Da fuck is layoff season? Is that a real thing?
As an American I have not heard of it either
First time I’m hearing of it and apparently I’ve already been infected.
End of fiscal year, companies will sometimes do a round of layoffs to juice reports (e.g. lower ongoing costs expected for the next year). Some industries also ditch older (read: more highly paid) employees for a new batch of interns to keep average salaries down.
The CEO that managed to take GE from being the single most valuable technology company and turn it into a poorly performing stagnant mess popularized the idea of survival of the fittest within companies. He asserted that by cutting the bottom performers and even whole divisions regularly that it would leave a stronger, better company. He set targets to lay off the bottom 10% every year regardless of whether it was financially necessary.
In the short term, this strategy makes efficiency metrics look really good, and with good looking metrics, the stock goes up temporarily. However, there are major costs to layoffs that take months, years, and decades to materialize. Eventually, forced churn ruins the best of companies, from GE to IBM. Unfortunately, this management style is still incredibly popular amongst publicly traded companies. Most of the investors are willing to accept the eventual demise of a company if it means a decade of really good returns in the meantime.
In addition to what you said, laying off the bottom 10% performers gives your employees a conflict of interest. Now it’s better for them if their coworkers perform worse, and worse performing coworkers hurts the company. This may crop up in workers not helping each other out, or deliberately writing bad documentation.
It’s absolutely insane how big and important a company GE used to be compared to how trash they are now. Same with IBM, HP, Xerox, all those old tech companies. They didn’t fall to pieces because the new generation were just better, they were killed from within.
GE, for example, built a bunch of our early nuclear reactors.
They weren’t just great at technology, they were great to work for. My father worked for IBM in the 80’s and again in the 2000’s after they acquired the company he was working for. He said it was like two entirely different companies. The 80’s IBM cared about family, work/life balance, generous healthcare, had a pension. They were an engineering company that could solve any technical problem their customers could come up with. By the 2000’s IBM had become a sales and management company. They had software to give employees the bare minimum pay and benefits tailored to their zip code. They were succesfully sued for age discrimination. They successfully convinced my father that he had absolutely maxed out on salary amd would never make any more. His raises didn’t even match 3% inflation. He was laid off in the 2010’s after a decade and a half of exemplary performance.
Five years later his salary had doubled and he was loving working on novel projects again. It was wild too see how the corporate gaslighting had convinced him he didn’t deserve any better and was just lucky to have his job when in reality he was majorly underpaid and had very valuable and unique hardware design expertise. Getting laid off sucked but turned out to be one of the best things that could have happened to him.
My uncle worked at HP for the majority of his career and watched a very similar decline.
If the suits take over your engineering company, it’s time to start asking colleagues if their company is still engineering focused. Don’t stick around for the decline.
Man, i remember back when we called Google “the engineering company”. Not anymore…
So a form of Enshittification
It is 100% a real thing. American tech companies go through this cycle where they over-hire (on purpose) and then later on they lay a bunch of people off to “cut costs” and appear “financially responsible”. This is also easier to manage (if you’re a lazy dipshit) because you don’t need to worry about your exact headcount so much, you can adjust later if you have too many or too few people. (It also gives a good excuse to get rid of people you don’t like but who would otherwise be very hard to fire.)
Investors eat that shit up.
Since companies tend to report earnings and things around the same time, companies engaging in this strategy all tend to lay people off at the same time.
All these companies playing the layoff game at the same time, destabilizing the lives of million of people and their family. Is there any report on the damage to the economy at a whole?
Of course not, inconvenient things like that don’t get investigated in the first place.
This is unthinkable in the EU. If a company isn’t sure about the needed force, they need to hire temps.
If you don’t have a technical or economical reason, you are not even allowed to lay off an employee.
And you have to give notice for a period, which is proportional to the time you worked for the company, or you have to pay this fully as severance and this can be more than a year.
Protected employees (voted as union representatives) are even harder to fire.
