (the regulation would have been
| illegal otherwise if we were still in the EU).
|
| It's totally legal to fire employee without any notice
| for any reason or even pay them below minimum wage.
| tesch1 wrote:
| Out of curiosity, why "bastard"? ...if you're being
| terminated, isn't the best possible outcome that you get
| your salary but don't have to go to work?
| apexalpha wrote:
| Do you guys not even get the chance to send a goodbye
| mail to colleagues?
| potato3732842 wrote:
| Shrodinger's Europe. It could be homogeneously like
| Denmark, Sicily, Monaco, Hungary, London or Belarus or
| anywhere else. You don't know which until you have an
| asinine blanket statement you need to back up.
| Scandiravian wrote:
| Having experienced layoffs in both US and EU companies, the
| difference is massive. In my experience there is very little
| respect for "the human" being laid off in US companies
|
| People literally would just disappear day to day. I've had
| several instances where I only found out a colleague had been
| fired because I tried to write them on Slack only to find
| that their account had been deactivated
|
| Personally I felt constantly worried working in such an
| environment and I don't want to work for another US company
| again if I can help it
|
| There are of course bad cases in the EU, but in my experience
| it's way less common than in the US
| apwell23 wrote:
| > In my experience there is very little respect for "the
| human" being laid off in US companies
|
| its much easier to find another job in US because of this
| though.
| oblio wrote:
| Is it, really? Aren't US tech interview notoriously
| difficult? Many rounds of interviews, background checks,
| etc.?
|
| Most purely European companies don't do that. Actually,
| unfortunately, some of them do, because of American
| influence. But for sure they didn't use to.
| icemelt8 wrote:
| What he meant is that the whole capitalist culture, less
| regulations, creates a more thriving economy which
| creates more jobs and hence more options to go to.
| hnlmorg wrote:
| I've heard this type of comment a lot but in my
| experience there isn't any shortage of tech companies in
| the EU.
|
| What EU regulations hamper isn't job creation, it's
| employee and customer exploitation. The distinction
| between "job creation" and "employee exploitation" is
| important.
|
| What the former means in practice is that there is a
| massive contractor market in the UK and EU. So if
| companies need temporary staff, they'll hire a
| contractor. If they need permanent staff then they'll
| hire an employee. And contractors in the UK & EU are paid
| significantly more than their employee peers. In fact
| their pay is much more equivalent to US employees. So
| companies will make constant tradeoffs between more
| expensive labor for short-lived projects vs cheaper staff
| and knowledge retention but stricter employment laws.
| It's a fair trade most of the time.
|
| So a more accurate way of comparing US vs EU businesses
| in terms of employees would be US employees vs EU
| contractors. Things then begin to look a lot more
| equivalent.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| I doubt the tech workers making three to four times EU
| wages in the US feel "exploited".
|
| My job is purely transactional. I've worked for 10
| companies in almost 30 years. I gave them labor and they
| gave me money. Whenever one side decided the arrangement
| wasn't working, I moved on to another job.
| hnlmorg wrote:
| You're focusing on one word and missing the meat of my
| comment. The EU equivalent to US employment in terms of
| employee rights _and pay_ is contracting.
|
| People in IT who take the employment route rather than
| contracting, do so because they want job security. eg
| they might have families. And much as you might be happy
| with your arrangement, there are plenty in the UK and
| Europe who do prefer longer-term job security over a few
| extra PSPSPS in their pocket.
| JustExAWS wrote:
| I also have a family. I've managed to support my family
| across those 10 jobs. I need _a_ job to support my
| family. But my duty is stay *employable".
| hnlmorg wrote:
| You misunderstand me. My comment wasn't suggesting that
| people who contract don't have families. Plenty of them
| do. It's that people who _choose employment over
| contracting_ do so because they want the additional
| stability, for example if they have families.
|
| Lots of people, when evaluating the risks of contracting
| vs employment, find the reward far outweighs the risk. It
| sounds like you'd be one of them if you were presented
| with the same choice. And that's a fine decision for you
| to come to. But that's not going to be the same
| conclusion for everyone.
| JustExAWS wrote:
| What I'm saying is simple math. I would much rather make
| more than twice the equivalent worker in the EU and take
| the chance of a layoff. I can afford to have my own
| emergency fund to survive the gap in employment.
|
| Every employee in the US is "at will".
| varispeed wrote:
| In the UK you have worst of both worlds now - insecurity
| of contracting and employee level wages, thanks to
| amended IR35 lobbied by big consultancies.
| hnlmorg wrote:
| I think the bust of the job market played a bigger part
| here. When IR35 originally came in, some companies would
| bump pay inside IR35 to compensate elsewhere risk getting
| poorer pol of talent. Since the job market crashed there
| have been fewer jobs all round, which has pushed the
| contractor market down too.
|
| But you're right that IR35 really hasn't helped
| situations either.
|
| Some of my friends have commented that the last few years
| has been the worst time in their 20+ years as a
| contractor.
| varispeed wrote:
| That take is a bit reductive - it downplays the
| structural collapse of independent contracting in the UK
| post-IR35 reform. This wasn't just a "bit of market
| downturn" or a few companies cutting rates. People lost
| the ability to operate as businesses, to manage their tax
| affairs fairly, to invest in their own skills, and to
| retain profit. What they got in return was, at best, a
| modest day-rate bump--hardly compensation for losing all
| autonomy, business deductions (like training, equipment,
| downtime), and legal protections.
|
| It forced highly specialised professionals into
| employment in all but name, just without the rights,
| security, or support. A square peg jammed into a round
| PAYE hole. And the long-term effect? Exactly what you'd
| expect: the best talent either left the UK, shifted to
| servicing overseas clients (where Chapter 10 doesn't
| apply), or left the field altogether. The real talent
| pool shrank, not because of market conditions, but
| because there was no longer a viable way to operate
| independently.
|
| To make matters worse, the government compounded this by
| lowering the barriers to import cheaper labour from
| abroad ("Boriswave"), creating a race to the bottom on
| wages, with zero incentives for local upskilling or long-
| term investment in the domestic workforce.
|
| So yes, the job market took a hit - but IR35 didn't just
| "not help" - it actively accelerated the decline by
| removing the last flexible, self-directed model for
| highly skilled work. The damage wasn't cyclical. It was
| engineered.
| hnlmorg wrote:
| You may think I'm being reductive but I think you're
| massively overstating things too.
|
| For example:
|
| > People lost the ability to operate as businesses, to
| manage their tax affairs fairly, to invest in their own
| skills, and to retain profit.
|
| I don't know a single IT contractor that lost that
| ability. Maybe in other business sectors, but we are
| talking about IT here.
|
| > What they got in return was, at best, a modest day-rate
| bump--hardly compensation for losing all autonomy,
| business deductions (like training, equipment, downtime),
| and legal protections.
|
| This is also an exaggeration.
|
| And you're overlooking the point that IR35 only affects
| contractors working on BAU or who have worked with the
| same company for more than 2 years.
|
| Firstly 2 years is a long time in contractor terms. And
| secondly, most occasions for hiring contractors was to
| work on new developments. So most of the IT contractors
| were still outside of IR35.
|
| That's not to mention that many companies would describe
| the work in ways that are favourable to working inside
| IR35 (not to the extent of tax fraud, but to the extent
| where any BAU responsibilities that were required weren't
| the primary responsibility in the job specification.
|
| Ironically places hardest hit by IR35 were government
| departments rather than businesses. Some of who ended up
| just adding ~40% to the contracted salary so the
| government still ended up covering the tax rather than
| the contractors.
|
| And the very few contractors who were inside IR35 and
| didn't get a bump in the contract fee would tell me they
| were still better off contracting rather than being
| employed (even taking loss of perks into account).
|
| Now I'm not going to say that IR35 made things easier for
| contractors. Clearly it didn't. But it wouldn't have been
| catastrophic for the contract market had the employment
| bubble not also pop shortly afterwards.
|
| You also seem to suggest that IR35 prevented contractors
| from claiming expenses back in tax, and that simply isn't
| true either.
|
| Edit: I will concede that it's been 3 years since I was
| last given a budget and told "go hire, you decide who" so
| if there's been any legal changes to IR35 since then I
| might have missed it.
| varispeed wrote:
| Thanks for the thoughtful response. I think you're still
| underestimating how fundamentally IR35 reforms changed
| the environment for small business operators in IT,
| especially since 2021.
|
| > I don't know a single IT contractor that lost that
| ability.
|
| I do. In fact, I knew dozens of people who ran small,
| legitimate limited companies - offering high-quality
| services across IT disciplines - who were forced to shut
| down or stop trading as businesses once clients tightened
| their risk assessments. In the early days, yes, some
| niche contractors were spared because they were too hard
| to replace. But even that dried up as corporate legal
| teams standardised engagement models and de-risked by
| banning sourcing services from small business entirely.
|
| > You also seem to suggest that IR35 prevented
| contractors from claiming expenses back in tax, and that
| simply isn't true either.
|
| This is misleading. If you're inside IR35 or forced into
| an umbrella, you can only claim expenses on the same
| terms as an employee of the client. That means you can't
| offset training, equipment, home office, insurance,
| downtime, software etc. - because your business isn't
| recognised as a business anymore. And if you can't make
| profit, you have nothing to deduct from anyway.
|
| > you're overlooking the point that IR35 only affects
| contractors working on BAU or who have worked with the
| same company for more than 2 years.
|
| This is based on a fundamental misunderstanding. There is
| no "2-year" IR35 rule. That might relate to travel
| expenses. IR35 assessments depend on control,
| substitution, and mutuality of obligation. Even short,
| project-based work can be deemed inside. And under
| Chapter 10, only clients carry the liability - so they
| default to "inside" for anything remotely borderline,
| including repeat work.
|
| And that's exactly the issue: having loyal clients and
| repeat business -- something any serious business would
| strive for -- is now penalised. The system structurally
| disincentivises hiring genuine small consultancies,
| because clients now carry legal and tax risk for treating
| you as "outside." So naturally, they avoid it.
|
| And that quote about companies "describing work in ways
| favourable to IR35" to avoid falling foul of the rules -
| you realise you've just described a legal minefield that
| only small businesses are forced to navigate? If an
| individual or a small consultancy tries to deliver a
| long-term service or repeat work, they're suddenly in
| danger of being labelled "too BAU" and dragged into
| inside IR35 or worse, accused of misrepresentation.
|
| Meanwhile, large consultancies are completely exempt.
| They can supply entire teams of workers to perform
| exactly the same repeat, embedded, long-term services -
| even effectively occupying roles inside the client's
| organisation - and no one blinks, because the worker
| isn't the owner of the delivery company. IR35 doesn't
| apply.
|
| So what you're pointing out as a "grey area" for
| independents is actually a core business model for
| Accenture, Capita, Deloitte, etc. - and it's legally
| protected. They can pump in as many BAU bodies as they
| like, make profit to their heart's content, and face none
| of the scrutiny aimed at smaller suppliers. It's a
| structural bias against worker-owned businesses and it's
| about making sure the same work flows through corporate
| channels, where the big business win - and independent
| economic actors are locked out.
|
| > But it wouldn't have been catastrophic for the contract
| market had the employment bubble not also pop shortly
| afterwards.
|
| That reverses cause and effect. IR35 was the trigger. It
| removed the incentive to engage skilled local contractors
| as businesses. Clients - especially in the public sector
| - stopped hiring small operators entirely to avoid
| compliance risk. The result wasn't just tighter budgets -
| it was the structural removal of independent contracting
| as a viable model.
|
| And just as IR35 pushed domestic professionals out of the
| market, post-Brexit immigration reforms ("Boriswave")
| made it easier for companies to import overseas workers
| on lower salaries - with sponsorship pathways explicitly
| designed to undercut local rates. So the market didn't
| just shrink--it shifted, away from experienced,
| independent professionals toward cheaper, controllable
| labour with fewer rights and no negotiation leverage.
|
| The combination was catastrophic. It collapsed the
| domestic contractor market from both ends--removing the
| supply of viable independent businesses, and removing the
| demand for them by creating cheaper alternatives. That
| wasn't an unfortunate consequence -- it was a predictable
| outcome of policies designed to centralise control and
| reduce labour costs at all levels whilst maximising
| corporate profits.
|
| > Contracting is still better than being employed.
|
| That may be true for a small segment of high-end day-rate
| earners, but it ignores how many people used contracting
| as a sustainable, long-term way to build independent
| businesses. For them, IR35 removed the very basis of that
| independence-profit, autonomy, and client trust.
| hnlmorg wrote:
| A lot of detail there. Sounds like I was underestimating
| the effect IR35 had.
|
| Thanks for taking the time to share that.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Tech is always boom/bust. We're lucky to have had a long
| boom.
|
| I'm personally well acquainted with many people in tech,
| especially big tech. Many of them are doing little or
| nothing, certainly not justifying $300k+ salaries.
|
| What you do has risk but is fundamentally more honest -
| your skills are around technology and output, not
| navigating corporate bureaucracy.
| margorczynski wrote:
| Your post somehow suggests that when a bust comes
| European companies won't start laying off people. And in
| the same boom period the US dev will make much more money
| (and have a biggger safety pillow) than the European one.
| Ancalagon wrote:
| Until the US dev has a medical expense, that is.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| A cursory amount of research shows that the average
| premium for an insurance policy on the open market
| through the ACA is between $400-$2000 a month depending
| on options - family status, deductibles etc.
|
| There is also COBRA that lets you stay on your employer's
| plan. You have to pay the entire premium. I pay $600 a
| month now and my employer pays $1200 a month. That's me +
| family.
| trelane wrote:
| I am always skeptical of claims that some workers are
| just lazy bums skimming money.
|
| I don't think most folks graduate college and think, "You
| know what sounds amazing? Sitting at a desk doing
| _nothing_ five days a week! "
|
| I expect most of the time they have good reason to be
| "unproductive," and would respond positively to those
| reasons getting addressed, or you're not capturing their
| contributions accurately with whatever metrics you're
| using to find "slackers."
| dmoy wrote:
| I haven't seen it on any team I've been on. But also I
| don't think the implication is people doing literally
| nothing. Just people doing things that are not worthwhile
| at _all_ , wasting other people's time, and kinda just
| puttering around.
|
| Some of it boils down to ineffective management and lack
| of mentoring, for sure, and could be addressed in a
| better way. Some of it is people getting in way over
| their heads.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| It's not the people, it's the process. In a big
| organization you need to be actively managing your career
| to be in the right places.
|
| And people are doing things, I'm not saying they're
| sitting making paper airplanes -- just things with no
| value or that drain their value. I had a high school
| friend who was brilliant, but his career got nerfed when
| he stuck with a bad tech/business unit.
|
| If you're the world's premier expert in some peculiar
| process that only exists in one place, that's no mas.
| Companies have been rolling in dough for a long time and
| some have way more people than they used to. One big
| company I deal with went from an account team of 6 to
| almost _50_.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| During the first "bust" in 2000 I had four years of
| experience and living and working in Atlanta - far away
| from a tech hub. Boring old enterprise dev jobs at banks,
| insurance companies, etc weren't affected and I was
| easily able to get offers.
|
| I worked at a company where utility companies sent us
| data files and we created, printed and mailed bills.
|
| In 2008 during the financial crisis the next time I
| looked for a job (my third), I had two offers relatively
| quickly - one programming point of sales systems and the
| other that I accepted programming ruggedized Windows CE
| devices for field service workers.
|
| Fast forward to 2020 at the height of COVID, I got my one
| and only BigTech job working at AWS (my 8th job).
|
| Unlike the author of the submitted article, when I got
| Amazoned 3.5 years later, I shrugged, my $40K severance
| was deposited in my account and I reached out to my
| network and targeted outreach to some recruiters in my
| niche and had four interviews and 3 offers within 3
| weeks. Why would I waste time getting emotional about a
| company knowing that the CEO is 6-7 positions up on the
| career ladder and I'm just a random number to most of the
| organization?
|
| A year later in 2024 around 9:00 PM I had a "1-1" with my
| manager invite for the next morning. I already had my
| suspicions and told my wife that I am probably going to
| be laid off in the morning. She said let her know how it
| goes and we went to sleep.
|
| I woke up the next morning, was notified about my layoff
| asked when I would get my severance and responded to a
| recruiter that reached out to me about a week prior.
|
| I started the interview process and three weeks later I
| had a job making the same as I was making at AWS.
|
| I don't need to "justify" what I'm making. I have a
| skillset and experience that are in demand and companies
| are willing to pay me for it because by employing me they
| get a positive ROI.
| apwell23 wrote:
| this doesn't make sense. so why do usa companies hire
| contractors then? I worked as a contractor for decades
| and made 150% what perm employees made.
| hnlmorg wrote:
| That I don't know. But the contractor market in the US is
| very different to the contractor market in the UK and EU.
| And from hiring in both US and UK, my experiences have
| been that US employees are more comparable to UK
| contractors in terms of rights and pay.
| apwell23 wrote:
| > US employees are more comparable to UK contractors in
| terms of rights and pay
|
| did you account for rsu value too or just basepay/hours .
| now that i am a perm employee a big share of my comp
| comes from rsu.
| isbvhodnvemrwvn wrote:
| I think they suggested that in the US employees are paid
| better than contractors, but have low job security.
| amalcon wrote:
| There are more regulations around employees than
| contractors here also, which often makes it not
| worthwhile for short term workers. Those regulations just
| mostly aren't around when you may terminate employment.
|
| E.g. the entire I-9 thing and other IRS paperwork, who
| (if anyone) is responsible for various insurances
| (unemployment insurance, workers comp, liability
| insurance, etc), minimum wage and overtime for hourly
| employees, etc. Many things depend on this distinction.
|
| I can't speak to differences from Europe as I am not
| familiar with that side of the Atlantic.
| tempfile wrote:
| Indeed, but that is just ideology, not based on any
| facts.
| apwell23 wrote:
| low eu salaries implies finding job is hard. fact.
| perching_aix wrote:
| > low eu salaries implies finding job is hard. fact.
|
| Does it? Sounds more like an opinion than a fact to me.
| zorked wrote:
| If there was demand the salaries would rise. It's
| capitalism.
| oblio wrote:
| Umm... output. Outside of hyperscalers and probably the
| tier below them, most EU tech companies aren't making the
| kind of money per headcount to justify huge salaries.
|
| There is demand for tech workers, but the output of EU
| tech companies can't afford huge salaries. Lower margins.
| Scandiravian wrote:
| There's a higher monthly salary in the US, sure. However,
| you're expected to work very long hours (60-80 hours per
| week) and get basically no time off
|
| In my current position I'm hired for an expected 37 hours
| per week. This can be more if I'm asked to work overtime,
| but my weekly hours cannot exceed 45 hours per week on
| average in a 3 month window without additional
| compensation
|
| Additionally I have six weeks of paid time off every year
| plus public holidays
|
| If I calculate my hourly salary it's better than what I
| was paid by US companies
|
| That's not to mention the security of having a legally
| mandated termination period of minimum 3 months (in which
| you're, in most cases, not expected to work)
| scarface_74 wrote:
| I have never in 28 years across 10 jobs including one in
| BigTech been "expected" to work more than 40 hours a
| week.
|
| It's a bunch of copium thinking that American tech
| workers are working 60-80 hour weeks.
|
| And I know it's not the norm, but right now I have
| "unlimited PTO" and most people take at least 5 weeks a
| year.
|
| If the average American tech worker is making 2x - 4x the
| average EU worker, they should be able to save more than
| enough to have a three month cushion.
|
| And we are talking about Google. They have a very
| generous severance package. Even Amazon where I use to
| work gave me three months severance.
| mcv wrote:
| This is not what we usually hear about employment in the
| US. The reason many Europeans think American tech workers
| are working 60-80 hours per week is not copium, but
| simply because that's what many Americans tell us.
| isbvhodnvemrwvn wrote:
| Why would they be complaining about working 40h a week?
| You will obviously hear more about bad experiences than
| the norm.
| mcv wrote:
| We hear enough about it that it gives the impression of
| being very common, even if it might not be the norm.
| apwell23 wrote:
| its not common but i know nothing can convince you of
| that
| mcv wrote:
| How can you know that? Please don't assume stuff about
| others just to make a rhetorical point. If you say it's
| not that common as it's often made out to be, why
| wouldn't I believe you?
|
| Though what would also help if you had an explanation for
| why we tend to hear these stories mostly from the US and
| not from other countries.
| isbvhodnvemrwvn wrote:
| How much content you consume comes from the US vs other
| countries? The US has a full cultural supremacy in the
| west. That's why you speak english and read YC.
| mcv wrote:
| The world is larger than just the US, though. Even at HN.
| Just look around you.
| nmeofthestate wrote:
| My experience is limited - I work in the UK for a US
| company and haven't spoken to US developers from a wide
| variety of companies. However I've not heard any US
| developers talking about working such long hours. Closest
| thing I've heard is for devs to sometimes work over the
| core hours to build up time-in-lieu for extra vacation,
| over and above the paltry standard 2 week holiday
| allowance.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| I will just add another +1 to say it's not common to work
| 60-80 hours per week in the US tech industry. It's not
| unheard of, and some companies (Amazon) are notorious for
| expecting that of their employees. But most of the time
| what you will see is that most people work 40ish hours
| (some weeks a bit more, some a bit less), and only a
| handful of colleagues with an unhealthy relationship to
| the job will work 50+ hours per week. Management doesn't
| generally expect people to do that, though of course bad
| managers do exist and can make your life miserable.
|
| The only time I've ever been expected to put in those
| kinds of long hours was in case of an emergency. Stuff
| like, a natural disaster hit the company's primary data
| center so they needed to be all hands on deck to get
| services restored. But it's definitely not common day to
| day, and even in case of emergencies the company
| generally gives you a little something (extra time off, a
| bonus, whatever) to compensate you for the long hard
| hours you had to work.
| sgerenser wrote:
| U.S. tech worker here. The only time I've ever worked
| 60-80 hour weeks was at a much smaller company, where for
| a month or two leading up to a trade show a whole bunch
| of work that had been put off was attempted to get
| crammed into the product. At my subsequent BigTech jobs
| I've never been asked/required to work more than 40 hours
| a week. I mean, nobody was tracking exact hours, but
| nobody was also pinging me at 8PM or on the weekend and
| expecting me to be working.
| fragmede wrote:
| fascinating. I thought the meme was that FAANG tech
| workers were all day and lazy and didn't have to work
| that hard and were grossly overpaid, but that's as much a
| stereotype as the next one.