This does come with the downside that some, almost not productive, colleagues never get fired. But I guess it beats the alternative of having almost no protection.
The US companies claim they have economic reasons but really this is just part of a cycle that shareholders understand but companies hope employees will not.
They claim they’re fixing problems by firing people, but for the most part these are companies that are more profitable than ever.
There’s much less worker protection in the US, though. A lot of these companies have EU branches and I bet those EU branches are mostly left alone during these layoffs for that reason.
I think that’s a virtual “season”, more like time period until market stabilizes enough not to throw away people just in order to show pretty graphs to shareholders
It’s also an election year, gotta keep everyone one their toes during our quadrennial Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich festival.
My largish company has had layoffs at roughly the same time of year for the past few years. I think of it as a season. I think when it happens depends on upper management/board at each company.
Not in most of Europe, because we have worker protection laws in place that disincentivize this type of behaviour (sometimes so much so, that critics say it makes the job market too “rigid”).
Depends on the countries, in France yeah, in the Netherlands I saw almost yearly layoffs at the tech companies I worked at.
I got a huge severance package after only 1 year at my company. That’s because of labor laws im Canada. It equates to over a year in salary.
My US counterparts didn’t get that, not sure if that 35% applies to the US, but if it does it’s much more expensive everywhere else. And yeah, all this so it looks good on paper.
Labor laws vary by province and I don’t know of any labor law that makes it an obligation to pay over a year of salary after a year of employment, the most probable reason you got that is the employment directives/your employment contract you had with your previous employer.
It’s the law in almost every Canadian province for collective layoffs. 50-100 people is like 8 weeks, then 100-200 is 12 weeks and 200 plus is 16 weeks, or something. It’s on all the provinces labor law websites. My teammates in BC and Alberta got the same type of protections from what we discussed.
They had to pay out my stocks that would have vested if I kept my notice. Then because it was a mass layoff of more than a few hundred people they had to give me 16 weeks notice, plus my schedule and accrued vacation up until then and up until the notice period ends (in 16 weeks). Meaning the have to keep me on payroll with full benefits.
To sever that and entice me to hop off payroll and benefits, they gave me an addition 3 months pay. That gives me roughly my yearly salary.
Here is the law in Quebec
It equates to over a year in salary.50-100 people is like 8 weeks, then 100-200 is 12 weeks and 200 plus is 16 weeks, or somethingYeah so there’s a difference between the two, right? Because in one case you’re including extra that your employer paid that not everyone is entitled to and in the other it’s what the law gives you right to if the notification period isn’t respected.
And again, labor laws are provincial in the vast majority of cases, only a couple of industries use federal laws. In any case, only one set of laws apply to you, federal laws can be less than what you’re entitled to if you were working in a job under provincial laws in your province of work.
Why are you so hellbent on trying to convince me this wasn’t expensive for my company, or that somehow I’m the only who got this?
We’re in the tech business, we all get stocks. When they have to give you notice of 16 weeks, you still work there for 16 weeks, so you keep vesting stocks and getting benefits. Then they offer everyone to terminate them now (not in 16 weeks) and give a bonus to make it go away.
I don’t see the difference, because of those notice weeks they had to pay me what “equates to a years worth of salary”.
The same laws are in BC and Alberta, so my guess is this was federally mandated for all provinces to implement collective labor laws. At the end of the day we would all fall on federal employment insurance so it makes sense.
I really don’t see your point, aside from trying to convince me I should have gotten the same as the US. It’s not “if the notice period isn’t respected”. They owe you that period, and they pay people extra to make it go away. So i got 16 weeks + 3 months + accrued vacation + stocks
I got a huge severance package after only 1 year at my company. That's because of labor laws im Canada. It equates to over a year in salary.What you got that was related to labor laws is 16 weeks of pay, the rest was all from your employer and a worker in another business wouldn’t necessarily be entitled to it.
That’s what I’m trying to make you understand and the fact that no, it’s not Canadian laws that gave you that, it’s BC provincial laws.
The federal equivalent applies to any layoff of 50 employees in a business under federal labor laws, there’s only one type of mass layoff.
https://www.canada.ca/en/services/jobs/workplace/federal-labour-standards/termination.html#h2.1-h3.4
First, I’m in quebec not BC. I was just saying BC also get that too, and Alberta as well. I was just let go last week and we all spent time with our lawyers comparing our rights.
In Quebec (at the link I sent you), everyone is entitled to get their accrued vacation paid. Everyone is entitled to remain employed during those 16 weeks, and keep their benefits (be those stocks or other).
For any company, if the company does not want to set you termination date in 16 weeks and keep you on the books, they can offer you to give all that up, be terminated in 2 weeks for an extra lump sum. 16 weeks + something, or stay on the books and get 16 weeks + benefits
In my case it equated to a lot (a year), which is the point is was making, if it wasn’t so cheap in the US they might not do it. It would still be a lot for any other full time employee in Canada, at least proportional to their salary. Even without stocks it would have been plenty.
Edit: I forgot, but they also get 1 week per year of service, which I forgot to mention because I didn’t benefit from that much.
CNESST =/= Canadian law
As per your link the indemnity is based on if you had your 16 weeks notice or not.
Vacation pay isn’t a layoff indemnity, it’s separate and something you’re entitled to no matter the reason why you stop working for your employer.
Also the Quebec law link was added as an edit which is why I thought you were in BC (since you mentioned it).
Thanks for proving my point for me anyway.
As for why I’m so hellbent on proving you wrong? Because I’m tired of people not understand the levels of government and their powers and I think there’s a whole lot wrong with our country that can be attributed to it.
It sounds like the company has cash and they’re trying to keep up morale. Over a year of severance for employees with less than a year of employment isn’t required by Canadian law that I know of^(not that I’m super knowledgeable about labour law).
deleted by creator
90 days is pretty standard in the US, at least with bigger companies that have to abide by the WARN Act
We don’t do yearly layoffs, but at my employer it’s 90 days plus a week for each year of service, and benefits for a year. And if you’re eligible to retire, you get to do that also. Last time there was a rumor of layoffs, all the long-timers were hoping they got laid off.
I’m in Canada and my bank sent out the annual layoff season email about how there is support for me (in the form of a high interest loan).
It’s good to know they have your back(pocket).
Layoff season being thing should remind everyone why you should always do the minimum and why you should never have loyalty to an employer
Oh, then they might lay you off first because you’re underperforming compared to your peers.
I’ll let you in on a secret: they can’t tell. There’s absolutely no way to know how productive someone is. It’s a popularity contest with extra steps.
This is bullshit. There are dozens of ways to tell, even remote. Metrics exist for a reason.
Metrics are mostly bullshit because it’s not possible to measure productivity for most tech roles and its impossible to measure productivity for soft skills.
Metrics exist to justify manager decisions and convince their managers that things are working, regardless of what’s actually happening.
What metric do you use for a coder role? Sloc? Ok, make a bunch of garbage code. Tasks complete? Maybe, but there’s no quality metric so tech debt is invisible. Senior Engineers should be mentoring and influencing their team members. How do you measure that? How do you measure how well a TPM gets people to work together?
It’s bullshit used to justify the bullshit idea of “scientific management.”
I remember this one time when management started thinking about using “lines of code” as a metric for productivity of us software developers.
I very openly offered to craft a bunch ot code generators, namelly “loop unrollers” (which is something compillers do internally at the compilation stage in some situations for improve performance) for me and my colleagues to produce more code.
That idea for a performance metric was quickly shelved after that…
Metrics are mostly bullshit because it’s not possible to measure productivity for most tech roles and its impossible to measure productivity for soft skills.