| apwell23 wrote:
| never worked more than 40hr/week (including hellhole
| amazon). i get 28 days pto now and unlimited sick days.
|
| > If I calculate my hourly salary it's better than what I
| was paid by US companies
|
| prbly not.
| cloverich wrote:
| I worked 80 hours a week in medical school, depending on
| the rotation. From that experience I can tell you, the
| majority of people that say they work 80 hours a week,
| don't even know what that looks like.
| geodel wrote:
| This 60-80 hrs/week maybe a startup myth. Since Europe in
| general has far fewer startups than US people hear these
| wild numbers in Europe far less. For normal big tech
| worker, or enterprise workers 40 hrs is really the norm.
| Now many people specially in contracting, consulting can
| stretch hours for billing purpose or impressing upon
| clients thats a different matter.
| tempfile wrote:
| What a waste of a comment. Low salaries typically imply
| finding a job is easier, because more potential employers
| can afford to pay you. Can you add any kind of evidence,
| argument, anything? Saying "fact" after an armchair guess
| does not make it one.
| apwell23 wrote:
| > Low salaries typically imply finding a job is easier,
| because more potential employers can afford to pay you.
| Can you add any kind of evidence, argument, anything?
|
| sorry i forgot to add "typically" which apparently is a
| license to spout any BS .
| tempfile wrote:
| You started the argument!
| fossuser wrote:
| Yeah I'd argue this is so clearly the case and it's one
| reason among many why the US has an enormous amount of
| successful tech companies and Europe has some amount that
| basically rounds to zero in comparison.
|
| The ability to hire and fire easily is critical if you
| want to build successful companies.
|
| There's a reason ambitious founders move from Europe to
| the US and why most billion dollar tech companies are
| American. Europe has made really bad policy decisions
| around this for decades and their economy reflects it.
| Europe is poor and to an extent I don't think Europeans
| really understand.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| There are 2.8 million developers in the US. Most of them
| don't work for "tech" companies. Most of them work for
| boring enterprise companies without multiple rounds of
| enterprise companies and many let you just do behavioral
| questions and techno trivia on the stack they care about.
|
| I personally have interviewed for 7 enterprise dev jobs
| and I have had 2 coding interviews and those were simple.
| Tainnor wrote:
| IME, this was true four years ago. Few rounds,
| assessments were mostly take homes or in-person
| "implement a feature" style, interview questions didn't
| seem to be built to trip you up.
|
| Now, every job I apply for has 4-5 rounds, leetcode is
| more common, they do behavioural and system design rounds
| that you have to prepare for, etc. One job I applied to
| even asked me two behavioural questions via email before
| I even talked to someone. Something's truly off.
| Kaethar wrote:
| Wait till you get a self recorded behavioral interview. I
| truly wonder if there is that much value to be extracted
| out of 10 minutes of people awkwardly responding to
| questions while trying their best to fill in the silence.
| Tainnor wrote:
| I think I'm not yet desperate to the point that I would
| agree to that.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| I had to do one of those for some local government
| lobbyists association in DC. They ended up hiring some
| undergrad instead.
| bluedino wrote:
| > Aren't US tech interview notoriously difficult? Many
| rounds of interviews, background checks, etc.?
|
| Not really, people get hired all the time that can't do a
| fizzbuzz.
| femiagbabiaka wrote:
| As a counterpoint, I don't think I've worked at a company
| in 10 years that didn't at least require fizzbuzz.
| tjpnz wrote:
| In Japan firing an employee is difficult and layoffs are
| unheard of. I would have few concerns finding something
| new were that to change overnight here.
| yodsanklai wrote:
| > I don't want to work for another US company again if I
| can help it
|
| You can work for a US company in the UE. They have to
| follow the local rules like anybody else.
| gnfargbl wrote:
| Well, sure, but unless the US company is willing to set
| up an EU subsidiary and employ you via that then you'll
| be working as an independent contractor. That status
| gives you zero employment rights, because you're
| explicitly not an employee.
| jkaplowitz wrote:
| Many cases where someone is in practice functioning as a
| full-time employee are legally employment relationships
| according to both US and EU law even if the contract and
| payroll procedures say otherwise, and even if the
| contractual relationship is directly between a US entity
| and a worker in the EU. This includes whatever employment
| rights are supposed to exist, for the number of employees
| (whether or not misclassified as independent contractors)
| the company has in that country under its national
| employment laws.
|
| Lots of US tech companies like to pretend otherwise, but
| a complaint or two from the misclassified employee can
| create plenty of pain for the employer for lying to both
| the US and foreign governments about the genuine nature
| of the relationship. And these penalties generally go not
| to the employee but to the employer, since the
| noncompliance is generally around employer tax, payroll,
| and reporting obligations as well as laws which are meant
| to protect employee rights.
| friendzis wrote:
| In practice, US tech companies literally buy their way
| out. They pay such a premium for those independent
| contractors that there would be no such complaints in the
| first place.
| jkaplowitz wrote:
| No complaints based on the amount of pay, maybe.
|
| But for example, someone who is fired or laid off in a
| way that wouldn't comply with local employment
| protections if the employment relationship were correctly
| classified might assert their misclassification claim so
| that they can also get compensation for their wrongful
| termination.
|
| If that happens, then the company not only has to
| scramble to catch up on the overdue social contributions
| for the complaining employee and pay any applicable
| penalties, but also likely have to undergo an audit of
| their other workers in that country plus the same
| consequences for them.
|
| There's a reason why any US tech company that's big
| enough to be a juicy financial target tends to do this
| correctly, and why companies like Deel, Remote.com, and
| their less tech-branded competitors (such as Velocity
| Global) are gaining popularity among people who want to
| do this correctly at smaller scales than those for which
| it makes sense to set up foreign subsidiaries.
|
| When smaller companies take this particular shortcut, are
| risking severe financial consequences for the company if
| the authorities discover it, and in many cases this also
| comes with personal liability for some of the executives
| who are neglecting their legal duties.
| jonp888 wrote:
| That's usually illegal, unless you're a genuine
| independent contractor that completes work packages for
| multiple clients.
|
| If it was legal to work in the office of your only
| "client" 40 hours a week on a permanent basis, then any
| EU company could ignore the entire employment legislation
| of their real country by setting up a shell subsidiary in
| the US.
| gnfargbl wrote:
| I'm only familiar with UK rules on the topic, and of
| course the UK is no longer in the EU, but here at least
| the standard for determining employment status is quite
| complicated. The _ability_ to work for multiple clients
| is one of the factors, as it speaks to the control and
| mutuality-of-obligation tests set by IR35, but it would
| probably not (alone) be enough to determine employment
| status either way.
|
| > If it was legal to work in the office of your only
| "client" 40 hours a week on a permanent basis, then any
| EU company could ignore the entire employment legislation
| of their real country by setting up a shell subsidiary in
| the US.
|
| That wouldn't work because it would be an obvious sham
| designed mainly to avoid the EU company's
| responsibilities under employment law. Courts see through
| those shams very quickly.
|
| Technical people -- including me -- like to try and
| reduce the law to a series of digital if/then/else tests,
| but reality is much more analogue. If you're one of a
| small number of highly-experienced remote contractors
| engaged by a US-based client with no local subsidiary,
| the authorities are _likely_ to accept the arrangement,
| or at least not to spend significant amounts of time
| investigating it. If you 're one of very many Uber-
| driver-like "contractors" working for a company that is
| obviously dodging its local employment law obligations,
| then they're much more likely to be interested.
| mycatisblack wrote:
| Having worked in a (now defunct) US co in West-EU I can
| say it's a subtle blend of the two. The layoff was
| announced, shortly after a few people received a call by
| HR, were escorted to their desk by security and had to
| turn in all company belongings on the spot. They were not
| allowed to touch a computer or telephone and were then
| escorted out of the premises. Afterwards, we learned that
| they had received a severance package that met local
| rules.
|
| Most of my colleagues were shocked by the treatment.
| Moral took a dive after that.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| Well US companies now take the cowards way out generally
| - tell everyone to WFH that day (despite prior RTO
| mandates) and then just disable peoples access so the
| first way the laid off find out is when they can't login
| for the day.
| yodsanklai wrote:
| I work for a US company but in western Europe. The
| layoffs have been much more humane here than in the US.
| There was a negociation process which lasted several
| months, and the severance was better and on a voluntary
| basis. I don't think a company making profit can easily
| get rid of employees over here, but probably depends on
| the country. Regarding performance-based layoffs, they
| did manage to fire people too, but again it was
| technically a common agreement.
|
| That being said, if they want to get rid of employees,
| they always find a way. And the European market isn't as
| dynamic as the US one, so there are pros and cons.
| Personally, all things considered (risks of layoffs, PTO,
| cost of living) I'm happier in Europe but it really
| depends on individual situation.
| rickdeckard wrote:
| From my experience that often just prolongs the process,
| but doesn't change the management culture.
|
| An employee decided to be laid off is equally written off
| immediately, it's just delegated to the regional/local HR
| to "manage the rest".
|
| If you're not escorted off-premise, you get to enjoy some
| additional days/weeks of colleagues and managers telling
| you how surprised they were...
| Vinnl wrote:
| This can still happen:
|
| > where I only found out a colleague had been fired
| because I tried to write them on Slack only to find that
| their account had been deactivated
|
| The colleague will just be one that's based in the US,
| but that doesn't make it much easier.
| wiether wrote:
| There are rules, but one can decide to not follow them.
|
| One thing that I saw (but never experienced myself)
| happen with North American companies wanted to leave EU
| is just doing their usual things (thus not following
| local rules), and then people have to sue and wait many
| years to be compensated.
| InitialBP wrote:
| A company that has to "follow the rules" is way less
| desirable to work for then a company that embraces the
| spirit of the rules. I'm in the US so can't really speak
| for companies in other countries, but many US companies
| are doing everything they can to skirt the letter of the
| law and spending a ton of money to have them rewritten to
| be less favorable to employees and more favorable to the
| business. Finding a company that truly cares for
| employees is a very rare treat!
| Muromec wrote:
| That's absolutely happening in US-owned companies in EU
| that used to be great places to work before they became
| US-owned. They do pay a premium for their bullshit of
| course.
| bigfatkitten wrote:
| Layoffs in US companies are a BCP event. It's like an
| earthquake or a tsunami. Weeks of chaos while you figure
| out who survived, and who's now doing the work previously
| done by a team that no longer exists.
|
| I watched a layoff take out half the security team during
| an incident. That was fun.
| Y_Y wrote:
| > A business continuity plan (BCP) is a system of
| prevention and recovery from potential threats to a
| company.
|
| I feel like global acronym bankruptcy is overdue.
| shagie wrote:
| I'm reminded of the last part of 'TLA' form the Jargon
| File (I had a hard copy back in college that I read cover
| to cover).
|
| http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/TLA.html
|
| ...
|
| The self-effacing phrase "TDM TLA" (Too Damn Many...) is
| often used to bemoan the plethora of TLAs in use. In
| 1989, a random of the journalistic persuasion asked
| hacker Paul Boutin "What do you think will be the biggest
| problem in computing in the 90s?" Paul's straight-faced
| response: "There are only 17,000 three-letter acronyms."
| (To be exact, there are 26^3 = 17,576.) There is probably
| some karmic justice in the fact that Paul Boutin
| subsequently became a journalist.
| trelane wrote:
| Now I want to use the dictionary file to figure the
| _actual_ probability of a letter appearing in a TLA. It
| 's not nearly 1/26.
| shagie wrote:
| There's likely a good bit of analysis that could be done
| on TLAs. Consider TLA itself is {Adjective : Count}
| {Noun} {Noun}. Meanwhile, DUI is {Gerund} {Preposition}
| {Noun} with the stop word 'the' removed.
|
| It might be interesting to take a sample of TLAs used and
| look what words can be used in those spots. If the third
| position is 90% likely to be a noun, that could change
| the distribution... guessing not in a significant way
| itself but it could be interesting to see.
| OrsonSmelles wrote:
| This is the best work I know on the topic (admittedly
| having done no literature review): https://gwern.net/tla
| Squeeze2664 wrote:
| GAB, you mean?
| siavosh wrote:
| BCP events. This makes so much sense. At a previous mega
| corp I was always confused why such emphasis was made on
| BCPs for war or natural disaster scenarios which are so
| rare compared to how much time was spent on the plans.
| Literally months later we had massive layoffs. The layoff
| was the (un)natural disaster they were preparing for!
| slac wrote:
| The EU is not a country. Labor laws vary massively between
| countries.
| wyclif wrote:
| If anyone here has only worked in the EU and wants to see
| what the US layoff process is supposed to be on a good day,
| just watch the movie _Margin Call_ and the scene where Eric
| Dale is called into the office by HR to be fired.
|
| There's a scene where they put a folder in front of him
| with a brightly-coloured sailboat on the cover labelled
| "LOOKING AHEAD." It's exactly as grim as it sounds.
| jordanb wrote:
| Another "fun" thing about that movie is you see the HR
| lady who delivered the news with a bunch of false empathy
| walking out the building with a box in a later scene.
| supportengineer wrote:
| That's very subtle. I have not noticed that.
| bionsystem wrote:
| Watched this movie 3 times and never noticed! This is a
| fun touch.
| BXlnt2EachOther wrote:
| also, the pacing of:
|
| "I hope, considering your [pause to check personnel file]
| over nineteen years of service to the firm you will
| understand that these measures are in no way a reflection
| of the firm's feelings towards your performance or your
| character"
| supportengineer wrote:
| I know they probably made this up for the movie, but I
| almost went through my file cabinet to look for that
| exact folder because I have been through several layoffs
| and it looked so familiar
| spacemadness wrote:
| American companies play mental games and gaslight
| everyone by calling it "a hard decision" and try to place
| the empathy back on the executives who get paid 10-100x
| the employees they just fired without warning. It's
| sociopathic behavior.
| eadmund wrote:
| I don't think that's really fair. It can certainly be a
| hard but necessary decision. And what does it matter that
| a CEO makes more than his employees? Even if he makes 50
| times what they make, that means even if he gave up all
| of his salary he could only save the jobs of 50
| employees.
| Viliam1234 wrote:
| Could he get a bonus if he fires 50 more?
| acjohnson55 wrote:
| Up in the Air was another great depiction of the most
| cynical mode of doing layoffs. And, of course, Office
| Space.
| wiseowise wrote:
| > Weird, as someone from Europe I've never experience
| anything else.
|
| As someone from Europe, I've never experienced US salaries.
| Go figure.
| apwell23 wrote:
| weird
| perching_aix wrote:
| You probably never experienced their working hours either.
| bigfatkitten wrote:
| As someone who has worked for a string of US companies,
| 38 hours for me is a busy week.
| WhrRTheBaboons wrote:
| what about US costs of living?
| marcinzm wrote:
| Many European cities aren't exactly low cost of living,
| and those that are have even lower salaries.
|
| In the end someone who was working at Google in the Bay
| Area for 15-20 years can retire if they didn't have life
| style creep (which is different than cost of living). Not
| the case in Europe.
| Sonnigeszeug wrote:
| 'Someone who worked at one of the best paying companies
| in the world can retire after 15-20 years'.
|
| This has nothing to do with Europe. This is particular a
| tech thing
| zdragnar wrote:
| It's a particular tech thing in not Europe, specifically.
| marcinzm wrote:
| Europe has tech companies. They just pay less.
| blacklion wrote:
| What about European taxes? I', paying 48% + there is 21%
| VAT on almost everything. Plus taxes for water (taxes,
| not pay-per-used-m3, and this payment is here too),
| energy (atop of market energy prices), roads, gasoline,
| etc.
| icameron wrote:
| Slightly tangential question for you- does 48% taxes
| include healthcare? How about pension? It's tax week in
| the US, I think my rate was 22% overall. But another 10%
| of compensation is health insurance. Another 15% is
| retirement savings. My municipal water bill last quarter
| mostly was not for actual water usage (about 40% was for
| water) rest is system charge and storm water fees.
| Regarding the VAT thing... we may be effectively getting
| the equivalent with tariffs on goods and materials
| supposedly taking effect!
| j-krieger wrote:
| German here. Me and my employer pay 12 (together) for
| healthcare. I have no clue where the idea of ,,free"
| healthcare came from, but it's far from free. 20% of your
| wages is the general rule for healthcare here.
|
| On paper, my employer pays me 72k per year. I net 36k of
| this after taxes and social insurances are paid.
| Muromec wrote:
| _Laughs in 150 EUR per month of basis zorgverzekering_
| from the bottom of the sea
| marcinzm wrote:
| > How about pension?
|
| Fun fact I learned the last time this topic came up,
| social security in the US pays more than German
| government pensions.
| Muromec wrote:
| There is more than one pension -- one for old age (which
| the government is paying) and another from the company
| plan. The usual trick is to also pay out mortgage by this
| time, sell the house to buy something smaller and enjoy
| your life somewhere in a sunny place.
| weatherlite wrote:
| West Europe is far from cheap. Housing, childcare etc is
| unaffordable for many in the middle class (and as dev,
| you are in most cases in Europe not a very high earner).
| Universal healthcare is the main (last) advantage Europe
| has over the U.S (and its a big one.)
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| If you can afford housing and child care in the US you
| don't care about healthcare because you are probably on a
| good employee plan.
| weatherlite wrote:
| Jee sounds like a swell arrangement for 20% of the
| population ...
| astrange wrote:
| More like 80%. Americans are simply richer than
| Europeans.
| concordDance wrote:
| You can use numbeo to compare.
| https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-
| living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...
|
| Basically, almost all places, particularly in the UK,
| have worse salary to cost of living ratios.
| wiseowise wrote:
| Ams is same or even worse than some US areas when it
| comes to costs of living.
| lproven wrote:
| > Weird, as someone from Europe I've never experience
| anything else.
|
| Yeah, no. Also European, and have been marched out without
| notice, cut off that day with no chance to say goodbye, etc.
| damnitbuilds wrote:
| I worked a at large European company. They announced there
| would be layoffs. But not who, just the date. On that date,
| they came round during the day, tapping people on the
| shoulder, who walked out of the room and were never seen in
| the office again. Grown men were crying, who weren't even let
| go.
|
| I never felt good about that company ever again.
| pjmlp wrote:
| That is mostly in Central and Nothern Europe, unfortunely in
| the south even with unions, things not always go as they
| should be.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| I worked at a company with a US division and a German
| division.
|
| It was stark, the difference in process between the two
| countries. Leadership was openly complaining about how they
| couldn't close out shuttering the company because it was
| going to take six months to handle legal compliance in
| Germany.
|
| This was during an all-hands, and one delightfully brave soul
| who knew it didn't matter much what he said since we were all
| exiting anyway commented in the public channel "Because of
| those laws, the American employees also get a six-month heads
| up instead of a locked door when they drive in in the
| morning, so today, we're all very grateful to Germany and our
| German peers."
| o_m wrote:
| It makes sense in the US where they have terms like "going
| postal" and easy access to guns
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| Wow, the last paragraph is really touching. That comment from
| the CEO is brilliant: "I trusted them yesterday, I trust them
| today." That will stay with me for some time!
| ignoramous wrote:
| > _I trusted them yesterday, I trust them today._
|
| The problem is, before the layoffs, the employee may have
| felt they had an obligation to do right by the company. Once
| they're fired, it may no longer be the case. Some may very
| well become spiteful, act on their vengeance, & seek
| immediate retribution.
|
| The risk posed by an employee going rouge is what most CEOs
| are playing for, especially as in GP's case, for a company as
| large as Google, where they need to plan for all possible
| failures and scenarios, some of which may or may not have
| happened before hand.
| eloisant wrote:
| In France you can't layoff people on the spot, there is a 3
| months notice. And I've yet to hear about employees going
| rogue.
|
| Maybe in US laid off employees can go rogue because they're
| treated like shit in the process?
| ahtihn wrote:
| Notice doesn't mean they must be allowed to keep working.
| It just means they need to be paid.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| US laid off employees also get 3-6 months of full pay and
| benefits. They just lose access to the building and their
| work devices immediately. I imagine it's no different in
| France.
| Aeolun wrote:
| > I imagine it's no different in France.
|
| He literally just told you it's different in France?