Where are you getting this? It’s completely wrong. I work in IT and I have a timesheet to fill out on each ticket I do, and document what was done. You can look at my weekly hours and see exactly what I’ve been doing and how my time is spent. They don’t care if I put “watched youtube for an hour” if there isn’t immediate work, it just needs to be filled out. That is a measurable metric, in fact we let a guy go last month because he could only account for about 15 hours a week that he was working and when asked about it, he had no answer on any of it.
So I don’t know how you think it’s “unmeasurable”. Of course I could make shit up and fill in fake hours, but it will catch up when the work isn’t done and they start asking questions or the client starts asking what’s going on with their project.
What metric do you use for a coder role? Sloc? Ok, make a bunch of garbage code. Tasks complete?
And then when they see that you can’t do the job… you’re gone. that’s measurable over time, very easily. They’re going to see that you can’t perform the job based on your results.
Senior Engineers should be mentoring and influencing their team members. How do you measure that? How do you measure how well a TPM gets people to work together?
You put it on your calendar/timesheet that you had training with X employees, or helped so and so work on a project. It’s not hard and is a requirement in many Tech places. This is a way to make sure the team isn’t overwhelmed, work is done in a timely manner, and how we’re communicating with the clients, as well as many other things. The guy was let go because he was taking over 2 hours to do a password reset. I remoted in, changed it, gave the new password to the client and it was done in about 8 minutes. He just wasn’t up to snuff to handle even the simplest things. Measurable actions. 10 minutes vs 120 minutes is a massive difference for simple tasks that we have documentation on how to do.
Whether you agree or not, that is a metric used to measure performance and see where employees stand with the workload. So your first comment is such a broad stroke it’s completely wrong.
I’ll let you in on a secret: they can’t tell. There’s absolutely no way to know how productive someone is. It’s a popularity contest with extra steps.
This metric is not measuring how well you do your job, it measures how fast you do it.
It’s not meant to see if the team is overwhelmed, it’s meant to ensure the team is overwhelmed.
Bingo.
That all sounds like a deeply mismanaged process.
Also it’s such a “junior” level of understanding the process it’s downright cringeworthy.
What you describe is measuring work going in rather than results coming out, when it’s the latter that matters and you actually want to minimize the ratio of the former to the latter (it’s literally the definition of “efficiency”), not maximize it - some of the most effective and advanced software development involves lots of time of what looks like “sitting on your hands” (i.e. analysing the problem) so that a correct and complete result can be delivered directly and without wasting time because “unexpected” things were found, often with less time spent coding than analysing (in management speak: you spend time turning your known unknowns into known knowns so that you can address them upfront instead of wasting time of multiple people later (or worse) due to “unforseen” gaps and problems in the software.
It’s a massive sign that management hasn’t got a fking clue what they’re doing when, in IT they’re engaging in the whole “tracking hours going in” rigmarole, because that actually measuring and ultimatelly rewarding the very opposite of what is good for the company - unless we’re talking about an IT Consultancy, that company’s (or that division within the company’s) product is not lots of well tracked hours worked, it’s software that correctly serves internal or external customer needs, it’s problems solved, it’s good integrations that are completed and delivered in a timelly fashion without the stupid ping-pong between teams as they found “stuff we forgot about” because they didn’t spend time analysing it upfront since they were being measured in “coding hours” (or are too junior to know the value of it or never worked in an effective IT environment).
In IT measuring time-in does nothing to help deliver good results: generally it just incentivises rushed coding that produces little more than constant fires and hence constant firefighting (which, and this is the most hilarious part, then gets measured as hours spent working hence a good thing)
And this is is just the time static stuff. Then there’s all about preparimg for tomorrow whilst you’re doing for today (i.e. maintenability and extendability considerations) which are how you can keep productivity high as the codebase grows, an outcome which is not only not even dectable by simply measuring “hours in”, and requires a time investment which is actually punished when all that is measured is “hours in” because it looks like time waste.
I’m sorry but you’re probably working under a management team that has no clue about software development processes and, worse, you’re celebrating as a great thing the visible artifacts of management incompetence.