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| He said that with incorrect information about how layoffs
| in America work.
| eloisant wrote:
| No I didn't. I know how layoffs works in America because
| I've been laid off in America.
| acdha wrote:
| You know how it worked for you. What you described is not
| a legal requirement and many other people have had
| different experiences.
| mcherm wrote:
| > US laid off employees also get 3-6 months of full pay
| and benefits.
|
| Some employers may decide to give a few months of pay and
| benefits to laid off employees (although 6 months would
| be unusually large) but it is definitely not required and
| is not always done. Mass layoffs of 100+ people need to
| be announced 60 days ahead (but without naming who will
| be laid off) but there are no requirements for any kind
| of severance.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| There's no legal requirement, but literally every company
| that is not bankrupt does it because otherwise they will
| face huge numbers of wrongful termination suits.
| Loughla wrote:
| That's not true in every sector.
|
| After college I worked for a large regional manufacturer.
| They laid off about 10% of their employees, I got
| nothing.
|
| Severance pay is a white collar benefit.
| Ferret7446 wrote:
| What happens if your company supports billions of dollars in
| economic output, and a few employees decides to go rogue and
| sabotage some systems that then causes an international loss of
| billions of dollars, and possibly property damages and loss of
| life? If you were the CEO, would you take criminal/financial
| responsibility for that?
| fzeroracer wrote:
| Does this question also equally apply to the opposite side?
| If an employee got so angry with how you laid them off and
| treated them afterwards that they decide to do what they can
| to damage your company?
|
| Cutting access and having security walk them out is more or
| less security theater. If an employee really wanted to cause
| damage the odds are they either already have or will still
| find a way. In this scenario having generous severance and
| treating them with respect is likely to better defuse the
| situation than kicking them out the door.
| Ferret7446 wrote:
| This hypothetical is about what the CEO/company decides to
| do, not what the employee decides to do. A lot of liability
| "theater" is not there to prevent issues, it's to cover
| your ass.
|
| So no, this question doesn't apply equally to the opposite
| side. An employee does not take responsibility for what the
| company does. A lot of people wonder why CEOs are paid so
| much; part of that is simply to take responsibility.
|
| Ironically, a lot of people complain about useless CEOs,
| but if you asked them to take that responsibility for the
| pay, they wouldn't take it (note that that responsibility
| includes things like sweet talking shareholders and giving
| public statements on short notice on things that could nuke
| millions of dollars in value and create very real legal
| liability).
| chasontherobot wrote:
| Ah yes, because CEOs often face consequences for their
| poor decisions. They definitely don't get golden
| parachutes and move on to a new company when they run a
| company into the ground.
| noisy_boy wrote:
| There is a range between kicking them out instantly and
| allowing them to do whatever they please. Authorizations to
| important systems should be immediately revoked but you can
| allow them some time to gather their things, access to
| internal chat to say their goodbyes etc. Or is that an excuse
| for poorly designed internal controls?
| hnfong wrote:
| It's not like there aren't disgruntled employees before
| layoffs. If a single employee could cause billions of dollars
| in losses, then the company already has a big problem
| regardless of layoffs.
|
| It's very interesting how so many people in upper management
| seem to think that they can trust employees not to sabotage
| and cause billions of dollars in losses by paying them like
| 100k a year.
| FpUser wrote:
| >"If a single employee could cause billions of dollars in
| losses..."
|
| This situation is endemic in smaller companies with the
| tight budgets.
| bitpush wrote:
| There's a difference. An employee going rogue is different
| from a non employee/ex-employee doing malicious things.
|
| Only one of them would be seen as negligent.
| varenc wrote:
| The big difference is liability exposure.
|
| If a current employee causes damage, that's one thing. But
| if a recently laid-off employee who retained full system
| access causes billions in losses, the CEO and board would
| face severe consequences legally and reputationally, since
| it would be perceived as an obvious security lapse.
| rwmj wrote:
| An employee who is serving their notice period is still
| an employee. Unless you mean truly ex-employees who still
| have access, in which case the company has a big problem
| if it cannot revoke credentials.
| mcherm wrote:
| This is a strange sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.
| Effectively, your argument says that if there is any
| step, whether wise or foolish, kind or cruel, that some
| take, all must take it or risk being found negligent.
|
| That's no way to run an (overly litigious) society.
| hnfong wrote:
| I don't even agree with the self-proclaimed legal experts
| in the replies.
|
| Employers generally assume liability for torts (civil
| liability arising from wrong-doings) vicariously. For
| example if an employee somehow puts rat poison into a
| customer's burger, the employer is automatically liable
| for that, because they are responsible for the employee's
| actions. (See eg.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability )
|
| But if on the other hand a recently laid-off ex-employee
| sneaks back to the restaurant and then adds rat poison to
| the burgers, the liability of the employer isn't
| automatic (you can claim they should have done better
| with their security etc., but it is probably a defense to
| say they did all reasonable steps to secure the
| facilities).
|
| So yeah, I call bullshit. More likely is that the C-suite
| just cargo-culted some "layoff best practices" and it
| just became a thing you did without questioning.
| bow_ wrote:
| Right. Because only laid-off employees can cause such a
| damage of course (/s).
|
| This is a twisted way to look at the risk.
|
| Disgruntled employees have more reason to wreak havoc. All
| the more reason they should be treated as humanely as
| possible in a difficult period that in most cases is
| inflicted by the company itself.
| jmpz wrote:
| This is only a problem if you treat employees in a way that
| makes them want to go rogue and sabotage some systems.. maybe
| don't fire them without warning or cause, or clear reasoning?
| I suppose if someone is actually able to tangibly impact some
| critical system, limit their access to that, but beyond that,
| it's just an excuse to make it sound OK to abruptly dump
| someone from a social and professional context. Maybe it's
| legal, but is it necessary? No. Is it traumatizing? Yes.
| ajb wrote:
| There are companies that support billions of economic output
| in countries which require a notice period. If they thought
| it was a risk that they would be taken down be a rogue
| employee, they have the option of putting them on 'gardening
| leave' during the notice period. This is extremely rare; they
| know the risk is insignificant so they are more keen to get
| any remaining value from the relationship (work, handover).
|
| In our industry and many others, being a professional and
| maintaining good relations with your ex -colleagues, who form
| your professional network, is much more valuable than any
| emotional satisfaction from screwing them over, even without
| the risk of going to prison.
| ahtihn wrote:
| > they have the option of putting them on 'gardening leave'
| during the notice period. This is extremely rare
|
| That must depend on the country. In Switzerland it's
| standard that employees don't work during the notice period
| when they're laid off.
| ajb wrote:
| Must do. I wonder if that's because of the wide access to
| weapons? Although I thought I'd heard that there still
| wasn't much gun violence in Switzerland.
| ajb wrote:
| Puzzled by why anyone would downvote a pure question.
| Wide distribution of guns is an obvious commonality
| between the US and Switzerland; if that's offensive
| observation please let me know why!
| renewedrebecca wrote:
| Probably because only the US has the kind of gun violence
| that you're wondering about. I don't think in Europe, the
| idea that someone is going to come after you with a gun
| because you pissed them off generally hits the radar.
|
| Someone may find the question offensive because of that.
| tspng wrote:
| It's definitely not related to the population's gun
| ownership ratio. I would say gun violence is probably
| comparable with our European neighbours. It's just way
| lower compared to the US.
|
| Also, from my experience, there is not a clear trend
| whether companies in Switzerland want employees to keep
| working or if they just let them go during the notice
| period. I've seen many examples of both.
| thor-rodrigues wrote:
| I have the impression that (although I did not check for
| data beforehand to confirm my assumptions) that gun
| violence is very low in developed countries, with the USA
| being the outlier.
|
| I believe the overall positive employer-employee
| relationship in Europe is much more of a product of
| legislature and cultural norms, than the threat of
| violence.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| The "garden leave" approach is the standard in the US. 3-6
| months of severance pay, but you lose access to company
| systems immediately.
| ErigmolCt wrote:
| This is such a huge contrast to the usual cold, corporate
| layoff horror stories. Honestly, this is how it should be done
| if layoffs are truly unavoidable - with transparency, respect,
| and basic human decency.
| EdwardDiego wrote:
| God I love living in a country with employment law that
| recognises the massive disparity between employers and
| employees.
| crossroadsguy wrote:
| For anyone not from India -- India does layoffs in every way.
| From "cut on zoom in 90 sec" to "please know that you have to
| resign and serve your two months notice and then go"; to also
| "if you want you can serve the notice period, or you can just
| leave today and still get the pay for two months". I have
| experienced the first and last and in the case of last for some
| reason I had chosen to serve the notice.
| shermantanktop wrote:
| My immediate reaction is "I probably would too."
|
| Working is often treated as transactional but it is about so
| much more. Self-worth, professional reputation, bonds with
| coworkers, ownership and stewardship of solutions. Even the
| simple everyday routine that a workplace drives is important.
| EE84M3i wrote:
| Wow, I've never heard of terminated employees being able to
| keep their corporate laptops before. Did IT at least wipe them
| first?
| _whiteCaps_ wrote:
| Interesting. That's what's happened in the last two companies
| I've worked for when they did layoffs. I'm typing this
| message from my ex-corporate laptop right now...
|
| The process was that IT locked the laptop until the severance
| package was signed, then you got a code that let you reboot
| and reinstall MacOS.
| DannyBee wrote:
| Google is just really bad at this, but seems to think it's not
| bad at this. It's sad since there is no excuse for it - plenty
| of companies conduct regular layoffs and role eliminations in
| more compassionate ways, it would not take much to survey and
| learn from their practices. Hell, IBM was often more
| compassionate about layoffs than Google.
|
| Some of it they've tried to become more formal about in ways
| that actually make it worse - so for example, the timing of
| this (which the person complains about) is because (AFAIK) they
| now have one day a month where ~all role eliminations that are
| going to happen that month, happen. Or so i'm told this is the
| case.
|
| Ostensibly so you don't have random role eliminations every
| day, which makes some sense, but then you have no way for
| people on the ground to do anything more compassionate (like
| move the timing a bit) because they can't get through the
| bureaucracy.
|
| In the end - it's simple - if you disempower all the people
| from helping you make it compassionate, it will not be
| compassionate. The counter argument is usually that those folks
| don't know how to do it in legally safe/etc ways. But this to
| me is silly - if you don't trust them to know how to do it,
| either train them and trust them, or fire them if they simply
| can't be trusted overall.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Google is bad at a lot of things but has a "we're number one
| why try harder?" attitude.
|
| Or rather you can't benchmark the performance of anyone there
| against industry peers because they are protected by a two-
| sided market. Bazel, Kubernetes and other startup killing
| tools are developed there because with monopoly services they
| can hire 3x the number of developers at 3x the rate of other
| firms and shackle them with tools and processes that make
| them 1/3x as productive and survive. It's even worse when it
| comes to evaluating top management, somebody like Marissa
| Meyer might be average at best but has such a powerful
| flywheel behind them that they might seem to succeed
| brilliantly even if they were trying to fail with all their
| might.
| _huayra_ wrote:
| Funny how they're bad at this from start to end. Most of
| these comments talk about the "end" part, but don't forget:
| Google has a notoriously laggy hiring process with extreme
| delays and an unacceptably high level of silence on
| important issues from recruiters.
|
| I have been ghosted so heavily from recruiters TWICE at
| Google when I was literally telling them "Hey I have offers
| from $x and $y and I need to decide in 2 weeks. Is there
| any chance I can get an offer from Google beforehand?" only
| to receive complete silence and had to go with a different
| offer. 1-2 months later, the recruiter gets back to me with
| an offer, I have to decline.
|
| The most hilarious part about it: after I decline, I get
| interviewed by some team at G that tries to figure out why
| people declined. I guess they're expecting some teachable
| moment, some nuance and insight. My answer both times
| started with "lemme show you an email thread that is very
| one-sided..."
| SteveNuts wrote:
| Totally unrelated, but I was once contacted by an Amazon
| recruiter and sent him my resume.
|
| He called me to discuss my experience, one of which
| mentioned that I worked in an environment where my team
| managed "30,000+ servers". He took the opportunity to say
| something along the lines of "that's irrelevant, that's
| smaller than one datacenter in one of our regions".
|
| I honestly have no idea why the recruiters from these
| places have such a superiority complex that they need to
| belittle people like that. It's not even the manager of
| the team you'd be working on, just some recruiter that
| probably doesn't have any of the skills/background the
| job they're recruiting for requires. Yet they need to
| make you feel small and worthless right out of the gate.
|
| Is it just prepping you for how you'll be treated there?
| Trying to select for people that are okay with being
| belittled?
| dsr_ wrote:
| At Amazon? Yes, very likely.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| I remember a few years back when it seemed anyone who (1)
| had a pulse and (2) had rumors circulating that they
| _might_ be a software developer got a contact from an
| AMZN recruiter about once a month if not sooner. It was
| frequent to have somebody complain on HN about how they
| could not get an interview with FAANG and I 'd say "you
| really haven't gotten interviews with AMZN" and of course
| they were getting interviews with AMZN.
| entropicdrifter wrote:
| I once wrote a reply email to an Amazon recruiter saying
| effectively, "If Amazon were the last software company
| left on earth, I would rather become a carpenter than
| work there. Please never ask me to interview there
| again."
|
| Anyhow a couple years later I got _called_ by a recruiter
| from Amazon asking me if I 'd be willing to relocate to
| work there.
| khedoros1 wrote:
| I think I wrote an email along those lines, at some
| point, although it was as much annoyance with the
| persistence of a particular recruiter as it was a desire
| not to work at Amazon.
| rvba wrote:
| Linkein is now full of recruiters looking for work, who
| never had any network.
|
| The barrier of entry to become a receruiter in general is
| very, very low.
| deepsun wrote:
| One positive thing I heard from Amazon folks is that
| everyone there is honest that they hate the company and
| hang there only for moneys. Both ICs, their managers, and
| managers of their managers. At least no hypocrisy.
| holsta wrote:
| > I honestly have no idea why the recruiters from these
| places have such a superiority complex that they need to
| belittle people like that.
|
| Many, many years ago I sat next to HR in an open plan
| office while on a freelance gig.
|
| They treated almost all candidates like subhumans, both
| when talking about the candidates within the team and
| when speaking on the phone to candidates.
|
| They handled everyone from factory worker and janitorial
| roles, to specialists to director level. I very clearly
| got the impression that they only treated candidates well
| if those candidates could turn into people who had any
| power over them within the org.
|
| I've carried that with me since and I often recognize it
| in HR staff I interact with now.
| aylmao wrote:
| +1, it's been a while since I interviewed with Google,
| but this brought me back to how annoying it was. I've
| never had a good interview experience with Google. I only
| interviewed during college for internship and then a
| full-time new-grad role and got a consistent "we're doing
| you a favour by even talking to you" attitude from them--
| the delays, the impersonality, the delays to the general
| vibe of the emails, etc.
|
| They became significantly more attentive when I got an
| internship offer from a competing big-tech company, but
| as much as my recruiter seemed to try, the process just
| seem to be deficient beyond their capacity to do anything
| about it. It had to go through many steps, and be
| reviewed by many people who seemingly had better things
| to do.
|
| Eventually they reached to the right people to tell me my
| decision before my other deadline. I _was_ going to get
| an offer. They couldn't get me the actual offer letter,
| or tell me if I had guaranteed host-matching though. I
| happened to know Google can send intern offers that don't
| guarantee you'll be matched to a team, and if you're not,
| the internship just doesn't happen. In my book that's not
| only as good as no offer really, it's also just
| disrespectful. I knew people who had this type of offers
| and didn't get teams.
|
| I took the other offer. "You will get an offer, the
| details are just taking a while" is not enough to decide
| on, and the whole process didn't particularly warm me up
| to Google. For comparison, and to give credit where
| credit is due, the other company was Meta (then FB). My
| recruiter was very response, understanding, and
| personable, which is especially appreciated as an college
| student-- you're nervous, unexperienced and have a lot
| going on beyond interviewing. They sent me pictures of
| their dog to lighten the mood. I had told them I'd
| appreciate quickness, and by the time I was eating dinner
| after my on-site, I had the offer letter in my inbox.
| neltnerb wrote:
| I remember at the time being frustrated that, after in
| person interviewing, they left me hanging for four
| months. I had a NSF grant that had been approved and if
| Google X had offered me a role I would have turned down
| the grant, but after months of silence I had to tell
| Google that I needed an answer or the decision would be
| made for me.
|
| It was incredibly inconsiderate, the only thing I could
| guess is that they're intentionally horrible to
| applicants in order to filter out the ones that won't
| tolerate it.
| burningChrome wrote:
| >> the only thing I could guess is that they're
| intentionally horrible to applicants in order to filter
| out the ones that won't tolerate it.
|
| I had two friends within the span of 18 months have this
| experience where they've run the gauntlet of pre-
| screening, get invited out to Google offices. Run through
| two days of grueling interviews, all the while getting a
| lot of great positive feedback about their performance.
| They end the last day, go back to the hotel, thinking
| about leaving the following morning.
|
| They get a call around dinner time. "Hey, we had two more
| directors that wanted to speak to you tomorrow, it would
| only be for a few hours, but they were really impressed
| with the feedback and wanted to have some more time with
| you. Can you stay for one more day?"
|
| Both later found out this is a complete ruse to find out
| how bad you want to work at Google. This forces you to
| change your flight plans, pay for the change to your
| ticket, pay for another night at a hotel, etc. If you do,
| they line something up that's super casual. If you reject
| the offer and return home, they conclude you didn't want
| to work their bad enough to change all of your plans and
| remove you from the candidate pool.
|
| Same thing, once you turn them down and maintain your
| plans of leaving the next morning, they just ghost you
| and you never hear back from them. The irony was one of
| the two was contacted a year later from a different
| department asking him if he would be interested in
| interviewing for another position there. He said he
| rolled his eyes and politely declined the offer. He said
| it was pretty unreal to treat him like garbage and then
| come back and see if he was interested in another role
| there. As if everything there is so disconnected or they
| thought this was just completely acceptable behavior.
| bee_rider wrote:
| The phrasing "from start to end" got me thinking--
| tangential, but--they were an extremely cool company when
| Millenials were in school and looking to join the
| workforce. Anybody would have jumped at the opportunity
| to work for them.
|
| Actually, I can't even think of a similar company
| nowadays.
|
| Anyway, it wouldn't surprise me if they had a really bad
| hiring pipeline as a result. Why work on the skill of
| hiring, if people will jump through flaming hoops to work
| for you.
|
| As MS converts into IBM, and Google converts into MS, I
| guess they will have to figure that out.
| als0 wrote:
| > As MS converts into IBM, and Google converts into MS, I
| guess they will have to figure that out.
|
| Shocking how real this is.
| DannyBee wrote:
| "because with monopoly services they can hire 3x the number
| of developers at 3x the rate of other firms and shackle
| them with tools and processes that make them 1/3x as
| productive and survive"
|
| So, this i'd take issue with. I agree on the overall
| attitude for sure.
|
| But some of the data here is just very wrong.
|
| Google can't hire 3x the number of developers at 3x the
| rate. It hasn't been able to in probably a decade. At least
| in established markets. It's true that in new markets it
| can come in and often hire very quickly, but so can lots of
| others. I say this all as someone who has:
|
| 1. Established multiple mid/large developer sites for
| Google a number of times over ~2 decades, so saw how it
| changed.
|
| 2. Watched my counterparts at other companies try to do it
| as well.
|
| ...
|
| So i have a bunch of direct experience in knowing how fast
| it can hire and how many it can hire :)
|
| It's also no longer willing to pay what it would take to
| get 3x developers 3x as fast but that's orthogonal to
| whether it could - i've watched it try and fail at getting
| 2x developers 2x as fast in many markets. It used to be
| able to, but now the only trick up its sleeve is money,
| sometimes freedom. That doesn't go as far as one would
| think.
|
| As for 1/3rd productive due to tools and processes - most
| companies have near zero telemetry on their developer
| productivity, or very basic telemetry (build times, bug
| times, etc), while google has an _amazing_ amount.
|
| I don't even think most companies have enough telemetry to
| be able to quantify their productivity for real to even say
| it's 3x google's.
|
| For example, most companies could not tell me how long it
| takes to get a feature from idea to production, what parts
| of the process take up what time, and how all that has
| changed over time and breaks down among their various
| developer populations. Let alone provide real insight into
| it.
|
| (Feel free to pick your alternative measure, I would still
| bet most of the time the telemetry isn't captured)
|
| Most seem to drive productivity based on very small parts
| of their chain (build times, etc) and the rest on
| sentiment.
|
| That may actually be the right level of telemetry for them,
| and the right thing to do, depending on what they are
| trying to do, but it makes it very hard to say they are
| _actually_ more productive or not.
|
| There are many complaints you could make about Google, but
| the productivity of _tools_ is not one of them. Sure, some
| people love them, some people hate them, like anything, but
| that is orthogonal. I 've certainly seen the "i like x
| better" or "i am much more productive in x" complaints. But
| by any objective measure, the tools make Google's
| developers wildly productive, and are one of the reasons
| they are able to overcome so much more process.
|
| The process part i agree with, like any other large
| company, google is smothered in process these days.
|
| I remember having the following discussion with a 5000
| person org about their launch bits:
|
| Them: We've done some data and tracking and discovered we
| think only the following kinds of launches are actually
| really risky for us, so we want to make them blocking on
| the following launch bits.
|
| Me: Great, does that mean the other launches aren't risky
| and you don't really care about the launch bits you have to
| approve for them?
|
| Them: Yes
|
| Me: Are you going to remove the launch bits from them so it
| stops slowing them down and you don't think they are risky
| at all?
|
| Them: No.
| paganel wrote:
| > But by any objective measure, the tools make Google's
| developers wildly productive,
|
| That's the thing, they might be winning all the
| productivity battles there are (and I genuinely believe
| that they do, on top of great tools Google employs good-
| enough programmers to make use of those tools), but at
| the same time they're losing the general war. Because,
| with rare exceptions, the last war Google the company won
| when it came to launching something of lasting value
| happened in the late 2000s, give or take a few years.
|
| The botched Google+ launch broke them in that department,
| or maybe that was just a symptom of how badly-broken
| things already were inside the company. They're still
| making lots and lots of money, though, so that's still a
| good thing for them.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| And if you believe that, @DannyBee's productivity isn't
| real.
|
| Or maybe it's a business problem that Google shares with
| Microsoft, Facebook and Apple.
|
| Microsoft has struggled to find any new products that
| will really move the needle in terms of revenue but they
| support their old customers with enduring loyalty while
| making the occasional absurd-but-bold move like Windows 8
| and sticking to businesses that seem to make no sense
| like XBOX.
|
| Facebook is the captain of cringe, not cool, but at least
| they're investing big in VR as a platform. They subsidize
| great rigs for _Beat Saber_ because Zuckerberg will never
| forgive himself if he gives up and somebody else
| succeeds. [1]
|
| Apple will never find a product as big as the iPhone. To
| do so they've have to make an iCar or iHouse or skip
| Starship and go straight to O'Neill Colonies. At least
| they are indisputably the best at what they do and they
| can occasionally take a hopeless shot at someone else's
| turf (Vision Pro) feeling justified that the only rival
| platform has a trashcan for a logo.
|
| Google has trained us all that anything new from Google
| has a shelf life less than day old bread. They go at new
| projects as if they a startup that didn't get into Y
| Combinator or like the kind of company that Marissa Mayer
| starts these days [2] -- they don't realize part of the
| special opportunity of being a huge company like that
| with an absurd valuation is you can do really big,
| audacious, and irrational things.
|
| [1] I learned for myself how dangerous this attitude is
| but all I could do was max out my HELOC.
|
| [2] see https://sunshine.com/ not to put it down, I might
| be involved in something like that if I wasn't doing what
| I am doing
| santoshalper wrote:
| Dude, Marissa Mayer hasn't been at Google for well over a
| decade. Weird callout.
| palmotea wrote:
| > Dude, Marissa Mayer hasn't been at Google for well over
| a decade. Weird callout.
|
| So? It's not a weird callout, it's an _example where the
| whole arc is well known_.
| kweingar wrote:
| Bazel is an incredibly productive tool at the right scale.
| I could not imagine working on a giant monorepo without it.
|
| If a startup is killed by Bazel, it probably wasn't the
| right tech choice for their scale, and it would be more
| accurate to say that the startup was killed by bad
| technical leadership.
| 1024core wrote:
| > somebody like Marissa Meyer
|
| Marissa Mayer left Google like, 13 years ago...?
| swiftcoder wrote:
| > Google is just really bad at this, but seems to think it's
| not bad at this
|
| The BigTech firms have been doing this _intentionally_ for a
| very long time. I started hearing about Microsoft doing the
| security-escorts-you-straight-out-the-door all the way back
| in 2012.
|
| It's not that they are bad at this, it's that they think the
| trade-off works out in their favour. And it probably does -
| what's a few but-hurt former employees, versus one
| disgruntled former employee who had enough warning to snag
| critical data on their way out the door?
|
| Though it's probably our fault, since we're all so trusting
| of our mega corp employers, and/or so optimistic about our
| chances of surviving layoffs, that no one is stashing the
| incriminating data ahead of time.
| ThrowawayB7 wrote:
| > " _I started hearing about Microsoft doing the security-
| escorts-you-straight-out-the-door all the way back in
| 2012._ "
|
| Are you sure about that? Microsoft's 2014 layoffs, which
| were large enough to be reported in the tech press, let
| employees keep network and building access until the actual
| layoff date.
| sgerenser wrote:
| Can confirm as well, was laid off from Microsoft in 2023,
| and I kept access for about a week and a half (and then
| was paid for an additional 60 days after that, but no
| longer had access to anything, this was just the WARN
| period).
| skybrian wrote:
| Google didn't used to be quite so bad at this. Back when they
| closed the Atlanta office, people there got a lot of notice
| and opportunity to find another role. The complaints were
| about not being allowed to go full-time remote.
|
| I wonder what changed?
| ThrowawayR2 wrote:
| When these businesses are in their growth phase, they're
| relatively lenient about spending and generous to
| employees. When these businesses run out of opportunities
| for market growth or entering new markets to improve the
| bottom line, they turn to cost cutting and squeezing more
| out of employees to improve the bottom line instead. It's a
| natural progression for every megacorporation as they hit
| the limits of their growth.
| bsimpson wrote:
| Ruth and Fiona aren't Patrick and Laszlo.
|
| It feels like there was leadership turnover in the late
| 2010s where "conventional company" people assumed the reins
| of power and started managing it like one.
|
| The founders are complicit too. People like to think
| "before Larry and Sergey stepped down..." but the founders
| still control the board (tacitly or explicitly approving of
| the company's current behavior). Plus, there's Sergey's
| "60h/w or GTFO" note from a few months back.