I’m a senior dev. This is exactly it.
Metrics are at best guidelines to help ground subjective observations. They all have huge gaping holes and if you want to plug those you’ll spend more time measuring than working. The best guide of if you are doing ok is how good other people think you are doing. Does the PO think you deliver fast enough given the complexity, do you help out other devs when possible, do other devs respect the quality of your work?
First, I never said I was in programming. Second, the topic was that there is no way to track productivity, which is just wrong. May not be 100% accurate, but it can be tracked.
If your job can be accurately measured in all aspects, then it can also be scripted. If it can’t be scripted, there’s something that’s not possible to measure.
I used to drink that Kool aid too, before I spent a couple of years actually seeing what managers are doing.
Lol ok. I guess we’re done here
Metrics are complete bullshit. They exist for the mananager to believe he’s doing things rationally. But in practice metrics only make your work worse.
You think they bother checking thousands of employees’ performances before laying them off? The only performance they check is who is better bud with management
Each manager probably have a few people in mind when their higher ups asks them to cut down head count in the department. Unless they decide to cut down the entire department of course. Then performance no longer matter.
From my experience, this is not the case. Layoffs in the US (especially those in tech) are quite secret and quite sudden, which means the decision of whom to lay off is typically done at a sufficiently high level where they’re generally clueless about individual performance.
Yeah… that’s probably sometimes true. But I also work in a tech company and holy fuck do we have a lot of dead weight.
That’s a management problem. Managers should be getting poor performers up to speed (or firing them). Dealing with it through layoffs juices the stock and makes investors think the company is LeAn
I agree with you but boy, here in America, employees are disposable assets, not potentially highly useful and reliable experts worth any kind of actually useful investment in or training.
I know. And that’s not how it should be. I’ve had the privilege/luck of working in orgs where my management actually gave a shit and tried to do the best by their employees. If someone is struggling we do our best to get them back to performing or find them a position that works. I don’t think we’ve ever had to fire anyone.
Cutting an arbitrary 10% of people (or a few underperforming products) is absolute bullshit. It’s unfair to the employees because it doesn’t give them a chance to improve, and it’s unfair to customers because stuff they rely on disappears.
I think thats a (shocker) overly simplistic approach to the dynamic. Layoffs are never a good look - and we’ve had an unprecedented boom time in tech for the last 20 years.
Companies were hiring just so competitors couldn’t. That doesn’t really happen anymore outside of AI.
We had what felt like make-work jobs, some nice guy or gal that no one wanted to fire who was “involved” but literally not responsible for anything.
Broad layoffs in the industry gave everyone cover to make unpopular decisions because everyone is doing it.
I don’t think - at least the ones I saw directly - it was the wrong choice.
Everything you described is still mismanagement.
Layoffs are considered a good look by big shareholders, though. Most of the time when the layoffs hit, the stock price goes up. Just look at Unity for a recent example. (I’m convinced they don’t think it’s good for the company and they just like seeing people suffer but i have no evidence for that.)
Layoffs aren’t a good look for a lot of shareholders unless the org is bloated. There are a variety of metrics to compare companies against each other in terms of head count efficiency.
Company values are basically just a view of future revenues minus expenses plus/minus sentiment. If you lower the company expenses, all else being equal, the share price should go up. Those shares are worth more.
But it also might say we’re not growing as fast as we thought we would or our business is challenged in other ways which will negatively affect sentiment.
Shareholders don’t like layoffs. They would much prefer you a) hired the right people the first time, b) hired the right number of people, or failing that c) grew into the number of people that you hired.
No one loves a declining business, and many businesses doing layoffs are - either outright declining or declining growth.
Sooo… good strategy then, if you’re a capitalist sociopath…
Unfortunately cuts don’t usually target the dead weight. I’ve worked in IT consulting for a while now, and cuts to consultants is always the first step. Just across the board, companies slash their consulting budgets blindly. Most of the time, we are leaving behind company critical systems to be supported by the “dead weight” people that couldn’t tell their ass from a hole in the ground.