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| > Google is just really bad at this, but seems to think it's
| not bad at this.
|
| That is a very charitable way to look at it, when I worked
| their I started from that point as well. "Hey, this thing you
| just did, you did it really badly, can we workshop some ways
| to not do this so badly in the future?"
|
| And yet, again and again they would do something similar
| _again_ and still do it badly. As the examples piled up, I
| was able to have more pointed and more direct conversations
| with the executives tasked with doing these things. After a
| year or so, the evidence was pretty conclusive, it was
| neither that they didn 't think they were bad at it, they
| didn't _care._
|
| There have been a lot of conversations on HN about how
| "managing" at Google was warped by the fact that their search
| advertising business was a freaking printing press for money.
| So much that _billions_ of cash was generated every quarter
| that they just put into the bank because they didn 't have
| anything to spend it on. There have been lots of discussions
| about how that twists evaluations etc.
|
| What has been less discussed is that tens of thousands of
| people applied every week to work for Google. It is trivial
| for a manager to 'add staff' just pull them out of the
| candidate pipeline of people who have accepted offers. Tell
| HR^h^h People Operations to keep "n" candidates in the
| pipeline to support 'attritional effects' of management
| decisions. And blam! you get new employees with a lower
| salary than the ones you lose to attrition. _It was always
| better to fill an open slot with a newer, cheaper, employee
| than to transfer one whose job /project/group had just been
| deleted._ Always. Management explicitly pushed hard on the
| messaging of putting everything in the wiki because it was
| helpful that firing someone didn't lose any institutional
| knowledge because that knowledge was already online in the
| wiki.
|
| As a result, it was ingrained in the management culture that
| "you can always replace people so don't feel bad about firing
| them" and "incremental revenue improvement or incremental
| cost reductions are not promotable events."
|
| Google leadership spends money to create _illusions_ for
| their employees to maximize their work effort, much like a
| dairy spends money to keep their cows milk production up. And
| like the dairy, they don 't get too attached to any one cow,
| after all there are always more cows.
|
| Argyle, the author, had their belief system completely
| invalidated. That is traumatic, always will be. Google's
| leadership doesn't care, Google's belief system is that there
| is already someone in the 'hired' pipeline who costs less
| than can do any of the things Argyle might do, or has done,
| and they are cheaper. So yeah, don't let the door hit you on
| the way out.
| dzogchen wrote:
| > the laid off employees were given a few days in the company
| to allow them to say goodbyes
|
| This is just so wild for me as an European, because at least in
| Germany if you get fired (or if you quit) you need to stay 1 -
| 3 MONTHS at the company still.
| 123pie123 wrote:
| this happens in the UK (called garden leave) but in my
| experience you're typically sent home with full pay
| denvrede wrote:
| Not true. They can remove you from the company grounds and
| block access to all systems the moment you get fired or you
| hand in your resignation. But they have to pay you (if there
| is no "good reason" for firing you) for a varying amount of
| time (depending on your contract and some minimums by law).
|
| Of course, most of the time, you can / need to stay at the
| company for that above mentioned varying amount of time.
| LPisGood wrote:
| Is that company in data storage?
| abdj8 wrote:
| No. It's a small company ~400 employees in total, including
| contractors. The CEO is a very technical guy. The average
| tenure of the employees let go was ~8 years.
| rqtwteye wrote:
| "I have seen people (one was a VP of Engineering) escorted out
| of the building, sent in a cab to home along with a security
| guard (this was in India), not allowed access to computer or
| talk with other employees. "
|
| Some companies are just paranoid. My company has now had
| several rounds of layoffs, people were kept on for a few
| months, got severance and everything went as harmonious as
| layoffs can be.
|
| The cruelty the way some companies and now Musk with DOGE are
| doing it is simply not necessary and reflects a lot on the
| character of leadership. To me it looks like they are deeply
| insecure and hate their people.
| therealpygon wrote:
| As it should be, but emotional people make emotional choices.
| The trusted and valued employee yesterday can turn on a dime
| and become malicious when they feel they have been wronged
| regardless of whether that is independently true. Their
| resulting actions can include anything from theft of IP to hand
| over to a competitor, to destruction of records or property.
| Worse, it is impossible to tell when someone will choose to
| feel they have been wronged, even when the employee could have
| had chronic absenteeism or underperformance that they justify
| with personal excuses. (I'm not suggesting there shouldn't be
| compassion, rather that most people will almost always make
| mental excuses to justify their behavior regardless of whether
| that reasoning is sound.)
|
| Companies generally don't become militant about a subject
| unless they have experienced the other side of the equation.
| It's not just with layoffs, it can happen with protecting
| source code, licensing, network security, etc. I concede that a
| company could replace destroyed property and should be able to
| recover deleted data, then prosecute/sue to recover damages
| which could cost tens or hundreds of thousands(or millions
| depending on the level of access), but the disruption to
| business can be significant in some cases. Moreover, it is
| impossible to put an IP cat back in the bag.
|
| For me, it seems easy to understand both sides on this one;
| compassion vs risk.
| acdha wrote:
| > The trusted and valued employee yesterday can turn on a
| dime and become malicious when they feel they have been
| wronged regardless of whether that is independently true.
|
| On the flip side, treating them like a crook seems more
| likely to inspire that kind of revenge instinct. Most people
| would understand removing privileged access immediately but
| giving them a dignified exit seems more likely to prevent
| problems.
| crazygringo wrote:
| It does, but if you've removed the damage they can do, then
| to the company it's preferable to have more people angry
| who can't do damage, than less people angry but some of
| them will do damage.
|
| It's a sad reality. For some people a "dignified exit"
| won't do a single thing to lessen the rage they feel that
| they were wronged. It's a sad situation all around.
| palmotea wrote:
| > It does, but if you've removed the damage they can do,
| then to the company it's preferable to have more people
| angry who can't do damage, than less people angry but
| some of them will do damage.
|
| Eh. That's a bad way of thinking, but one that I think is
| tempting to software engineers. It's basically taking
| software security thinking (appropriate for _things_ )
| and applying it to _people_ in a context where the
| consequences are almost certainly not that bad. It 's
| also probably downstream of some _other_ bad ways of
| thinking, that probably make it appear more reasonable
| than it is.
|
| > It's a sad reality. For some people a "dignified exit"
| won't do a single thing to lessen the rage they feel that
| they were wronged. It's a sad situation all around.
|
| You know, you're not required hire those kinds of people
| in the first place. Hire people who get along with
| others.
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _Eh. That 's a bad way of thinking, but one that I
| think is tempting to software engineers._
|
| This has nothing to do with software engineering. It's
| about business risk management. I'm not justifying it,
| just explaining the sad reality of it.
|
| > _You know, you 're not required hire those kinds of
| people in the first place. Hire people who get along with
| others._
|
| I'm glad you have a crystal ball to perfectly predict how
| everybody will act in future situations. But sometimes
| it's the people who seem the most pleasant and helpful
| who take layoffs the worst, because they feel the most
| betrayed after everything they gave emotionally in good
| faith. Humans are complex and they can act unpredictably.
| palmotea wrote:
| > This has nothing to do with software engineering.
|
| You should note I said that way of thinking "is
| _tempting_ to software engineers, " _not_ that is
| exclusive to them or has anything specifically to do with
| software engineering.
|
| > It's about business risk management. I'm not justifying
| it, just explaining the sad reality of it.
|
| The actual sad reality that some people chose to treat
| others unkindly pre-emptively.
|
| > I'm glad you have a crystal ball to perfectly predict
| how everybody will act in future situations.
|
| I don't, but I think you can minimize your risk, if
| that's what you need to avoid being an asshole. Then you
| have to practice trusting others.
|
| > But sometimes it's the people who seem the most
| pleasant and helpful who take layoffs the worst, because
| they feel the most betrayed after everything they gave
| emotionally in good faith.
|
| Honestly, that seems like an argument for making sure
| employees have good work-life balance, so they're not
| giving an unhealthy to the point where they feel
| betrayed.
|
| But I suspect the people who think "I'll make them angry,
| but that's OK because I'll make sure they can't any
| damage," are probably also the kind of people who would
| knowingly exploit an over-committed employee.
| palmotea wrote:
| > As it should be, but emotional people make emotional
| choices. The trusted and valued employee yesterday can turn
| on a dime and become malicious when they feel they have been
| wronged regardless of whether that is independently true.
|
| That's pretty cold, un-empathetic logic. If you're rigorously
| practice that kind of thing, _you 'll get the same reflected
| back at you_.
|
| My company has layoffs (not massive, but some). In my
| experience, the affected employees keep their access to
| everything, and typically finish up their work and
| participate in transition activities (knowledge transfer,
| etc) over a couple weeks. Yeah, they're typically also
| slacking a lot and socializing more, but no one around here
| wants to be an ass to their coworkers. I think the only
| people who get their access cut off are those fired for
| cause.
|
| > Companies generally don't become militant about a subject
| unless they have experienced the other side of the equation.
|
| There are obvious problems with designing your processes
| around the literal worst case (e.g. treating everyone like
| they're a criminal has consequences).
| magicstefanos wrote:
| Good for you but how sad that being treated like a human is
| remarkable.
| ghoshbishakh wrote:
| VDX.tv?
| Aurornis wrote:
| > After the announcement, the laid off employees were given a
| few days in the company to allow them to say good byes.
|
| I was at a company that did this. I thought it was very nice at
| first.
|
| It didn't take long to see why most companies don't do this. It
| became common to have a couple people who turned their last
| days into a mission to poison the well and go on angry tirades.
| Those days became tense and messy as people trying to do work
| felt necessary to move it to private messages to avoid
| triggering anyone.
|
| It gets really ugly when IT starts checking logs and sees
| outgoing employees doing things like accessing code they
| weren't even working on or downloading files in volume.
|
| This was at a company with generous severance, too, so that
| wasn't the cause. A small number of people get irrationally
| vengeful upon being laid off. At Big Tech scale it's virtually
| guaranteed that at least one of the people you lay off is going
| to make some bad decisions.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| My company does this, but they are a very large company that
| is known to aggressively sue people that try to poison the
| well, so no one tries.
| sudomateo wrote:
| > But I was also immediately ripped away from my calendar, docs,
| code, and more.
|
| Layoffs are never easy. I've been through a few myself and it
| really takes the wind out of your sails. That being said, this
| sentence made me pause a bit. None of these things mentioned are
| actually yours. They are the property of Google.
|
| One thing that helped me immensely in my career is understanding
| that my relationship with a company is a business relationship.
| They pay me for my time and skills and nothing more. Today I can
| have a job and tomorrow maybe not. I recommended learning how to
| separate your value from your employer. It's not easy but it's
| necessary. I'm not saying you can't enjoy what you do or be
| excited by it but don't fully tether yourself and your well-being
| to a company.
|
| Godspeed!
| kopirgan wrote:
| Exactly.. Many see it as some sort of marriage in an age where
| even marriages are contractual relations
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I hope you're not suggesting that you approach your marriage
| the way you approach your relationship with a corporate
| partner.
| dullcrisp wrote:
| I think their point was that they were told they could look for
| another internal role, but at the same time had their access
| revoked, which sends a very mixed message.
| windward wrote:
| It's because the message isn't for OP, it's for the people
| who are left.
| anal_reactor wrote:
| > I recommended learning how to separate your value from your
| employer.
|
| This is a very recent development. Through the entirety of
| human history you'd keep working for the same employer for your
| entire life, which means it was very much worth it to cultivate
| that relationship, it's only now that we change jobs every two
| years. A friend of mine has a company in a very small town, and
| was complaining about an employee being lazy. I suggested "just
| fire him if he doesn't do his job", to which I heard "and then
| what? I'll have a jobless bum walking around my town. Thanks
| but no". This really shifted my perspective: the situation
| where employer and employee have no moral obligations towards
| one another and it's "business only" is not how the society at
| large should function.
| intellectronica wrote:
| > Through the entirety of human history you'd keep working
| for the same employer for your entire life
|
| Hardly. This type of arrangement was short-lived and
| anomalous. It was roughly true in rich economies during a few
| decades of the post-war era. Never before, and not for most
| people around the world.
|
| Relationships are worth cultivating any time, of course, but
| one shouldn't mistake a job for a life. The idea that a job
| is for life and your employer is your family was a mind hack
| that worked for a short while and is now unraveling.
| AstralStorm wrote:
| It used to be sort of true in the Soviet sphere. By sort
| of, it was more like an employer for life rather than the
| exact job. Unless rhe company went under which was rare.
| anal_reactor wrote:
| > Never before, and not for most people around the world.
|
| Please tell me more about the gig economy of medieval
| peasants.
| intellectronica wrote:
| Medieval peasants cannot be said to have had a job. They
| are mostly either tied to the land (and its ownders), or
| indeed gigging from season to season.
| Majestic121 wrote:
| The english wikipedia is lacking on the historical side,
| but you can find out more with the French one :
| https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalier
|
| Google trad of a couple paragraphs :
|
| > Most of the modest peasants, men or women, very often
| still small artisans, small weavers or textile workers,
| peddlers, boatmen or carriers in bad seasons, could
| become day laborers on nearby farms and estates, if they
| had the build and stamina, once their own work was done.
| Some were even regular day laborers, familiar to a domain
| steward or a village ploughman, present all year round or
| usually required for a certain number of tasks. Certain
| harvest tasks were sometimes carried out if possible part
| of the night, or continuously by successive teams[5].
|
| > Day laborers, brewers or laborers, represented a
| significant part of the population and sometimes lived,
| in the absence of family support or a solidarity house,
| on the edge of begging[8]. In rural areas, they subsisted
| thanks to additional agricultural work with ploughmen or
| farm merchants but also thanks to wool spinning, crafts
| or transport. They also served as additional labor in
| construction, helped the lumberjacks, made bundles, etc.
| Women did laundry or took children in as wet nurses[9].
| dmoy wrote:
| In the days of yore, didn't a decent chunk of people
| literally have their name come from a family profession?
| I.e. John Smith, Jan Schmidt, Carl Maria von Weber.
|
| As in it wouldn't be just your worth tied to the
| profession, but N generations of your parents, etc.
| milesrout wrote:
| For most of human history we were hunter-gatherers. Even
| assuming you mean post-industrial history this isn't true
| though.
| watwut wrote:
| Do people really have to make up stuff like that? If you said
| large parts of history, maybe.
|
| "For entirety" definitely not. What you describe was a thing
| in some periods, typically periods where some group got too
| much power and they tended to end with huge disfunctions and
| breakdowns.
| hnbad wrote:
| > Through the entirety of human history you'd keep working
| for the same employer for your entire life
|
| Just looking at the Western world that breaks down during
| industrialization and falls apart if you go further back then
| that, journeymen (i.e. tradesmen who had completed their
| apprenticeship) would often literally travel from town to
| town for several years to work under different masters before
| submitting their work to a guild for evaluation and becoming
| masters themselves. I guess you could say serfs worked "for
| the same employer" because their feudal lords owned them as
| part of the territory but that seems like a stretch.
|
| It's not so much that employees used to "keep working for the
| same employer for their entire lives", it's more that the
| people running and operating businesses used to be part of a
| local community and there used to be an understanding of a
| shared responsibility beyond private property claims.
|
| This isn't something employees can change, either. Even
| employers aren't really able to change this because they too
| have to operate in the same economic system that contributes
| to this effect. It's probably more extreme in the US (and
| some places in the US more than others) but the economic
| system does not care for such sentimentalities and a business
| that does will put itself at an economic disadvantage,
| especially where the social fabric has already been
| sufficiently eroded to avoid bad optics (e.g. WalMart
| arguably failed in Germany because its attitude to employees
| felt extremely off-putting both to workers and consumers at
| the time but that resistance may have been eroded by the
| behavior of other companies since to the point where it would
| no longer make them stand out the same way if they tried to
| re-enter the market now - economic changes making this
| unfeasible notwithstanding).
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _Through the entirety of human history you 'd keep working
| for the same employer for your entire life_
|
| This is... not true. It's so not true I don't even know where
| to start rebutting it. But for a start, most of human history
| you were either hunting and gathering for yourself, keeping a
| flock for yourself, or farming land for yourself.
| "Employment" even as a concept is a pretty new concept on the
| scale of human history.
| ErigmolCt wrote:
| Companies will always remind you it's "just business" when it
| suits them - so it's healthy to keep that same energy in return
| qntmfred wrote:
| yup. embrace being a cog. enjoy your cog work as much as you
| can, but recognize it for what it is. don't tie your identity
| to it.
| citizenpaul wrote:
| Ah yes. I got to do that once after a layoff. The manager
| tried to guilt me or something into working after I was layed
| off. "Because they were given me severance so I should be ok
| with doing the work"
|
| I told them. No you are wrong. I was given severance to sign
| an NDA and non-disparagement agreement. That is what the
| severance bought the company, but I'll be glad to discuss a
| consultant role on an hourly basis.
| heresie-dabord wrote:
| > I recommended learning how to separate your value from your
| employer. It's not easy but it's necessary.
|
| Agreed, it is necessary to make deprogramming oneself easier --
| less _painful_ -- to the extent that one has come to identify
| with the work and /or culture and/or employer.
|
| But it is also exhausting to maintain a facade of allegiance to
| a harshly indifferent power structure.
| delichon wrote:
| To me my employer is my customer. We don't require each
| other's allegiance, just an ongoing mutually beneficial
| transaction and good will. When either fails for either party
| it's time to move along. Devotion isn't part of the
| arrangement.
| damnitbuilds wrote:
| Similarly:
|
| I got badly burnt in a relationship once.
|
| After that I promised myself not to get hurt again. If you
| don't love each other any more, accept that, and walk away.
|
| Worked for me, and I stayed friends with almost all my ex-
| es after that.
| windward wrote:
| >I recommended learning how to separate your value from your
| employer.
|
| Not just that: separate it from your _career_. Ensure that you
| and others would still value yourself even if you weren 't
| receiving top decile income for an easy job. A misanthropic
| software developer is begrudgingly useful; a plain misanthrope
| isn't even mediocre.
| kaon_ wrote:
| "One thing that helped me immensely in my career is
| understanding that my relationship with a company is a business
| relationship"
|
| That is just a culture thing. Most prominently in the US. In
| many cultures there is no clear boundary between personal
| relationships and business relationships. And why would there
| be? I would like to live in a world where kindness,
| dependability, punctuality, warmness, openness and forgiveness
| are values upheld both by natural and legal persons. And I have
| worked with many companies that have! As you can read in the
| comments, for every bad example you can find companies lead by
| empathic people that treat their employees humanely.
|
| Google always pretended to be that company. And maybe they were
| for a long time. Now they've shifted. They really didn't have
| to but they did. The excuse of "it's just a business
| relationship" really is just that: an excuse. The symptom of a
| culture with values so bankrupt that it accepts citizens being
| treated poorly and then blames the victims for expecting to be
| treated humanely.
|
| And yes, it saves you a lot of personal pain if you expect the
| worst from your employer from the outset. But is the world
| really better off if we all expect to treat each other like
| criminals?
| kopirgan wrote:
| Don't blame CEOs its the chief counsel or similar.
| zonkerdonker wrote:
| I hope you use your new free time to beat every expert song on
| Wacca
| cab11150904 wrote:
| This is a pretty dumb redduht level comment. I'd personally
| probably just remove it.
| zonkerdonker wrote:
| ddi([?] * - [?] )
| cadamsdotcom wrote:
| Yep, it sucks. Speaking from experience - I was laid off a few
| years ago. I was sad my time ended, but my path forward was to
| leave SF with money and time to visit countries I'd always wanted
| to see.
|
| It's a trend away from the post-WW2 "promise of lifetime
| employment". Over the decades, companies have crept toward "human
| autoscaling" so slow no one noticed. You're far from alone -
| every other company is doing it. Go see the numbers at
| https://layoffs.fyi . When the whole industry is doing something,
| companies must follow suit to stay alive.
|
| Nurture your network! Keep being present on their feeds. Reach
| out to the ones on your team that you had personal relationships
| with. Some will shun you; it's not personal, they're ashamed and
| fearful. It is human nature, same as the company's behavior
| toward you is a company's nature.
|
| There was never a better time to take things into your own hands.
| Go look at @IndyDevDan's content on youtube and test the limits
| with agentic coding: https://agenticengineer.com/state-of-ai-
| coding/engineering-w...
|
| Spend your 8-20 paid weeks agentic-coding (not vibe-coding) silly
| projects for your nieces and nephews. You'll come back stronger
| and more employable than ever.
|
| Don't be sad to be kicked out. The boot that kicked you was
| attached to a Hills Hoist.
| YZF wrote:
| Human autoscaling. That's a good one. I mean it's not good.
|
| We live in weird times. Companies are drowning in earnings.
| Their stock sky rockets. But they are unable, or not
| interested, to put people to work to grow their business.
| Because they are so big it distorts the entire economy. Because
| they are so big and so entrenched it's also hard to compete
| with them.
|
| Less people makes the stock goes up?
|
| And then AI too in the mix with many executives apparently
| believing it can just replace all the people. Who is going to
| buy the products then?
|
| I have a feeling this is temporary. The wheel will turn and
| suddenly companies will hire like there's no tomorrow on some
| new shiny thing. It's gotta - right? Otherwise what?
| arccy wrote:
| recently their stocks have gone down...
|
| and when you're large, it takes much more effort to grow at
| the same %, and maybe it's not worth it?
| codr7 wrote:
| I would recommend actually learning something valuable rather
| than wasting energy on AI and becoming dumber in the process.
| mmkos wrote:
| It's not wasting energy if it genuinely helps you build
| products much more efficiently. Regardless of our feelings
| towards it, it is here and it's making a difference. You can
| either move with the times or be left behind.
| codr7 wrote:
| Still waiting for proof; but yeah, so I've heard.
| windward wrote:
| That is potentially the least convincing website I've ever
| seen. I feel like I'm being sold a timeshare.
| mmkos wrote:
| I had the same feeling. The underlying message has merit, but
| the format felt very similar to a lot of the get-rich-quick
| landing pages. I had to edit some of the CSS to get through
| the page at all.
| AndyKelley wrote:
| > I really was just a fuckin cog in a mega corp.
|
| Yes, you were. Next time, please choose a company that
| contributes to society rather than shoving ads in everyone's
| faces.
| Mond_ wrote:
| No need to kick someone while they are down.
| henry2023 wrote:
| I worked at Google, and now I work at derivative finance. No
| sympathy should be expected when you don't contribute
| anything valuable to society.
| codr7 wrote:
| To an awful lot of people work is food and roof over their
| heads, and they're lucky if they can manage even that.
| thinkingemote wrote:
| I found this comment rather funny.
| henry2023 wrote:
| I'm aware I don't contribute anything valuable yet. No
| hard feelings :).
|
| On the contrary, I'm trying to get to the point I can
| sustain my own small projects and stop worrying about
| Corporate America once and for all.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Yeah, probably a poorly executed assault, but I felt it was
| an intent instead to kick Google with that comment.
| underdeserver wrote:
| Google contributes to society.
|
| Search helps people find information. YouTube is quite possibly
| the most prolific source of learning ever created. Without
| Google Translate I'd have had a much harder time in a recent
| trip to Japan.
|
| There's a lot of bad, but no contribution to society? That's a
| bit much.
|
| Disclaimer: Ex-googler (left 2 years ago).
| palata wrote:
| > Without Google Translate I'd have had a much harder time in
| a recent trip to Japan.
|
| I haven't used Google Translate in years. You do know there
| are alternatives, don't you?
| underdeserver wrote:
| I do. I try them from time to time, they weren't better.
| palata wrote:
| I didn't say they were better. Just that without Google
| Translate, I doubt you would have had a much harder time
| in your recent trip to Japan because you could have used
| them, and they aren't particularly worse :-).
| Tainnor wrote:
| It's not just about whether you yourself use Google
| Translate, it's that - much more than anywhere else I've
| ever travelled - Japanese people will regularly use
| Google Translate to communicate with you, usually by
| typing or speaking into their tablet and then showing you
| the machine translation.
| Mithriil wrote:
| Try out the big LLMs for translating and explaining
| translation (e.g. ChatGPT). Much better than Google
| translate in my experience.
| GuinansEyebrows wrote:
| I don't think switching to an LLM is exactly in line with
| what GP was trying to say :)
| mrgoldenbrown wrote:
| They are actively enshittifying search and YouTube. So if
| these things are good for society, and Google is making them
| worse , it feels like we shouldn't be giving them too much
| credit.
| knorker wrote:
| Ironically you're statistically very likely to be writing this
| comment in a browser based on chrome.
|
| And Chrome really helped save us from an Internet "embraced and
| extended" by Microsoft. We were heading for Microsoft
| succeeding in their (not first) attempt at owning the Internet.
| Freak_NL wrote:
| Someone extremely critical of Google is likely to not just
| use Firefox? That doesn't sound statistically likely.
| knorker wrote:
| Well, two points to that: 1) If this person doesn't use
| Google products, then they are going out of their way to
| avoid Google. They are then very aware that their values
| are overruling technical benefits. 2) Surely if they are
| this invested in Firefox then they know who's been funding
| Firefox for years?
|
| I'm typing this from within Firefox, which I switched to
| over the adblocking changes. But I'd say that claiming
| Google has contributed nothing to society is silly.
|
| There's also the AI stuff with transformers, running the
| deepmind work with alphafold, alphago, alphazero. And GSOC.
|
| And the papers on bigtable, spanner, mapreduce, etc...
| bootstrapping modern big data, spawning many opensource
| copycats.
|
| And Android? I used a linux based Nokia N900 before
| Android, but clearly the world preferred Android.
|
| Hell, Google Search itself was once a paradigm shifting
| improvement over alternatives.
| vshade wrote:
| I'm not sure, specially as a lot of income for mozilla
| foundation came from google.
| pjmlp wrote:
| How is Internet being "embraced and extended" by Google
| feeling like as society contribution?
|
| It has literally turned into ChromeOS, with exception of
| Safari, and Firefox meagre 3% hardly matter.
| knorker wrote:
| I definitely think that there's a difference in _kind_
| about what Google has done and what Microsoft attempted to
| do.
|
| Microsoft wanted everyone on MSN _instead of_ the Internet.
| They bullied their browser to be the only one, and then
| kept it crippled. They tried to own the scripting language
| (VBScript) of the Internet.
|
| I'm going to try right now: Oh, looks like I can visit any
| website I want with Chrome. Or Chromium. Or now IE also
| using Chromium.
|
| Google is of course still driven by capitalism, not
| altruism. But when you look at their history they've in the
| vast majority of cases done the right thing arguably for
| the wrong reason.
|
| And that's because Google's incentives have been aligned
| differently. Microsoft earns money from Windows and Windows
| related services (very broad here, where I include Office).
| Until Bing, every time someone used the Internet instead of
| native apps, Microsoft basically lost money. Definitely
| lost _power_.
|
| Every time someone spends more time on the Internet, Google
| earns more money, statistically. So Google, in a complete
| opposite to Microsoft, has been incentivised to help people
| get onto the open web.
|
| Yes, after Microsoft's surrender the Chromium market share
| is too big. And it's a problem. But at least thanks to
| Apple you cannot make a website that only works on Chrome.
| Especially since Chrome on iPhone uses WebKit, not
| Chromium, because of Apple app rules.
|
| Another problem with Google is that some important
| opensource projects have a large set of maintainers be
| Google employees. But the alternative is that they... not
| contribute? Didn't we say that big companies _should_ give
| back to opensource? But of course they 'll work on what
| _they_ need. Though there will be a large overlap.
|
| It's kind of a first world problem that the open source
| (apache license) Kubernetes has "too many google employees"
| as contributors.
|
| During Microsoft's domination, this was not the problem.
| This was not the problem at all.
|
| What can you not do, or need to special case, with
| Safari+AWS?
|
| Android, OK there Google asserts control. Not total control
| (see any Samsung phone), but a lot.
| kome wrote:
| i am also extremely pissed at his complete lack of self
| awareness... of course, i am sad for what happened to him. but
| holly shit. do you think you were saving the world or what? you
| were working on a glorified spyware.
| pb7 wrote:
| He did, he worked at Google. What is your contribution to
| society? Some language reinventing the wheel for the 500th
| time? Google created a dozen of those alone and they don't even
| make the footnote of the contributions list.
| mystifyingpoi wrote:
| > Relationships that took me years to cultivate... mostly going
| to be gone too.
|
| I don't want to sound condescending, but if being forced out of
| the job means end for your relationships built for years, maybe
| these relationships weren't built as they should. They should
| have been built with the people as people, not coworkers, and
| definitely not using company as the communication ground.
| neilv wrote:
| That sentence caught my eye too.
|
| First thought was whether they meant corporate political
| capitol transactional relationships.
|
| Second thought was maybe they meant that, inevitably (or so it
| seems, probably thinking depressed), they'd drift apart, since
| everyone's busy with family and work, and around the workplace
| was the only times they'd have to interact.
|
| In the latter, even if you have beyond-work social
| relationships, the opportunities to interact outside of work
| and the lunchtime might tend to be like "drinks after work",
| and effectively disappear as well. If that was your mode while
| working together, that's fine, and probably you don't want to
| see even more of each other then. That doesn't mean you weren't
| seeing them as people beyond coworkers. So, once no longer
| working with each other, you both need to actively change
| things to make opportunities to interact.
| mystifyingpoi wrote:
| > the opportunities to interact outside of work and the
| lunchtime
|
| Good point. I wonder how much in-office work contributes to
| this. Because if you are trapped inside an office building
| for 8+ hours with essentially randoms, most people will start
| getting to know each other at some point, because there is no
| other choice, and after work and commute there is no time
| left for anything else.
|
| I feel sad for the author.
| AstralStorm wrote:
| 8 hours if you're lucky. Make that 10 if you're not because
| of breaks.
|
| So the 40 hour work week gives rather little time to
| properly socialize, even less if you have family
| obligations esp. kids, especially when people move around
| as much as they do now.
| hnbad wrote:
| Corporations like Google certainly encourage a focus on in-
| group relationships between employees to reduce churn (i.e.
| increase stakes for disgruntled employees who might consider
| quitting). The entire idea of having scheduled leisure
| activities, daycare, laundry services, etc all provided
| either by the company or facilitated through the company
| encapsulates current employees and gently excludes former
| employees, which likely helps reduce their ability to spread
| or air negative sentiments following their departure (which
| apparently can be fairly rapid, which also means fired
| employees will be stunned and possibly in shock for the
| limited duration where they may still have access to other
| employees directly).
|
| There's a reason the "employee retention" behavior of
| companies like Google and Facebook during the web 2.0 craze
| was often compared to actual cults.
| roncesvalles wrote:
| Most relationships do not survive being ripped away from the
| spatial and temporal context in which they were cultivated. How
| many of your middle school, high school and even college
| buddies do you still have a relationship with?
|
| I think there's some stigma with confronting the fact that
| relationships are just ephemeral. We are social creatures in
| the sense that we can cooperate with each other on a task laid
| in front of us, but once that task is done, we mostly tend to
| drift apart onto the next task with another group of people.
| And that's okay. We're only weakly social with everyone except
| our direct family and significant others. The quality of a
| relationship is in no way measured by how long it endured.
| torginus wrote:
| You are right but I think there's a fundamental issue that
| many people think that 'as long as I keep showing up and
| doing good work, the powers that be will look out for me'.
|
| By default work relationships work as you advertised. It
| needs conscious effort on your (and everyone's) part to
| reframe these relationships as something that's between you
| and your friends, on your own terms. Consciously hanging out
| together, talking to each other, doing projects together
| outside the context of work. Social relationships need to be
| built up with effort. The company will do this for you,
| because they enjoy the benefits of a crew that works well
| together, but if they put in the effort, the relationship
| will belong to them. You will think that 'I could get
| slightly more at this other place, but I like my colleagues
| here', realizing you'd lose the social net if you changed
| jobs.
|
| I think a huge problem with nerds (like me and probably you),
| is that we don't understand the fundamental power dynamics
| that shape society, because we lack the inherent cunning and
| weren't forced to face down enough hardship to have our
| illusions shattered until later in life.
|
| Truth is, if there are rules, somebody needs to enforce them.
| If something nice happens, it does because somebody makes it
| happen. These things are mental abstractions designed to make
| your life predictable, but like every abstractions, sometimes
| things happen that were supposed to be impossible, because
| the system doesn't work the way you think it does.
| milesrout wrote:
| >How many of your middle school, high school and even college
| buddies do you still have a relationship with?
|
| All the ones that were true friends, and none of the ones
| that were just friendly acquaintances.
| jongjong wrote:
| My wife is really good at keeping friends even those she
| didn't see in years. She has many such friends and she speaks
| to them over video chat. I have a few long term friends like
| that but not so close.
| mystifyingpoi wrote:
| > Most relationships do not survive being ripped away from
| the spatial and temporal context
|
| I think this is very true, and with college buddies it's very
| different from workmates. Because in college, you are with
| them at classes, but then you hang out with them between
| classes, then you meet them in cafeteria, then you meet them
| at a party or in the student club, then you meet them at
| dormitory etc. All these contexts are different and that
| helps to build more diverse relationship, which is not
| focused on a single place.
|
| At work, in my experience I'll meet them in the office and
| then maybe wave a hand on the way out of the parking lot, if
| ever.
| AstralStorm wrote:
| And then, it turns out these people actually move, try to
| raise a family and work, and then you rarely keep in touch.
|
| This is the big thing, work opportunities tend to get
| people to move whole cities away, and long distance
| relationships like this tend to not survive.
| dennis_jeeves2 wrote:
| >relationships do not survive being ripped away from the
| spatial and temporal context in which they were cultivated.
|
| Very true, but also very unfortunate. The best people (a
| teeny almost non-existent minority) are not like that.
|
| >weakly social with everyone except our direct family and
| significant others.
|
| For a large number of people, (say 50 %) I suspect this is
| not true. Especially when people move from rural to urban
| areas.
| dietr1ch wrote:
| > Most relationships do not survive being ripped away from
| the spatial and temporal context in which they were
| cultivated.
|
| Just being far away makes maintaining relationships really
| hard. Introverted people rely on being dragged into
| socialising, which goes poof not being in the same place.
| riffraff wrote:
| I see where you're coming from, but relationship need some
| amount of contact to survive.
|
| Work forces you to be in contact, if the majority of your time
| is spent elsewhere due to changing job, or city, or gym, or
| having kids.. it's a blow.
|
| I try to keep in touch with ex co-workers I cared about, but we
| live in different countries, at different stages in life, with
| different priorities, and it's hard to say the relationship is
| well.
|
| That doesn't mean the relationships weren't built as they
| should, IMHO, they are just different kinds of relationships.
| ErigmolCt wrote:
| I get where you're coming from, but I think it's a little more
| complicated than that.
| koiueo wrote:
| Everything seems random if you lack information.
|
| My bet would be that the author's compensation was one of the
| highest among his peers on the same role.
|
| This is to me, btw, is a sign of a well built relationship with a
| colleague: you know each other's compensation.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| I experienced something similar at Nokia around the time things
| were starting to go bad (due to competition from Google and
| Apple). I got caught up in one of the earlier layoff rounds. As
| I've been able to reconstruct since then what happened was
| roughly that:
|
| - I got a excellent performance review and a small raise. All
| good, keep on doing what you are doing! I was pretty happy.
|
| - Nokia started to prepare for layoffs and gave units targets for
| numbers of people to lay off and amounts of money to save. They
| tried to spread the pain.
|
| - Because of my team's multi site setup the choice came down to
| cutting at one of two sites. They picked my site. Management was
| concentrated at the other site.
|
| - Because I was at the higher end of the spectrum in terms of
| salary, I was one of the natural choices for laying off. This was
| just done based on the numbers and had nothing to do with
| performance.
|
| So, my bosses boss flew over to give us the news and that was it.
| Nokia was pretty nice about it. I was put on immediate gardening
| leave, I got the usual severance payment based on time served,
| and a decent amount of start up funding in the form of a grant.
|
| Since things were chaotic, other teams in the same site were
| still hiring new people with roughly the same qualifications. I
| was actually bucketed in with a project I wasn't even a part of.
| That whole project got shut down and apparently it was convenient
| to pretend I was working on that just so they could avoid firing
| other people in different parts of the organization. Somebody had
| to solve a big puzzle and I was a piece that fit in the right
| place. It wasn't personal.
|
| In retrospect, one of the best things Nokia could do for me was
| firing me. I was coasting and the whole thing forced me to
| rethink what I was doing. If you are late thirties and a bit
| comfortable in your job, you might want to make a move. Or at
| least think about what you would do if you were forced to
| suddenly.
|
| Lesson learned: job security is an illusion and employment
| relations are business relations. Don't take it personal. These
| things happen. Part of a high salary is insuring yourself against
| this kind of stuff and dealing with it when it happens. Part of
| the job.
| windward wrote:
| >job security is an illusion
|
| It really is. Even government and blue chips aren't safe. In
| fact, those are where you'll find it's the most disconnected
| from your own agency.
| sublimefire wrote:
| Government jobs are safe because rarely if ever people get
| fired.
| Loughla wrote:
| Until whole departments get gutted on the whims of a new
| executive or their political appointee department head.
|
| And I'm not just talking about Trump. Every mayor,
| governor, what have you. They all appoint their friends to
| high places.
| VagabundoP wrote:
| My job is extra permanent. If they shut us down they'd
| just have to find me a desk somewhere. Its a rut, but its
| my rut...
| jrockway wrote:
| Except for like the last 3 months!
| spacemadness wrote:
| This comment is hilarious. Like someone was placed in a
| time machine and missed the last few months.
| mixermachine wrote:
| > job security is an illusion
|
| Depends a bit on your country. My CEO can fire me but there is
| a longer notice period depending on how long I have been with
| the company.
|
| - 2 years: 1 month
|
| - 5 years: 2 months
|
| - 8 years: 3 months
|
| ...
|
| - 20 years: 7 months
|
| Germany btw.
| rwmj wrote:
| That's pretty wild. Is that a German employment law or
| something specific to your company?
| rkozik1989 wrote:
| It's probably an employment law. My wife's from Tunisia and
| over there all employment is basically contractual. If your
| employer lets you go they owe you some kind of fee, and I
| actually believe the amount might be the remainder of the
| contact, I'm not sure.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| It's employment law.
|
| Germans are so expensive to hire and maintain that
| companies have offshored German manufacturing to the United
| States.
|
| (... And God bless Germany for it. Trickle-down theory
| doesn't work in general in capitalism but it _does_ work in
| labor negotiations: every right Germans secure for
| themselves is a right an American company employing Germans
| and other countries has to abide by when doing business,
| and it incentivizes the company to minimize their paperwork
| by treating everyone to the German standard).
| quotemstr wrote:
| "The magic of first love is our ignorance it can ever end".
|
| One of the most difficult realizations you must confront in this
| industry is that almost everything you build will disappear. It
| will be ruined, ignored, slandered, and then forgotten. Almost
| all of your late night epiphanies and bugs conquests will fade
| anonymously into the anonymous blackbody spectrum entropy demands
| planet Earth emit.
|
| You must come to peace with this reality. You must accept the
| transience of glory into your heart. You must prepare yourself,
| deep down, for any reality of off-sites and planned presentations
| and electric roadmaps to disappear in an instant. It gets easier
| after the first few times, trust me. You emerge a sadder and
| wiser man.
|
| The only thing we can do is create moments of excellence ---
| occasions on which we can reflect when we are old and gray and
| take solace, even pride, in knowing we put every bit of ourselves
| into a task and did it well. There's honor and nobility in
| excellence even when doomed.
|
| And who knows? You can't predict what will endure. If we're
| lucky, once in our careers, if we continually apply the best of
| ourselves, we'll do something that escapes all this destruction
| and endures.
| fud101 wrote:
| you looking for someone to mentor? damn.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| "Whatever you do in life will be insignificant but it is very
| important that you do it."
|
| -- Ghandi
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| First, this is pretty rough what happened to the person. My
| condolences.
|
| Second, completely tangential to the _content_ of the blog post:
| Was anyone else surprised by the number of comments
| /"mentions"/likes/reposts? I haven't seen so much activity on a
| single blog post in _years_. Normally, blog posts that accept
| comments have 10 or less comments. This one has _hundreds_.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| It looks like a Bluesky integration which will get a lot more
| engagement than a blog post. The author was a "CSS advocate" at
| Google, which implies a strong emphasis on networking.
| perching_aix wrote:
| I guess this also explains why the site is so fancy that I
| can't scroll it without my phone lagging horribly lol
| gnuly wrote:
| I was going to suggest you to use reader mode, but
| firefox's reader mode doesn't detect the main content here,
| but rather the comments.
| gary_0 wrote:
| Their blog looks like it's integrated with Bluesky, where they
| have 15K followers, so that's where the activity is coming
| from. It's not uncommon for high-profile devs to get that much
| engagement there.
| JimDabell wrote:
| I keep seeing this pop up everywhere. I'm sure he's a great
| guy, but the level of attention he's getting is massively
| disproportionate. A _lot_ of great people have been laid off
| recently!
| watt wrote:
| If think the attention is in proportion, people are reacting
| just like when a body has an inflammation. If a person of
| _this_ calibre can be fired, and not even fired, disposed as
| a used-up tissue, it is a sign of times.
| cess11 wrote:
| That's a good time to read up on Google's involvement in genocide
| and tyranny.
| cab11150904 wrote:
| Why now and not before? Because some spoiled manbaby lost his
| cushy job?
| codr7 wrote:
| It hurts, but the sooner you realize what you mean to them, the
| better.
| whiplash451 wrote:
| << Relationships that took me years to cultivate... mostly going
| to be gone too >>
|
| Why? What prevents you from spending time with your ex-
| colleagues?
| Strom wrote:
| Probably because most interactions were on company time.
| Because of course if the relationships were outside of work,
| then changing jobs would have little effect.
| whiplash451 wrote:
| If those ex-colleagues were truly good friends, they ought to
| find the time to hang out with you outside of work.
|
| This would likely lead to genuine, more interesting
| conversations.
|
| In my experience, true relationships survive (and sometimes
| thrive in) a departure.
| 9rx wrote:
| Relationships don't need to be "true" to be useful.
| darknavi wrote:
| Relationships here might also mean professional relationships.
|
| I think many of those can still survive a job transition, but
| some of them may rely on the fact that he is on the Chrome team
| doing Chrome things. Those relationships would now be moot
| (professionally).
| bsimpson wrote:
| A potentially unique feature of Google (at least pre-
| pandemic/McKinsey) is that it cultivated communities of people
| in a particular discipline despite being spread across the
| world.
|
| When I first met Adam, we were both UX Engineers. We'd all
| gather in NYC in the spring and in the Bay Area in the fall for
| internal conferences. Adam lives in Seattle. There are plenty
| of people who adore him who aren't geographically close enough
| to meet for the proverbial beer. I suspect that's also true for
| the connections he made outside of Google.