I’m currently on an integrated team, meaning half our developers are consultants and half are regular employees. The consultants consistently put out significantly higher quality work in a fraction of the time. But as of Jan 1, we cut almost all of them. And as of June, we’re cutting the rest. What’s going to be left behind is half the number of people that will put out less than a quarter of the results than before.
But the reality is that consultants are easy to cut. You don’t have to call them layoffs or pay them severance.
That’s because the better people leave to become consultants. People aren’t going into consulting to make less money.
And does the dead weight get cut during layoff season? Or does it affect people who are capable but won’t take bullshit from management?
I’ve seen both, sometimes middle management gets gutted and things are reorganized, sometimes it’s more focused on the grunts.
You can only generalize it so far
I actually think we did a pretty good job - but our “layoff” was a mini one. Fractions of a percent. But of the people I knew, wasn’t worried about any of them. Felt bad for the people, they were all nice, but none of em were good at their jobs.
Quite a few sr directors and VPs were let go, or allowed to leave….
For me it finally did. A long time team member who in the past year probably had negative productivity was let go. Sucks for that person, but a big relief for everybody else.
Now this is Sweden where unions and labor laws are strong, so usually it’s difficult to fire long time employees like that.
I inherited a team when a manager left a nonprofit that I worked at. This was in the Netherlands, and in my earlier management training here we were basically told that the list of valid reasons to fire someone does not include poor performance.
Of the team, like 4 people were pretty good, a couple excellent, and two were basically dead weight. One even worse, because he was a constant source of negativity. I spent ages working on ways to figure out how to help, cajole, and otherwise magically somehow improve these two bad workers ability to contribute to our company.
Eventually in frustration I went to HR, and was like, “look at all this shit I’ve tried, what else can I do?” The head of HR was like, “Why did you waste so much time. We’ll fire them.” I was shocked, because I didn’t think that was possible! It turns out that there is always a way to fire someone. You have to give them severance pay, but better pay someone to leave than have them ruining morale for everyone.
I talked to one of the people I fired a couple of years later. He thanked me. He was working for Greenpeace at the time, and basically said that he felt trapped at a good paying job, and getting fired gave him motivation. I also ran into the negative guy, and he remains a worthless shit.
Anyway the point is that management should not rely on layoffs to sort out staff issues. Sort out your problems when you have them.
Broadly from what I saw, it was pretty much all the people that didn’t do anything useful.
In fact a lot of them were the guys who didn’t give anyone shit, because they didn’t do shit.
I’m in tech and there’s a lot of dead weight in my company, but our layoffs don’t really target those people. We just lost several of the best engineers in my department for stupid reasons (introducing a new c-suite position), and it caused problems immediately.
3rd Quarter Report: “Wow, they’ve cut operating costs by nearly a third!”
1st Quarter Report: “Wow, they’ve taken their profits and hired thousands of new employees!”
I didn’t realize it at the time but I was part of this horrible trend. I was doing support for a large software company that’s big in system administration circles.
I was laid off just prior to the end of the year. December 15, if I recall correctly (somewhere around there regardless). Shortly after me, will into layoff season, my entire support center was decommissioned and all of my co-workers joined me in unemployment. Within a few months the center went from hundreds of employees to zero.
They took the companies name off the building a year later. This was a bit less than 10 years ago and I’m still bitter; especially since the CEO visited the center about a month before he laid off the entire center, directly in the wake of laying off the front line customer support team in my center and outsourcing their jobs to low cost geographies; he had the gall to lecture is about how the layoff of the CS team didn’t and shouldn’t imply anything about the support team. Blah blah blah, different business unit, different operating criteria, yadda yadda yadda… All bullshit to try to get us to work harder right up until the bitter end.