| fbn79 wrote:
| Not related to the layoff (I'm very sad for what author is
| experiencing), but the blog looking is very great and functional.
| Looking on the page code I see that is using a CSS framework that
| I'm never heard off Open Pros (https://open-props.style/), looks
| like a much better solution than Tailwind and friends. I see that
| a components collection is the development too Open Props UI
| (https://open-props-ui.netlify.app/)
| Jean-Papoulos wrote:
| > But I was also immediately ripped away from my calendar, docs,
| code, and more.
|
| Isn't Chromium open-source ? Also, please don't use your
| corporate calendar for personal stuff...
| dailykoder wrote:
| > Just like that.
|
| These statements always catch me a bit off-guard. Is there no
| such thing as a cancelation period in the US? When my employer
| wants to kick me out, he needs a good reason for that and I'd
| still be paid for 3 months. Which is often even longer, depending
| on how long you belong to a company.
|
| Edit: I'm in germany
| windward wrote:
| In my experience, it doesn't matter anyway. You can be paid to
| be sat at home and, while the worry of finances is kicked down
| the road, the big dark questions come home to roost very
| quickly.
| somerandomqaguy wrote:
| In Canada in general either employer or employee can terminate
| without having to give reason. Typically it's either a few
| weeks of notice for termination but the employer can choose to
| require the employee to depart immediately and instead payout
| severance for equivalent time instead. There's nuance province
| to province though.
|
| In the US it's similar but AFAIK it does vary state to state.
| To my knowledge there isn't any law that requires what you're
| describing in North America.
| ur-whale wrote:
| > Edit: I'm in germany
|
| Yeah, Germany is quite (in)famous for this.
|
| I have seen quite a few times in my career large US tech
| corporations specifically choosing not to open a satellite EU
| sales office or a dev office in DE because of the horrendous
| labor laws.
|
| Sure, very nice for the workers. But foreign money chooses to
| skip DE because of this.
|
| Warm and comfy in a sinking ship, great!
| sgt wrote:
| If you asked them about it though, they'd say the labor laws
| were excellent and the American labor law is horrenous. It's
| about perspective, but let's face it - America is way more
| set up for innovation than any other Western country.
| daedrdev wrote:
| The US does not have such a tax
| omoikane wrote:
| There is a WARN[1] period before the employee is officially
| laid off, but their access to all the corporate resources are
| cut off immediately. From the employee perspective, they have
| lost everything the moment they are being told that they are
| laid off. It doesn't matter that they are still getting paid.
|
| [1]
| https://edd.ca.gov/en/jobs_and_training/Layoff_Services_WARN...
| wiseowise wrote:
| > I really was just a fuckin cog in a mega corp.
|
| Love sudden realization.
|
| I wonder how many people within companies think "well, _they_ are
| a cog, but I'm certainly not" just to be left on a road soon
| after.
| 2-3-7-43-1807 wrote:
| the post oozes narcissism. and he even seems to think he
| contributed to the health of the internet by working at chrome.
| roman_soldier wrote:
| Yes I thought that when reading it, if so he may have been a
| difficult character to work with and that's one of reasons
| the crosshairs stopped at him.
| kouteiheika wrote:
| Right, okay, let's look at their most recent SEC filling to see
| how much money they lost in 2024 to justify layoffs... right,
| they made 350 _billion_ in revenue (the highest _ever_ in their
| history from what I can see) with a 100 billion in net income.
| Yep, this checks out, they definitely need to lay off people, can
| 't afford them.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Yes, and they're still _hiring_ too, while doing this at the
| same time.
|
| As a person who worked there for a long time, I never thought
| it was a good idea how rapidly they hired and never felt they
| needed that many people.
|
| But the layoff process has been sadistic.
|
| And the people who made the decisions to hire like crazy are
| not paying the consequences. In fact it feels very much like
| they're using this as an opportunity to push the median average
| age and compensation level of their staff down. Moving more and
| more positions to lower cost regions, and hiring younger
| developers while ditching higher paid senior staff.
|
| Today's Google really sucks.
| wffurr wrote:
| >> the people who made the decisions to hire like crazy are
| not paying the consequences
|
| They should have been first out the door, but Sundar is part
| of the problem.
| slivym wrote:
| They're not a charity. What do you want them to do? Hire $100Bn
| worth of engineers until their net income is 0? The possibly
| difficult truth at Google is that there's probably <1% of the
| company that is really essential to their monopolistic search
| business. The rest are either working on other projects which
| might be strategically interesting but not essential, or are
| working on the core product but not in a way that's driving
| business. Is it wrong for the management to say "We need to be
| efficiently investing shareholder capital" or for the market to
| be looking at Google and saying "We want your money spinning
| monopoly business please, not your eccentric other bets
| thanks".
| nyarlathotep_ wrote:
| This is an important point.
|
| Especially overt the last two (three now?) years, it's become
| pretty apparent many software jobs are superfluous, even
| those that are ostensibly "skilled" or "difficult."
|
| I do wonder what the actual "needed" number of technical
| staff these companies would have in a perfectly "efficient"
| environment. Let's hope we don't have to find out.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Twitter was the experiment. Elon showed up and started
| cutting headcount left and right. People were even
| encouraged to just walk out. On paper this was supposed to
| lead to the immanent collapse of it's service.
|
| That didn't happen and instead every other tech CEO started
| to wonder about the amount of fat in their org.
| nyarlathotep_ wrote:
| Yeah I think people understate how large of an impact
| this had.
|
| My immediate reaction to that was the "jig is up"--I
| argued with friends that Twitters functionality would
| remain intact, there'd be no major outages, etc and they
| couldn't understand how that'd be possible.
| jjk7 wrote:
| Many if not most engineers are working on things 2-5
| years out, not keeping services running.
| stanford_labrat wrote:
| i think the total reduction was about 2/3 if memory
| serves? so 1 in 3 is that number you'd be looking at for
| "actually useful". heavy air quotes on that.
| ska wrote:
| "On paper this was supposed to lead to the immanent
| collapse of it's service."
|
| I don't know anyone who expected this. The typical
| failure mode is slow degradation and lack of new
| development, not sudden collapse. Services become
| flakier, innovation stops. There was probably some fat to
| cut,as you put it, but the concept of eating your seed
| corn is also relevant.
| kouteiheika wrote:
| > What do you want them to do? Hire $100Bn worth of engineers
| until their net income is 0?
|
| Take responsibility for the people they hired and have an
| ounce of human decency and empathy?
|
| Don't need extra people? Fair enough. Then stop hiring! No
| one is pointing a gun to their head telling them to hire.
| Layoffs (for reasons unrelated to people's job performance)
| is such an asshole thing to do because with a competent/non-
| sociopathic management it's completely unnecessary, as you
| can just do a hiring freeze, and your headcount will reduce
| by itself through normal attrition.
|
| The management of a lot of corporations acts this way,
| prioritizing "shareholder value" over people while giving
| exuberant bonuses to themselves, and then they make a
| surprised pikachu face when people hate them and individuals
| like Luigi Mangione come out of the woodwork and take matters
| into their own hands.
|
| Remember in 2014 when Nintendo was having huge financial
| troubles? What did the CEO do? Did he fire half of his
| people? No, he kept his people, halved his own salary and
| kept going. And this was when they were losing massive
| amounts of money, and not breaking revenue records making 100
| billion in profit. _That_ is how a CEO and a leader should
| act, and not like the sociopath CEOs we have nowadays.
| snsjsjsjdj wrote:
| > Is it wrong for the management to say "We need to be
| efficiently investing shareholder capital" or for the market
| to be looking at Google and saying "We want your money
| spinning monopoly business please, not your eccentric other
| bets thanks".
|
| On some level yes. With the massive disparity in who owns the
| markets, your argument is basically "Is google doing a good
| job of making the rich richer?". Hiring H1Bs and offshoring
| while firing American labor is not a good look.
|
| Why keep a company like that around?
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| It's a question of what kind of business Google is/wants-to-
| be.
|
| The one it claimed to be, in the past, with a broader
| holistic mission, claiming to attract the world's brightest
| to make information accessible? Using its hoard of cash to do
| a bunch of neat stuff and hire really smart people do it?
|
| Or is it what we always suspected all along, a cynical money
| printing machine that turns ad impressions into shareholder
| value and nothing else?
|
| It's always been a mix of both. Those of us who worked there
| certainly saw in the inside the gradual transition of the
| internal discourse from "justifying B to support A" to "who
| cares about A."
|
| They can do whatever they want, they're a private business.
| But they still trade on a certain reputation, and have the
| advantage of a quasi-monopoly status in many things.
|
| I would hope that advancing them any kind of good will as any
| kind of "special" company (which our profession tended to do,
| before) and muting criticisms is just over now.
|
| They built their money printing machine in part by swallowing
| competition and exterminating it.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Google's strategy, traditionally, was basically what you're
| describing (modulo the "until their net income is 0" part).
| Because their belief about engineering was if you get all the
| smart people and give them some creative freedom, they invent
| Gmail. And Tensorflow. And Kubernetes.
|
| This has changed. But it's worth noting it _is_ a change.
| Larry and Sergey retained controlling stakes in Google 's IPO
| specifically because they intended to build a company that
| didn't operate like other companies... In essence, they
| didn't plan to give two shits about shareholder capital, they
| expected the money would work itself out if they just kept
| making brilliant products people wanted.
|
| But, the founders have left and Google is now just another
| company.
| concordDance wrote:
| While the manner of layoff, role of layoff and person to lay
| off all seem foolish, profits do not mean that layoffs are a
| bad idea. You should hire people you need and if you want to
| good in the world, donate to the most effective charities (in
| QALYs/PS).
| InDubioProRubio wrote:
| The problem is often- a idealised view of the world, where merit
| and accomplishment is the deciding factor, meanwhile its all
| diplomacy, social networks and backstabbing at court. Then again,
| these "meritless" systems are parasitic on the meritocratic
| workers producing the actual value and progress.
|
| The cooperate cruft grazes on blissfully unaware engineers. Which
| is why they should try to be poisonous to the cruft wherever they
| go.
| akskos wrote:
| TL;DR this guy got laid off and is not happy about it.
| ojagodzinski wrote:
| It scares me that people make a talking point out of it XD what
| an incredible event, someone got fired!
| celicoo wrote:
| Sorry to hear, Adam! Know that this isn't about you -- it's them.
| Unfortunately, we are all cogs in this capitalistic system where
| replacement isn't a matter of if, but when...
| yodsanklai wrote:
| I also work in a big tech company. We had bunch of layoffs, some
| based on performance (which often was a lie), some random. In all
| instances, the company made a lot of money and kept hiring at a
| high pace.
|
| At that stage, I know I'll be laid off eventually for one reason
| or another, I just don't know when. My partner tells me that I
| should quit on my own terms so I'm not depressed when it happens.
| But my salary is very competitive, and I'll get severance too.
| Still, I fear this moment and it's really hard to feel invested
| in the company. If it wasn't for my colleagues, I think I'd be
| slacking, waiting for my time.
| stevage wrote:
| >I really was just a fuckin cog in a mega corp.
|
| Boy, this whole post sure has a lot of "I didn't think the
| leopards would eat my face" about it.
| azangru wrote:
| I've skimmed through the comments; and seen that most people have
| commented on the cog in the machine thing, or on layoffs in
| general and how they suck.
|
| To me, the shock from this blog post was about seeing a Chrome
| developer relations engineer whom I have grown to admire and who
| has been doing a stellar job educating web developers on new html
| and css features, get the sack. He was one of the best remaining
| speakers on web topics at the Chrome team (I am still sad about
| the departure of Paul Lewis and Jake Archibald); and produced a
| lot of top-notch educational materials (the CSS podcast; the
| conference talks; the demos).
|
| What does this say about Google's attitude to web and to Chrome?
| What does this say about Google's commitment to developer
| excellence?
|
| I understand that this is a personal tragedy for Adam; but for me
| personally, this is also a huge disillusionment in Google.
| gtirloni wrote:
| It says they are getting ready for the future when some govt
| agency splits them up and they are shedding the load now (the
| areas they will have to sell).
| supportengineer wrote:
| If you're being forced to sell something, wouldn't you want
| to maximize its value? Wouldn't you retain the most valuable
| people?
| raffael_de wrote:
| While possibly a traumatic experience for Adam, I fail to see
| the significance of this beyond anecdotal level. And I find it
| rather odd to argue that after all Google did and didn't do
| that this is what is causing disillusionment with Google. By
| now Chrome is basically just a Trojan Horse with advertisement
| and surveillance for this purpose hidden in the inside.
| chilmers wrote:
| I think the OP explained the broader significance very well:
| If Google is firing one of the most successful and active web
| developer relations people they have, it suggests a strategic
| downgrade of the Chrome, the web, and engagement in human
| developers. That's bad news for anyone who builds for the web
| or who relies on it as an open platform for the dissemination
| of information and software.
|
| I think the position your take re. Google and Chrome is an
| extreme one. It always surprises me that such black and white
| opinions about big tech companies are commonplace even on HN.
| Yes, Google have done things around privacy that I strongly
| disagree with, but the idea that Chrome is simply a trojan
| horse for advertising/surveillance is absurdly reductive and
| ignores the history of Google as a company.
|
| Google was, originally, a web-first company. Their business
| success relied on the web being an open, competitive
| platform. And, at a time when Microsoft were still trying to
| maintain monopoly control of personal computing, Google's
| development of Chrome did a huge amount of good in
| maintaining and enhancing the web as an open alternative. And
| they employed a lot of people who were genuinely believed in
| that mission, such as Adam.
|
| Make no mistake, the death or spin-off of Chrome will not be
| a win for privacy or openness. Building a web browser is a
| hugely expensive and difficult endeavor, and it has to be
| paid for somehow. Yes, Google has leveraged Chrome in some
| ways to collect data, but far less than they could have done,
| and far less than any successor will have to do, just to keep
| the lights on. Look at what has happened to Mozilla and
| Firefox if you need proof.
| raffael_de wrote:
| The history of Chrome and Google is interesting but not
| very relevant for assessing their status quo. If anything
| you'd have to factor in the trajectory (which I did: "by
| now") and given its direction it certainly wouldn't improve
| a valuation. Regarding your "reductive" opinion of Firefox
| and Mozilla, all I can say is I use Firefox and I'm quite
| satisfied with it. Ironically, the worst part about Mozilla
| and its business decisions can be traced back to it being
| funded by ... Google.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| The worst part about Mozilla and its business decisions
| is that making a browser isn't something you can build a
| business on because you're competing with free.
|
| Anyone who thought Mozilla wasn't going to eventually
| turn to evil to maintain their liquidity has no stones to
| throw at Mr. Argyle regarding naivete. Is Mozilla Corp
| (not Mozilla Foundation) a non-profit? No? Then they need
| to turn a profit, and I don't see a price-tag attached to
| that browser they make.
| transcriptase wrote:
| The fact that manifest V3 went through and fundamentally
| nerfed all extensions that just so happen to block ads and
| offer privacy means these people failed, regardless of
| their intentions.
| theptip wrote:
| > it suggests a strategic downgrade of the Chrome
|
| Hadn't thought of it this way, but if there is (say) a 50%
| chance of being forced to divest Chrome, then the EV on
| your investments in the future are substantially lower.
|
| Strategic downgrade sounds right.
| astrange wrote:
| > If Google is firing one of the most successful and active
| web developer relations people they have, it suggests a
| strategic downgrade of the Chrome, the web, and engagement
| in human developers.
|
| A layoff is not firing. If Google is doing layoffs, they'll
| intentionally choose good performers so they can
| demonstrate it was done for purely economic reasons.
| Otherwise they get legal issues.
|
| Besides that, Google may not trust its own performance
| metrics well enough to use them. The VP might assume the
| director is lying about who's important etc.
| gman83 wrote:
| Maybe they're not confident in the case against them:
| https://www.wired.com/story/the-doj-still-wants-google-to-di...
| extra88 wrote:
| This round of layoffs wasn't only on the Chrome team but also
| for Android.
| wiether wrote:
| > for me personally, this is also a huge disillusionment in
| Google
|
| This feels like "I installed Chrome before Google went evil".
|
| https://fortune.com/2025/03/19/tesla-owners-elon-crazy-bumpe...
| mcv wrote:
| Google dropped their "don't be evil" a very long time ago.
| rurp wrote:
| I can't wait for everyone to be shocked, _shocked_ , in five
| years when the biggest genAI companies get caught engaging in
| a bunch of sleazy behavior.
| noosphr wrote:
| >What does this say about Google's commitment to developer
| excellence?
|
| Look inside the tensorflow code base for your answer.
|
| I had the Kafkaesque experience of reporting a bug, being told
| there is no bug by a help desk employee, while the bug was
| throwing up errors in the official docs.
|
| To top it off I got a message by one of the onshore team months
| later that they were going to solve it only for the person to
| be fired within a week.
|
| I've mostly moved to jax for daily experiments. Hopefully the
| fact that codebase is small and modular will mean that when
| Google Googles all over the project there will be enough know
| how to maintain a community fork.
| whiplash451 wrote:
| Hasn't Google given up on tensorflow for JAX now?
|
| It looks like tensorflow is going down the slow legacy/sunset
| trajectory at this point.
| azangru wrote:
| Have they given up on tensorflow.js for the browser as
| well? Is there any replacement?
| janalsncm wrote:
| In the instances where I've needed to run inference in
| the browser I have used Onnx runtime web to run weights
| that were exported from PyTorch training. You have to
| convert your browser data to onnx tensors, but it's not
| that bad.
|
| I don't do actual training in the browser though, so
| maybe someone else can answer that part.
| thatguysaguy wrote:
| The user love/passion on the JAX team is super high.
| Interacting with them is whatever the opposite of Kafkaesque
| is.
| wrs wrote:
| Well, right up until they get suddenly laid off.
| weatherlite wrote:
| It probably just didn't have enough economic value for the
| company, from your explanation of the role I'm not sure I see
| the value either. The guy probably earned enough money in a few
| years that would take me 15 years of work, I'm not sure this as
| a "personal tragedy".
| ldom66 wrote:
| Completely agree. What is a tragedy though, is that if Google
| treats their most hardworking engineers like this they are
| creating a culture of minimal effort. If this is "just a job"
| as you can expect to be laid off at a moment's notice with no
| care for the value of your contributions, then what is the
| point in doing anything more than what the job description
| entails. It's just incentivizing people to treat their job
| the same way the company treats their employees. A culture of
| distrust and minimum effort. It's very sad to see.
| weatherlite wrote:
| > If this is "just a job" as you can expect to be laid off
| at a moment's notice with no care for the value of your
| contributions, then what is the point in doing anything
| more than what the job description entails
|
| I guess the half million dollars yearly (I'm assuming he
| made) and the fact there aren't tons of other places he can
| get that kind of money and prestige for doing that kind of
| job. I'm not saying I'm loving any of this, but yeah the
| system we've built treats all of us like replaceable cogs.
| During good economic times we don't really feel it, but we
| are now in a rough patch and we see the capitalist economic
| reality for what it is.
| dkarl wrote:
| > if Google treats their most hardworking engineers like
| this they are creating a culture of minimal effort
|
| This is bizarre to me because my impression from three
| years ago was that they were trying to correct from that,
| and it sounds like they overcorrected right back to it. I
| spoke with a Google engineer I think in 2022, he had heard
| rumors there were going to be layoffs on his team, and he
| had sent a message to a more senior team member that he
| hadn't heard from in months to let her know that she
| should, to put it delicately, maybe manage her visibility
| better. And she responded that she had lost interest in the
| job anyway, hadn't done anything except respond to emails
| and messages in over a year, and had 99% transitioned to
| managing a collection of properties she had been
| accumulating over the years, so if he heard she got laid
| off, he shouldn't feel bad for her. I'm pretty sure that
| was in 2022.
|
| To see Google go from tolerating being ghosted by highly
| compensated senior+ engineers in 2022 to laying off people
| who were doing excellent and high-profile work in 2025 must
| be surreal for people inside Google. If this is all
| accurate, they swung the pendulum from one zone of
| encouraging laxity and disloyalty right through the healthy
| zone and into another zone of encouraging laxity and
| disloyalty with dizzying speed.
| azangru wrote:
| > from your explanation of the role I'm not sure I see the
| value either
|
| Google has traditionally had a fair number of developer
| relations engineers. Chrome team alone has several. The
| current devrels include Una Kravets, Bramus van Damme, Rachel
| Andrew, possibly Jecelyn Yeen, Oliver Dunk, Matthias Rohmer,
| probably some others... They help prioritise new browser
| features through developer feedback, document new features,
| maintain documentation at web.dev, spec up new features and
| represent Google at various standardizing bodies, write
| walkthroughs and tutorials, build demos to showcase new
| browser features, make explanatory videos, give conference
| talks, and generally keep us, web developers, up to date with
| modern browser best practices.
|
| Their value to web developers is immense. Their value to
| Google is possibly in that good devrels are a living
| advertisement of web technologies in general, and Chromium-
| based web browsers in particular. The better developers know
| browser features, the more attractive and capable UIs they
| can build for the web, the more consumers will be attracted
| to the web (including Chrome), and the more money Google will
| ultimately make via advertisements.
|
| Adam has been so great in this role that it does not make
| sense to me that Google decided to cut specifically his
| position.
| weatherlite wrote:
| > Google has traditionally had a fair number of developer
| relations engineers
|
| I wish them all well, but things can change fast depending
| on how the economy is doing and where the company is headed
| priority wise.
| drdrek wrote:
| There are very serious talks about forcing google to divest
| from Chrome/Android, I would bet that's the reason
| Geenkaas wrote:
| I am listening to a podcast Adam Argyle is talking in,
| listening to what he is passionate about and then getting axed
| by Google is painful to hear as now it is clear that Google is
| not passionate about those things (anymore). It is also painful
| personally because it is what I am passionate about (and my
| job). Link: https://dev.to/whiskey-web-and-whatnot/leveraging-
| css-web-de...
| atotic wrote:
| Agreed, Adam really is one of the best at what he does. His
| talks, demos, were always so interesting. My guess is that
| he'll be at Microsoft shortly.
|
| What Google is saying with this layoff is that they no longer
| care about web developer relations. Chrome has not been well
| funded for years.
|
| Firefox did the same thing five years ago, when they fired
| David Baron, who was one of the top 5 engineers in the world
| that understood how HTML layout works. He got instantly hired
| by Chrome.
|
| It is kind of crazy that the core group that moves web
| standards forward is around 150 people. And most of them did
| not get rich off it, and have been doing it for decades.
| kvetching wrote:
| "The DOJ Still Wants Google to Sell Off Chrome" -Wired (March
| 7, 2025)
| azangru wrote:
| > Chrome has not been well funded for years.
|
| Hasn't it? It has still been developing quite rapidly; and
| used to lead in interop scores (reflecting how well a browser
| conforms to the specs).
| jldugger wrote:
| > What does this say about Google's attitude to web and to
| Chrome? What does this say about Google's commitment to
| developer excellence?
|
| It probably says "the DOJ really is gonna force us to sell
| Chrome."
| rchaud wrote:
| Unless the prospective buyer's name rhymes with Melon Tusk, I
| doubt the DOJ will do anything to challenge Google's web
| monopoly this strongly.
| dennis_jeeves2 wrote:
| >a stellar job educating web developers on new html and css
| features, get the sack.
|
| I have trouble relating to the evangelist fervor that some
| developers develop toward their craft.
| forestgreen76 wrote:
| This certainly isn't new. I know someone who worked at Google
| who mentioned the company culture has been souring since the
| start of the pandemic. I suspect Google will have a slow death
| akin to Yahoo in the coming years.
| throwanem wrote:
| > What does this say about Google's attitude to web and to
| Chrome? What does this say about Google's commitment to
| developer excellence?
|
| Everything that's needed saying for at least the last decade.
| lapcat wrote:
| This article was actually posted 3 days ago. I saw it back then
| and read the comments. You can see the old timestamp here:
| https://hn.algolia.com/?q=https%3A%2F%2Fnerdy.dev%2Fex-googl...
|
| I think this is what HN calls the "second chance pool".
|
| I absolutely hate when HN reposts an article and alters/falsifies
| the timestamps. It's so incredibly misleading.
| B1FF_PSUVM wrote:
| In other occasions, time seems to pass very slowly for the
| aging of first-page items. Probably relativistic effects of
| large amounts of hidden mass ...
| jasonvorhe wrote:
| Can barely read this post because scrolling feels so sluggish and
| weird on a Chrome-based browser on a Pixel 9 Pro. Hope the
| playful effects are worth it for the author.
| Redoubts wrote:
| it's probably the commenting section at the bottom (which also
| took forever to load in)
| jasonvorhe wrote:
| True, that's probably it.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Similar thing happened to me, after almost 27 years, but my
| company was a great deal more respectful, in the way that they
| did it. I left on the best of terms; which is extremely rare,
| with layoffs. To this day, I still have a lot of respect for my
| old company.
|
| Also, the writing had been on the wall, for years. I was quite
| prepared.
|
| What I wasn't prepared for, however, was my post-layoff treatment
| by the modern tech industry. That was an eye-opener.
| ur-whale wrote:
| Silver lining: one less person working on the spying machine.
| gh0stcat wrote:
| Honestly this, if these people are so smart, I truly believe
| they can help shift the ratio of spying/nefarious/addictive
| tech to productive/helpful/truly world changing tech in a
| positive direction. We need to distribute talented people
| across more industries to improve the world and technology for
| everyone.
| mehulashah wrote:
| I'm sorry that this happened to him. There are innumerable ways
| to let go of people with dignity. This isn't the first time I've
| heard of this treatment from Google. It will not be the last.
| Google is a great company with great people. Google is
| incompetent at handling layoffs. They could learn from banks on
| Wall Street. The banks do layoffs routinely and have a process
| that's more empathetic than Google, and that's not a high bar.
| red_admiral wrote:
| Sounds like work colleagues should have a signal chat, or at
| least whatsapp, to stay in touch when someone suddenly disappears
| from the company. Not to take revenge or leak company secrets or
| anything like that, just to stay in touch and meet up for social
| events occasionally. If someone at work is my friend, that
| doesn't end when they're fired and I support them as much as I
| can in difficult times.
| javawizard wrote:
| That was painful to read.
|
| I had a very similar experience at Google about a year ago, and
| the worst part of it was that _they did it 2 weeks before I was
| set to receive a 6-figure retention bonus for sticking around for
| 2 years after an acquisition._
|
| Several other members of my team got the boot at the same time.
| All of us had come in via that acquisition and were set to
| receive that bonus, and because of the layoffs, none of us did.
| Folks I talked to on the inside stopped just short of saying that
| was why we were chosen.
|
| It was especially galling because years before at the company
| that eventually got acquired by Google, I survived a round of
| layoffs, and leadership issued stay bonuses for everyone who was
| left. Those bonuses explicitly stated that they were still valid
| in the event that we were laid off before their time period was
| up.
|
| Big companies are soulless.
| yesimahuman wrote:
| Might be worth talking to a lawyer. Sorry to hear that,
| absolutely maddening
| jmyeet wrote:
| You should consult a lawyer about this. You might be SOL but if
| this happened to several people, you might be able to show the
| company didn't act in good faith because there's a pattern of
| people about to receive their bonus being laid off. Layoffs
| aren't meant to work that way.
|
| Generally layoffs involve someone who doesn't know who you are
| picking names almost at random from a spreadsheet. Management
| may fight for certain people to stay. Then legal and HR get
| involved and look through the layoff list to see if the chosen
| employees are problematic. For example, if the layoffs include
| too many people from protected classes, which opens them up to
| being sued. For example, if your company is 20% women but the
| layoffs are 50% women, that's going to be an issue.
|
| Avoiding paying substantial retention bonuses can work the same
| way, if a pattern can be shown.
|
| A simple letter from a lawyer probably won't do anything. Large
| companies are prepared for that.
|
| For anyone who does come across this, here's my best advice: if
| you are acquired and your new employment contract includes a
| retention bonus, you want that contract to say that the
| retention bonus is payable unless:
|
| 1. You leave voluntarily within that period; or
|
| 2. You are terminated _with cause_ within that period.
|
| Otherwise, you should get it.
| vonneumannstan wrote:
| >2. You are terminated with cause within that period.
|
| Are layoffs considered to be with cause?
| bpicolo wrote:
| No
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Yes as a person who had such a retention bonus before (from
| Google even) to me this seems rather cut and dry. Usually
| such bonuses are a mix of cash and RSUs, and set over a 3-4
| year period. And are often also based on a perception of what
| the employees existing options were in the startup that they
| came from.
|
| IMHO they should absolutely be paid out the whole amount of
| the remaining retention bonus at layoff. On the principle of
| things alone. Can't speak to the legality of it.
| VagabundoP wrote:
| Did you sue? Because that's bullshit. The retention agreement
| should have included that clause anyway.
| CharlieDigital wrote:
| Agreed. If companies could do this, then they'd never pay out
| a retention rider.
| ncr100 wrote:
| Awful experience.
|
| What is interesting is our denial, as (ex-)corporate employees,
| that the corporation is NOT FAMILY...even though we may feel it
| is.
|
| > Big companies are soulless.
|
| "And God created the C Corporation" -nowhere in the Bible /
| Koran / Hinduism / Buddhism / Torah
|
| I feel this lesson keeps being re-learned by us people /
| workers ...
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| That's awful and the most amazing thing you could do now is get
| together with those ex-coworkers or similar people and _compete
| with Google_ in whatever business domain it was that made them
| acquire your former employer.
|
| Because, having been through the acquisition process at Google
| myself, my general cynical take is: Google acquires companies
| to get rid of them, to stop them from competing and not to "add
| your uniqueness to their collective."
|
| Keeping employees on retention bonuses is a way, in aggregate,
| of stopping them from going off and inventing something that
| eats their bottom line.
|
| You should look into legal action. And failing that, compete
| with them.
| delfinom wrote:
| You guys should have a consultation with a lawyer. It's a
| little cheaper if you guys just use one lawyer to go after
| Google for the retention bonus if there is a case ;)
| singron wrote:
| It might be too late now, but I've successfully negotiated
| (before signing) retention deals like this to be pro-rated in
| the event of non-voluntary termination. It's perfectly
| reasonable for exactly this reason, and companies have no
| legitimate reason to deny it.
| gedy wrote:
| Agreed, this is/should always be the deal basically - "here's
| a bonus so you stay while we transition" is the only reason
| many folks stay post aquisition. It should not be revokable,
| especially last minute.
| aeyes wrote:
| To me its a massive red flag that Google would promise a
| cash bonus 2 years in the future, they could have given
| stock with an appropriate vesting schedule for retention.
| All the retention deals I have seen were done like this,
| only for the very short term (less than 6 months) a cash
| bonus makes sense.
| swah wrote:
| Glad I have a chance to peek into his world, but should he have
| posted this?
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I suppose you have to decide for yourself if you're going to
| spend the rest of your life trying to grovel (okay, a rather
| pointed word to choose) for future employers.
| stunpix wrote:
| Why this site has such abnormally slow scrolling in Safari, but
| is smooth in Chrome? There's nothing special about this site.
| It's like going back in time when the internet was optimized only
| for a single browser. It's kind of like "I'm a Chrome dev and I
| don't care about other browsers"?
| cjohnson318 wrote:
| It is a very, very hard thing to wrap your head around, and life
| doesn't always give you time to process it before your savings
| run out. I had a hard time finding work this year and I invested
| in a (tech) career coach, Larry Jacobson, and he was an immense
| help. He told me things that were very hard to hear, and helped
| immensely.
| talles wrote:
| > I really was just a fuckin cog in a mega corp.
|
| You had to be fired to realize this?
| baking wrote:
| Must be a Chrome developer. His blog is frustratingly hard to
| read on Firefox. I felt like I was going blind in real time.
| baggachipz wrote:
| Looks terrible in Safari too
| adamors wrote:
| It looks exactly the same in Safari (17.5) as it does in
| Chrome for me.
| Redoubts wrote:
| for me it just burns a bunch of CPU and is difficult to
| scroll
| z_open wrote:
| It is a chrome developer. His claims that he was raising the
| quality level of the web are particularly hilarious given that
| he worked at google. Maybe the salary of google blinds people
| into believing this.
| zghst wrote:
| Sorry to hear. Your next opportunity might be around the
| corner...
| seabass wrote:
| If you haven't seen Argyle's gui-challenges series, it's some of
| the best content I've found for learning how to use a variety of
| cutting-edge CSS features. I thought he was one of the best
| voices for the Chrome team.
|
| https://github.com/argyleink/gui-challenges
| jmyeet wrote:
| Other commenters are corect: you are a cog in a machine. You are
| replaceable. Many people in tech have for too long fallen for the
| delusion that, as an engineer (or just in tech in general), you
| are somehow immune to this, that the company does care about you.
|
| All of these big tech companies have never not been insanely
| profitable. These layoffs aren't necessary for the survival of
| the business. They're simply suppressing labor costs by cutting
| 5% of the employees, pushing their duties on the remaining 95%
| (for no additonal pay of course) and the 95% aren't asking for
| raises if they fear losing their jobs. It's permanent layoff
| culture.
|
| Google, Meta, Microsoft, etc all have a ton of inertia, just like
| IBM did. And that's their future. They are sowing the seeds of
| their own destruction with short-term profit-seeking. These
| companies are nothing without the employees that sustain them.
| mcv wrote:
| Layoffs are one thing, but to be cut off without any notice, that
| really sucks. I usually know months in advance that when I'll
| leave, so I'll have time to finish what I'm working on and train
| the people who will take over my responsibilities. It seems
| weirdly destructive for a company not to allow for that.
|
| As for email, calendar etc, I think the lesson here is not to
| depend on anything from your employer. Keep everything under your
| own control, so you won't lose too much when you get fired.
| mrgoldenbrown wrote:
| Are you outside the US by chance? Sudden layoffs like this are
| the norm here.
| mcv wrote:
| I do live outside the US, but in another part of this
| discussion I was just taught not to assume that reports of
| unhealthy working conditions coming from the US represent the
| norm.
| smarklefunf wrote:
| google is not like it was in the 2000's, 2010's. Its much more
| corporate, politicky, and evil.
| spicyusername wrote:
| I really was just a fuckin cog in a mega corp.
|
| Yep. One of the most unfortunate realities of modernity.
|
| Your managers, or your managers managers, or their managers don't
| care about you. At all. If you ask them on the weekend, they'll
| decry that the things they are asked to do are horrible. but
| they'll still do it. Some gladly.
|
| They are themselves cogs in the machine.
|
| A machine that goes all the way to the executive class, and they
| really don't care about you. In fact, more likely than not, they
| detest you.
|
| We all participate in this hostile culture, in various ways.
| Usually using the excuse that we need to pay rent, eat, find the
| work interesting, or with some other excuse that justify the
| means.
|
| It seems like it's hard to do the right thing when you have
| something you want to buy or otherwise spent your whole life
| getting here, before realizing what here is.
| LPisGood wrote:
| I feel like this is a very dramatic view of things. Have you
| ever been in a management position?
| bbqfog wrote:
| I have and this poster is spot on, he needs to go higher up
| the chain though. Investors _hate_ employees, even founders.
| Founders are out to get rich. Executives are out to get rich
| but don 't have what it takes to be founders. All of these
| people detest labor. They are the enemy you must work with to
| buy food. Treat them as such.
| LPisGood wrote:
| I feel like this is a very cynical way of looking at
| things.
|
| I know some excellent people in leadership that have been
| promoted from lower level management jobs. I'm not sure the
| career change made them no longer care about people.
| bbqfog wrote:
| This is definitely how the capital class views labor.
| Don't be fooled, and ignore at your own peril.
| LPisGood wrote:
| I wouldn't really consider someone that moved from middle
| management to upper management/executive leadership to be
| a part of the "capital class."
|
| Investors, board members, maybe even some CEOs, sure.
| bbqfog wrote:
| If they're upper management, they are tasked with doing
| the dirty work for capital. That's their job.
| LPisGood wrote:
| That doesn't mean they don't care though. Now this could
| come from spending time at a company where the executives
| were only ~3 levels of indirection from devs.
| bbarn wrote:
| I think his statement could have benefited from and/or
| implicitly in the list of titles.
|
| I certainly care very deeply about my people, and letting
| someone go is a last resort after trying to work things out.
| My boss cares that I care.. their boss.. we're numbers.
| vonneumannstan wrote:
| >I really was just a fuckin cog in a mega corp. >Yep. One of
| the most unfortunate realities of modernity.
|
| The crazy thing to me is the lack of awareness of these people.
| Has hiring at Google fallen off that badly? Was there always
| such a gap between 'smart enough to work at google' and 'smart
| enough to realize their corpo-we're one big family-speak is
| total BS' ?
| shadowgovt wrote:
| For many Googlers, this is their one-and-only company so they
| actually have no frame of reference, including no frame of
| reference to notice the company culture was shifting over the
| past decade-ish.
| dennis_jeeves2 wrote:
| > 'smart enough to work at google' and 'smart enough to
| realize their corpo-we're one big family-speak is total BS
|
| I have noticed that smartness can be highly
| compartmentalized.
| nikolayasdf123 wrote:
| > I really was just a fuckin cog in a mega corp.
|
| yep, you always was.
|
| bigtech and corporate make a good illusion that you aren't.
| brace, if you let yourself believe in that illusion.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| So the key thing here is that this didn't used to be how things
| were at Google.
|
| People outside the ecosystem disbelieve, but I had the mixed
| privilege of watching the company evolve from a spicy startup
| to a megacorp. There isn't one point in time you can put your
| finger on when it shifted, but the shift happened. And for
| Googlers who'd been there forever, they were legitimately
| startled to learn that all their years of work hadn't made them
| insiders as the lines were drawn and management consolidated
| into something more approximating a traditional corporation.
|
| If there's a lesson here, I think it's that there _is_ a
| difference between a company like old Google and a company like
| new Google, but if you only want to work at old Google, you
| have to pay _very_ close attention to the signs that things are
| changing around you. Capitalism, to be certain, incentivizes
| drift in that direction, from small outfit where everyone knows
| everyone to 100-thousand-person megafirm with concerns about
| its tax obligations to Ireland.
| ssimpson wrote:
| I feel like its unfair to say every single direct manager
| doesn't care about their folks. I care about each and every
| person on my team, I care if they are engaged and if they can
| do their job. I care if they get sick and give them the time to
| make sure they feel better. I care about their career and try
| to help them along. Maybe I'm the minority, but I think that
| lots of managers of ICs should and do feel this way. As you go
| up the ladder, i can see that going down as the scope
| increases, but thats why you have managers, to keep attention
| to those details. Now i've had directors and stuff that do not
| care about their managers. I've also had managers that aren't
| great and don't care.
|
| You are 100% correct though, we are all cogs in the machine. In
| the end, the people at the top don't care about anything below
| them if it isn't making them an the shareholders more money. If
| they do, they are a unicorn and i hope everyone gets to work
| with someone like that.
|
| When I was laid off from RAX, it was a super emotional time. I
| had a job where I got to hang out with my friends and good
| people doing good stuff, and we also did some work (the work we
| were doing was so enjoyable most of the time, it didn't feel
| like work). I've never been able to capture that since and it
| has contributed greatly to my desire to get out of leadership
| roles.
| rsanek wrote:
| > its unfair to say every single direct manager doesn't care
| about their folks
|
| That's not the claim being made, by my reading. The quote
| was, "Your managers, or your managers managers, or their
| managers don't care about you" -- which to me means, it's not
| clear exactly at what level, but at some point people stop
| caring about you as an individual. This may be at the direct
| manager level if you have a shitty manager. Or it may be much
| higher. But at some point up the chain it will become true if
| you're at a megacorp.
| ibejoeb wrote:
| > We all participate in this hostile culture
|
| You can try to participate less. It's also work, but for some
| people, it's better than the corporate environment.
|
| Keep your expenses under control. (That alone can be hard to do
| if you're relatively successful in tech, so I mention it
| because it's something to really think about.) Network in real
| life to find projects that have finite durations. Take some
| time between those projects and use that to both relax and
| develop new business. Go to a different city for a few days,
| maybe for an organized meetup or a conference (even if you
| don't attend) and try to meet people. You're double dipping
| here. Go sightseeing or something else entertaining, and then
| try to work a room.
|
| > they really don't care about you. In fact, more likely than
| not, they detest you.
|
| Hopefully more the former than the latter. You're not getting
| married. You shouldn't be out to find a new family, and
| everyone hates that metaphor anyway. You probably will find
| people you do like, though. Since you're targeting well defined
| business, you don't have to live with that relationship if it
| doesn't pan out. You just need to get to your next cycle.
|
| I've found a lot of people that I really do like. Some, I still
| do business with, and others I just sometimes get together with
| for dinner or a cocktail. We know we still like each other
| because there's no longer any money involved.
|
| This is a defensive play also since you aren't all-in on one
| engagement. You can't get complacent just because you're on a
| W-2 and it all feels good, as this post illustrates.
|
| I'm aware that this isn't an out-of-the-gate strategy. If
| you're gainfully employed now, save up. Even if you hate your
| job, use it to establish a stable position so that you can get
| out when you want to. Seriously consider what you think are the
| luxuries in life and whether you _actually_ enjoy them or if
| you have been convinced that you do for some other purpose,
| like pleasing others, peacocking, or keeping up with the
| Joneses.
| dennis_jeeves2 wrote:
| >In fact, more likely than not, they detest you.
|
| Engineers, nerds, developers remember this ALWAYS. Do not work
| hard for ANYONE including your family members unless they
| reciprocate proportionately.
| freeamz wrote:
| This has being like this when that changed from "Personal"
| department to "Human Resources"
|
| Do the corp that is what you are!
|
| The lower level of hell is definitely reserved of industrial
| psychologists and advertisers!
| clutchdude wrote:
| This reminds me of the demotivator with pictures of cogs.
|
| > Just because you are necessary doesn't mean you are
| important.
|
| https://despair.com/cdn/shop/files/worth_6b813282-f9f8-41ab-...
| stego-tech wrote:
| It _sucks_.
|
| The runway they give you is generous, sure. I got two and a half
| months on payroll and another six of severance and COBRA. I got
| the same spiel: not about merit, bosses shocked and surprised,
| free to apply to internal roles...
|
| It still _sucks_ , because the very first thing you do, the thing
| we're all _trained_ to do, is to think: "What did I do wrong?"
| And in the weeks ahead, you're going to look back at the body of
| your work, the output you created, and you're going to realize
| that _you_ did nothing wrong.
|
| Rather, you were just _inconvenient to keep_. It was little more
| than a decision of personal politics, not objective merit. An
| inconvenient line on a spreadsheet to a leader somewhere who
| wanted to steal your ideas for themselves, or who couldn't stand
| sharing power with an undesirable element within the company. Or
| maybe they remembered that time you shot down their idea, or have
| a report showing you were active in the "wrong" chat channels.
| Maybe you weren't in the hub _they_ wanted to prioritize, or
| maybe you were too involved in politics for their liking.
|
| Or maybe they just felt that your premium wages would be better
| spent on a fleet of underpaid, overworked Indian professionals
| with tenuous contracts.
|
| It could be any of those. It could be _all_ of those. But you'll
| know, deep down, that the decision made wasn't remotely
| objective, and therefore had no place in an objective institution
| like a business. Your leaders gave into vibes, and felt you were
| an acceptable casualty.
|
| At some point you're likely to feel rage. Hang onto that, and use
| it to temper your future. A future where _you_ won't make such
| petty decisions. Where you'll stand up for your workers. Where
| you'll build a better working environment that treats humans with
| dignity and respect, where layoffs are a last resort after a
| reorg, after everyone whose role _actually_ got eliminated had
| their skills and output shifted to new, valuable roles instead of
| shown the door.
|
| The rage is acknowledgement that you deserved better, and by
| extension your colleagues, peers, family, and friends.
|
| Realizing no current business is any different than the others
| because they're all run by MBA bros from consulting firms who
| lack any original thoughts for themselves is, in a sense,
| liberating. You finally see that there is no "better" out there,
| and certainly no objectivity or meritocracy. That everything thus
| far has been a temporary illusory reprieve from that reality.
|
| But once you see it, once you _acknowledge_ it, you can finally
| join others in building such a future together.
| HenryBemis wrote:
| > I really was just a fuckin cog in a mega corp.
|
| Sorry to hear. Yups you are/were/will be. It happened before. It
| will happen again. Perhaps not to you, but to me, him (pointing
| left), her (pointing right).
|
| Save as much as you can. Invest as much as you can. "Anything
| that can go wrong will go wrong."
|
| I don't seem to sound like an asshole. For the past couple of
| decades "your services are no longer required - please return
| your laptop" happens on a monthly basis. If you follow the news
| (and I believe all of us here do), every now and then we read
| about Company XYZ laying off 3000. Company ABC laying off 5000.