They gave everyone two months pay as severance with no consideration to how long you had worked there. Many people were shown the door after the better part of a decade, with no additional consideration than what people who were there less than a year recieved. I still don’t like that CEO, and he’s doing rounds in the tech circles with people singing his praises. Makes me sick.
I don’t understand why we can’t name and shame these days. They shamed you. They have tarnished your rep by making you redundant. They showed no professional courtesy. Fuck them. Name and shame.
These cunts continue to do the rounds because no one ever outright calls these cunts out.
I’m not so angry about it. It was almost downright traumatic at the time, suddenly being unemployed but bluntly, I wasn’t a good fit for the job and I was thinking about quitting after the holidays anyways.
The biggest difference for me was that if I had quit of my own accord, I would have lined up a new job before I did, so the down time between jobs would have been minimal.
The CEO visiting and spouting the crap he did was probably the worst offense in my mind. I can’t say that he lied specifically, more like, intentionally misled the workers into a false sense of security. I never bought it and it was one of the minor factors in my decision to leave (even though I hadn’t fully committed to that decision yet). The biggest factor to depart for me was that the workload was very high and it was designed like a call center. About halfway through my employment there, which only lasted about a year, they changed cubicles (keeping in mind this happened maybe 6-10 months before the center had no workers), to increase worker density. They crammed us in and loaded us with more work than was reasonable. Most were at some stage of drowning, some were treading water, and only a handful were actually thriving in that environment. I was solidly on the “I’m drowning” side.
The reason why is easy to see. I’m a very detail oriented person, so I usually take a little more time to complete things than most of my counterparts. I also struggle with continually changing contexts that I’m working under. So being customer facing to a company with literally tens or hundreds of thousands of customers, the context was always different.
I didn’t handle all that very well. I would have been far better as an escalation resource, but at the time, I lacked the skillet to get that kind of position. That place taught me a lot… And the lessons learned are things I’ll never forget.
I’m now much happier in a senior support role for a much smaller company. It’s still customer facing (think managed service provider), but the scale is much less than what I experienced at that job. I’m not bitter and I don’t have prejudice towards the company, only that CEO who no longer works there. He’s now at a company that makes hardware, with a blue logo and a name that comes to mind when you say “CPU”. But you didn’t hear that from me.
I don’t understand why we can’t name and shame these days
Power. Respect for authorities.
You need to be hired somewhere else. The new company you apply at don’t know what actually happened, it’s all hearsay and bad employees may make shit up to get more pity or make them look less bad if they were fired for legit reasons. In the confusion they’ll want to defend their interest, and some may just be bad people to begin with.
And then there might be repercussions because they have more means than you do.
This is the unfortunate truth, I think you can debate how likely you are to encounter this kind of backlash for an anonymous comment on a random Lemmy post, but if you did it more publicly on like LinkedIn or something then definitely.
But we cut costs by 5% for the quarterly report and got a nice bonus for that. That’s all that counts, after all.
Line goes up!!
For my company, layoff season is traditionally Q4. I assume they do that so they can load all the expense in the year ending as a “one time” charge that they then subtract from the adjusted earnings, as if it never happened. And then do it again every year.
Unfortunately, starting last year in Q2, we seem to have moved to rolling layoffs. There’s a high likelihood that my team will be reorganized twice in 9 months (while still implementing the last round). That will also be the 3rd round of layoffs in 9 months. My boss thinks I’m safe in the next round, but I’m doubtful.
I’ve been in your shoes. I hope you are interviewing. Your boss will not tell you the truth, but what you need to hear.
We got 3 rounds in the last 12 months. At this rate I’m expecting another by March.
Layoff the C-Suites
'Tis the season to be layed off. Falalalalaaaa Falalalaaaa! 🎵 🎶 🎵 🎶
Not supported in the UK
It’s on Spotify, if that helps. https://open.spotify.com/episode/0JDqELjP3ylelBkXl7sgSY?si=3Yv0sl5PRo6Xu2f_lfqjMw