| So, it's just a roulette and it has to do where the ball will
| sit. It's not personal (in 99.9% of the cases).
|
| I had the 'pleasure' a few years back to work for a global bank
| and I was asked on a quarterly basis to give names of who will be
| gone on the next round(s). Nothing personal. Simple arithmetic.
|
| So.. save, invest, keep emergency fund(s), and you will be ok.
| vzaliva wrote:
| I guess the lesson is: don't get emotionally attached to your
| job. Despite all the "we're like a family" talk, at the end of
| the day, you're just an employee. Never forget that.
| fullshark wrote:
| We all want to be seduced though, we all want to believe we are
| special, we all want to believe our work has value and we
| anthropomorphize the company on the other end of the
| relationship, believing it's a partnership.
|
| Protect yourself, but it's a sad way to spend 40-60 hours of
| your life, constantly reminding yourself that your job is just
| a paycheck and not putting yourself into your work.
|
| Not sure how so many can do it and be motivated. My current
| strategy is compartmentalization, and it all just seems
| unsustainable long term, cause in the back of my mind it all
| seems so empty.
| wackget wrote:
| > Works for massive advertising company on Chrome, the browser
| widely known for anti-competitive practices and destroying the
| ecosystem of the Web.
|
| > Surprised when company does nasty, profit-driven thing.
| traeregan wrote:
| Dammit. I listened to Adam on https://shoptalkshow.com/659/ just
| last week and really admired his impressive depth of knowledge
| about CSS and the web and how well spoken he is on the subjects.
| outside1234 wrote:
| Great reminder that we are all worth almost nothing to our
| employers as human beings so exploit your employer to the
| maximum.
| outside1234 wrote:
| Could be worse, at least you got severance.
|
| Microsoft has moved on to phase two and pretends you were a
| performance problem and gives you no severance. Microsoft also
| pays like shit. Don't work for Microsoft.
| gaganyatri wrote:
| Got my role terminated when I was taking care of my father in
| India.
|
| Worked a research institute in Germany, used my vacation days and
| kept writing code to improve the project. I was the sole
| developer.
|
| For a month, I worked remotely , then i get 3 notices for not
| coming to office. In a week, I was terminated for not showing up
| in office, though i was working remotely.
|
| In a shock, accepted the mutual termination agreement. No
| severance, access cut to email/chat.
| mdip wrote:
| Getting laid off is a unique experience -- I can't find a better
| word than that. I mean, on one hand we always knew this was a
| business transaction: I'm providing a service, you're paying me
| to provide a service. But work, on some level, is a social
| activity. You often make lasting friendships at jobs, especially
| a job you enjoy. If you share an office with your team[0], it
| isn't unusual for that to become your closest "group of friends."
| And you're friends _mostly_ because you spend 8+ hours a day
| together five days a week. When the job ends, that daily
| refueling that your friendships received also ends. It 's not
| unusual for the last day of that job to be one of the last times
| you communicate with those people and the last time you end up in
| the same place, together.
|
| It's why a job starts to feel like "a family."
|
| Just for the sake of context: some of the "unique" aspects are
| unique to the field of Software Development; some may be unique
| to my particular skill-set/location/circumstances. It's "unique"
| in that right when it happens, it ... sucks. But the two times
| it's happened to me -- both cases of "economic realities" or
| "radical business restructuring" -- it ended up being a few weeks
| off and into a better job -- in both cases, forms of "dream
| jobs." I've never gone more than 4 weeks without a paycheck since
| I was 16. I live near the car capital of the world and don't like
| cars/have no interest in working for _any_ car /car-related
| company. I've worked for a global multi-national telecom, a
| conferencing provider, a maker of IoT devices for huge third-
| party companies, machine learning for a fraud company and remote
| medical software with a hint of robotics. The IoT job and the
| last job happened after being laid off. After about 2-3 weeks of
| back-and-forth, I had at least two offers in play both times I
| lost my job. In both cases, the economy and hiring trends were
| negative. In one case it was so close to Christmas that many
| people were difficult to reach.
|
| I received a piece of advice way too late in my career from a
| 50-year-old man who was working for a startup that -- literally
| anyone who had any familiarity with the space would have given
| about a 99.99995% chance of cratering in bankruptcy. I was
| brought in on contract to help them get through some code written
| off-shore, he was my "project manager." Over lunch he'd offered
| me a job directly with the company[1]. I mentioned "benefits,
| salary and job security" and he said: "You won't beat the pay,
| the benefits are fine, and you're a software developer -- even
| 2008, unemployment in our sector was low enough to be considered
| 'full employment'. And if they get bought or succeed, the stock
| could make you a lot of money." Random advice, even from
| graybeards, is not often the kind that I take blindly, but having
| just gone through being unemployed during a -- not terrible, but
| not great -- economic time and finding more than one offer on the
| table in about three weeks, I couldn't argue with him. Thinking
| back to the scores of employees who were laid off when I worked
| at the telecom, I could name only one (non-manager) guy in IT who
| didn't end up some place much better a month after they started
| looking for work, again[2].
|
| While there's never any guarantees and I don't want this to be a
| "buck up, camper" kind of dismissal of the misery of losing a
| job, I suspect the ex-Googler will land on their feet and maybe
| they'll look back on this and say "Yeah, but if I'd stayed there,
| I'd have missed out on all of the stuff I'm working on, now."
|
| [0] Even if not, though physical proximity encourages it.
|
| [1] This was not only _allowed_ at the company I worked, it often
| came with an e-mail announcing when it happened in
| "celebration"-style. We _rarely_ directly contracted to a third-
| party, so it wasn 't a sort of "temporary placement agency" or
| anything like that. In fact, the reason I was contracted directly
| was because the owners of the company went to school with the
| owners of the startup and the 50-year-old guy was a former
| employee of my employers. They'd worked out an arrangement during
| a time when business was slow.
|
| [2] Depending on how long that person worked there, they may have
| received over a year of severance paid at 100% of the employee's
| salary -- in one case, paid in a single lump sum cheque (due to
| the company going bankrupt and the court preventing them from
| paying the outstanding severance checks of employees who were
| laid off a week prior to the bankruptcy). One guy took a year off
| and _still_ landed a job in a month.
| karaterobot wrote:
| Offboarding is when any illusion of your non-cog relationship to
| a company is belied. You're suddenly a virus that the immune
| response is trying to destroy. Your presence is a threat to the
| host that must be eliminated. On the one hand you wish companies
| would be a little more human about it: it's me, I'm not a
| criminal! On the other hand, they've got security controls that
| almost mandate a swift and pitiless execution.
| kwakubiney wrote:
| Sorry to hear. I have never worked for Google or any corporation
| of that scale but I got my fair share of a harsh layoff two years
| ago (at a reasonably small company). The company used to run a
| hybrid shift, with specific days for remote and onsite. We got a
| mail (from the higher ups) a day before saying no employee should
| show up at the office the next day, under the guise of a
| fumigation exercise. The next day shows up, I am in a meeting
| with my colleagues (a regular standup), a fraction of my
| teammates receive an email with an meeting invite link. We join
| the meeting, our mics and cameras were automatically turned off
| by the host/organizer, the CEO's face spotlit in the meeting, he
| then delivered the news in a very cold way, the meeting ended, we
| were logged out of all company accounts in the next 15 minutes,
| that was the last team meeting we had :)
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| I hate to say it...but this is how working for a company _works_.
| It 's more prevalent at the largest ones and less so at the
| smallest ones, but it's just the norm.
|
| In the US, it's at-will employment. You can leave, or be fired,
| at any time - for virtually any reason. (As long as it doesn't
| break discrimination laws) Investors only care about quarterly
| returns, and so you have to expect a publicly-traded company may
| let people go for that reason alone.
|
| They're not your friends. They're not your family. You exchange
| hours of your life for money. That's all. It sucks, but that's
| just how it is. Google is no exception, it is one company like
| literally all others.
| anarticle wrote:
| They would sell you for meat if they could.
|
| I had my access hard cut off and laptop locked, a cold reminder
| that your relationship goes as far as the business will allow.
|
| Always, ALWAYS build your homey network at your job, because that
| is your door to walking on to the next job.
|
| Be sure to try to get the best severance possible, take time off,
| explore opportunities. You often won't have that kind of pressure
| off moment if you're serious about your career so take advantage.
|
| I'm a hired gun for now for academia and a small startup and I've
| probably never been happier career wise. I work with non-fake
| employees, and solve problems that make money. No 401k for now,
| but my sanity is more valuable to me after the circus of the last
| year at my old place. (Fake employees in VP position, director
| position, both fired 1y after I left.)
| bitlad wrote:
| No one complains when TComp just 500k+
|
| Only when laid off.
| acyou wrote:
| Content aside, does anyone else have poor scrolling performance
| on his blog? I saw similar issues on both mobile and desktop,
| what's with that?
| neop1x wrote:
| Also the content did not fit my Galaxy S24's screen width when
| used in portrait. The author's previous work in the Chrome team
| is visible. "The shoemaker's children go barefoot" as they say.
| :)
| mont_tag wrote:
| ISTM software engineers have been living in a privileged and
| elite world. They are then utterly shocked to be treated like
| employees are treated elsewhere.
|
| Pretty much anywhere if you are let go, your email access and
| physical access are cut off immediately. Start-ups do this all
| the time as funding gets tight or there is a need to pivot.
|
| I get that this sucks (and have been on the both the dishing out
| side of this and the receiving end of it multiple times). It is a
| fact of life. It would be more mature to move on rather than blog
| about how you feel wronged by your former employer. The next
| employer may see this post and reason that it is unsafe to hire
| this person because they feel a need to damage the company's
| reputation on the way out (for Google, there isn't much risk
| here, but for smaller companies, threats to the reputation
| matter).
| ncr100 wrote:
| > It is a fact of life. It would be more mature to move on
| rather than blog about how you feel wronged by your former
| employer.
|
| +1.
|
| While there is an imaginable "victim" viewpoint, it is a job
| for pay with a clear employment contract that was agreed to
| before employment start, between the Employee and the
| Corporation, including local and state and federal laws,
| permitting EXACTLY THIS type of termination.
|
| Further, corporations can't be seen to Favor one Googler vs
| another. Especially since there is NO GUARANTEE this Ex-Googler
| isn't one of those AR-15 toting weirdos who condone violence
| against their now ex-coworkers .. so allowing them futher
| access to the (huge) universe that Google owns and controls ..
| its corporate workings .. even for an additional 5 seconds
| after termination, can be reasonably seen to be Foolish .. so
| they would cut ties Immediately.
| ygouzerh wrote:
| > It's a fact of life
|
| I will argue the contrary. Companies with US mindset makes us
| think that.
|
| Countries with social safety net have a better way of handling
| it. Even in the country where I am now living, Hong Kong, which
| is very liberal, half of the companies let you have 1 month of
| notice period.
| winrid wrote:
| And even in China the layoff policy for pregnant women is way
| more humane than in the US.
| gedy wrote:
| > ISTM software engineers
|
| Probably not the International Society of Travel Medicine,
| what's the abbreviation?
| tmathmeyer wrote:
| Internet Technology and Social Media, I would guess.
| patternMachine wrote:
| It seems to me
| alexey-salmin wrote:
| Internet Search and Tele Marketing
| xdavidliu wrote:
| https://bulletin.gwu.edu/courses/istm/
|
| Information Systems and Technology Management
|
| I've also never heard anyone say this though, but I'm
| guessing that's what they meant.
| gedy wrote:
| Other reply pointed out "It Seems To Me" which seems
| reasonable.
| HdS84 wrote:
| Honestly, the problem is not that there are layoffs, the
| problem is that the process sucks.
|
| you don't need to fire this person immediately - you can talk
| to him, wind his operations down and then let him go. I.e. in
| Germany it's often half a year between announcing a layoff and
| anything happening (besides other stuff like making sure the
| layoff applies to the newest people first). Even if you don't
| want such a long period - talking to him and giving him a few
| weeks to wind down at your firm and starting to search for a
| new job seems perfectly reasonable. What happens if he wreaks
| havoc on your firm out of revenge? Really? Happens practically
| never. If it happens, sue him.
|
| ofc this process applies to reasonable layoff - if it's for
| something egregious (breaking the law) you can and should fire
| him immediately.
| Vegenoid wrote:
| Getting laid off sucks, but this comment isn't about that. What I
| noticed when I read the post is that the website isn't very good.
| It's laggy, as in slow to load, scroll, and for the mouse-hover
| stuff to respond, and this is on a fancy modern macbook. It seems
| to focus on pretty modern web aesthetic over presenting content.
| This is exactly the kind of website that makes me bemoan the
| tendency to prioritize looking better than a simple website when
| comparing 2 static images, and not prioritizing the experience of
| actually using the website.
|
| I find these things have a real "well it works on my machine"
| about them. Whereas sites that stick to simple tech (ex. HN) are
| far more likely to work well on all machines.
| b8 wrote:
| The website works smoothly on my Pixel 6A. Not sure if it's
| JavaScript or some other software issues taking up your Mac's
| hardware resources.
| pton_xd wrote:
| Scroll perf on that site is terrible in Chrome on my S23
| Ultra. It's much smoother (but still kinda laggy) in Firefox.
| Weird.
| the-grump wrote:
| Browses very smoothly on my iPhone and it looks great.
| ra7 wrote:
| It's always sad to see people lose their jobs, but it's telling
| how often it's ex-Googlers posting about layoffs. Feels like a
| lot of the shock is just realizing they're just as replaceable
| and as much of a "cog in the machine" as everyone else. Google
| spent years selling the idea that it was special, but this feels
| like a real coming back down to earth moment for the employees.
| globular-toast wrote:
| The OP strikes me as being quite immature. Like a first breakup
| or something. I think it's less about Google selling themselves
| as being special and more that people like OP have been led to
| believe they are special. A lot of them have been treated like
| royalty: super privileged lives, only experiencing the nice
| bits of society, top education, then straight into a 6-figure
| job where you get to be part of a special club with a
| prestigious google.com email address etc. It's going to be a
| shock to anyone to have that taken away abruptly when you're a
| decade or more into this lifestyle.
|
| Most people have to go through shit like this at some point in
| their life. Most don't get to reap in internet sympathy by the
| bucketload, though. For some people it really actually sucks.
| OP is likely a millionaire already, could just take time off to
| adjust and reflect, then accept one of the numerous job offers
| that will be on the table. They might even end up doing
| something useful with their lives instead of advertising.
| gh0stcat wrote:
| Emphasis on "doing something useful with their lives".
| MangoCoffee wrote:
| The author listed the tasks that were coming up for him at
| Google, and yet Google still let him go. It doesn't matter what
| your role is or how important your tasks are, a company can
| always replace you. Management doesn't care, because you're just
| a cog in the machine.
| JohnMakin wrote:
| This is a wild read for someone that has spent the bulk of their
| career as a "mercenary" for small to mid-size largely non-tech
| companies (e.g., their product wasn't purely technical) and no
| matter what the official company Koolaid line was, you always
| know you are one "restructuring" away from being made redundant,
| the company doesn't give a crap about you or your contributions,
| and you very much are a "cog." I've been blessed to work for a
| company or two where this was less the case than others, and more
| or less bought into their own culture hype, but it's still
| fundamentally this way, the relationship between employer and
| employee. It's sad and interesting to me to see what sounds like
| an experienced developer for such a large company coming to this
| realization all at once. Given what I've read and learned about
| Google layoffs since ~2022 this seems pretty bog standard large
| company stuff.
|
| Everyone is replaceable/expendable, even if you actually aren't,
| it doesn't matter. It isn't worth investing so much emotional
| energy and your personal identity into a company unless you are a
| major shareholder.
| orochimaaru wrote:
| You're always a cog. Don't treat a job with passion unless you're
| getting something more than a salary from it - e.g. more
| professional networking, expanded skill set for your next role,
| etc. This seems to happen too often. Be invested in your career
| not the company you work for.
|
| All the talk about doing great things as a team is usually all
| b.s. It's just excellent theater. Most of us are side actors in
| someone else's script and believe we have the lead role.
| retrocryptid wrote:
| Back in the day Convex Computer Corporation was laying off a
| large fraction of its staff.
|
| The plan was to come into the warroom and just hang out. Your
| manager would come and get you and take you into a private
| conference room to discuss your package with an HR specialist.
| The packages were pretty decent, at least.
|
| In gallows humor I drew some stick figures on a white board for
| each of my team with their unix logins below them. As people were
| RIFfed, I would go over and put a universal red circle and slash
| "no" symbol around the figures who were laid off.
|
| My time came and I marked myself as a "no" and handed the red
| marker to a co-worker.
|
| I remember being a little ticked off at my manager, but when I
| came back to say goodbye to everyone I noticed his figure / login
| name had been exed out. The last thing he did before
| metaphorically being shot in the head was to metaphorically
| strangle half his children.
|
| "What was deluxe became debris, I never questioned loyalty. But
| this dead end demolishes the dream of an open highway."
| jdmg94 wrote:
| Same thing is happening to me this week at Amazon, I'm just not
| writing a post about it
| vcryan wrote:
| Sucks when you first experience the inherent fragility of working
| for somebody else.
| bitbasher wrote:
| I was laid off (as a founding engineer) nine years ago from a
| startup. It __still__ burns to this day.
|
| There's a betrayal in there that is hard to let go. It was a
| catalyst for burnout and an overall vitriol for the entire tech
| industry that hasn't really let up to this day.
|
| Luckily, I created a product that has given me financial freedom
| with zero employees. I don't think I'd have made it if I kept
| working for people.
| mrgoldenbrown wrote:
| >I really was just a fuckin cog in a mega corp.
|
| This article could have been interesting if they talked about why
| they ever thought they weren't just a cog. Like what cognitive
| blinders did they have on? Does Google have a unusually effective
| "we're all a family" type of internal propaganda?
| gorfian_robot wrote:
| corpos are really good at creating a false narrative around
| shared missions/values/etc
| mattbillenstein wrote:
| You have to understand who you work for - most companies don't
| really care about their employees - they are means to an end and
| if they weren't absolutely needed, corps would do the work other
| ways.
|
| And Google is way past "Don't be Evil" days...
| dennis_jeeves2 wrote:
| >And Google is way past "Don't be Evil" days...
|
| Wonder what prompted the change in L&S ...
|
| I suspect over a period of time caring people realized that the
| people they care for are a shitty lot, so they become less
| caring.
| randomcatuser wrote:
| The comments on Bluesky are really cool, did you implement it
| yourself?
|
| I wonder what other things Bluesky has!
| DebtDeflation wrote:
| A company with $350B in annual Revenue, $200B in Gross Profit,
| $100B in Cash in the bank lays off a few hundred people making a
| few hundred thousand dollars a year each, the savings amount to
| rounding errors. It's hard to understand what these Tech
| companies are trying to accomplish with the never ending rolling
| layoffs other than to engender fear in the workforce. It's like
| all that Great Resignation and Quiet Quitting stuff a few years
| back broke the collective brains of the C-Suite and they decided
| they just cannot tolerate labor having any sort of bargaining
| power at all and needed to mete out punishment to put workers
| back in their place.
| roman_soldier wrote:
| I learned about "cog in the machine" a few years after starting
| in tech and I became a contractor and have been ever since (20+
| years). I get paid a daily rate and as long as there is work I
| keep earning, no sick/holiday pay, no reviews, bs corporate
| networking for promotions etc.
|
| I have zero job security and could be let go any time, but that's
| built into my rate and I realised that's the case for normal
| employees anyway as the OP has discovered to his horror. The
| funny thing is I have outlived many a "permanent" employee in
| some places I've worked.
| Verdex wrote:
| The inner call to make your work matter is, I think, a good one
| and something that if we had more of then the world would be in a
| better place. That being said, I think Ecclesiastes has an
| important message that has at least saved me quite a lot of
| trouble.
|
| Nothing we're doing is anything more than variations of things
| already done and even if we're successful then it's only to the
| benefit of morons.
|
| So work hard but make sure to take the afternoon off every once
| and a while to surprise your spouse with flowers and a picnic.
| nashashmi wrote:
| You like a company based on the environment, the peers, and the
| work. But it is not necessarily that someone way out in a
| different office likes you.
|
| They are cogs in a machine, not you. And you are the worst thing
| of self reflection that cog has ever dealt with. Challenge the
| cogs and make them squirm.
| dietr1ch wrote:
| Fellow ex-googler near tax due date, get your tax documents ASAP
| as losing access to your corp email and laptop will make things
| slower.
| barbazoo wrote:
| > argyle@google.com is no more
|
| I'm working through this on a personal level as well because it's
| not healthy to make one's self worth dependent on a relationship
| one has no control over.
| jedberg wrote:
| Weirdly, Amazon had far more compassion than Google here. When my
| role got eliminated at Amazon, I got an email at 5am PT to my
| personal email telling me that my role was eliminated. It also
| told me what I would still have access to, and how to access them
| from the outside.
|
| Crucially, it said that I would still have limited corp access
| until 1pm, and then told me which things I still had access to.
|
| I got on my work machine, and found that all of my previous
| emails had been erased (or at least blocked from my view), so I
| couldn't download an email archive or otherwise see anything. I
| also couldn't send emails externally anymore. Most of my systems
| access had been cut off where I could have downloaded or exported
| anything "secret" as per the email.
|
| But they did let me send emails internally. I still had slack
| access to affinity groups. So I was able to shoot off a bunch of
| goodbye emails and slack messages.
|
| And true to their word, at 1pm, my laptop rebooted and I was then
| locked out. But at least I got to say goodbye and share my
| personal email and linkedin with a bunch of people, and they were
| able to send me "so sorry to see you go" replies, which was nice.
| mattfrommars wrote:
| I just find this very sickening. On one hand, Google laid him off
| and best excuse I can think of is, "reduce operational expense".
| On the other hand, they happily paid $32 billion dollar for Wiz
| where the both fonder net around $3 billion dollar.
|
| I don't know guys but there needs to be some crackdown on this
| bull that is going on with corporate America. Something feels
| really off lately with these tech companies on how they make
| excuse and get away.
| p0w3n3d wrote:
| It's always really hard to be let go, especially when you were a
| successful person in the company. Sadly, companies choose the
| people to fire by some obscure means, mostly the money earned.
| I've been recently dismissed from work due to "reorganisation",
| and it really hit me hard in terms of psychological health.
| Please take care of yourself, do not lose your strength, don't
| let your sense of self-worth be harmed by this (I got really
| vulnerable after this event), and wishing you good luck in
| finding the next job!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-14 23:01 UTC)