this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
546 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
59340 readers
5747 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, this is a tactic used by lots of the large software companies when they want to raise the bottom, and phase out an aging workforce because saying the word "layoffs" affects share price. It also helps to reduce the salary demands of any incoming workers to replace the outgoing, because the baseline gets reset without having to justify why profits are high, but workers won't be getting any of that.
An example with Google in 2021-2022: tell all your middle-managers they'll need to do something unreasonable like relocate to keep their job, wait for some to leave, then put the rest on PIPs and promise their underlings they can apply for the soon-to-be vacant role if they keep up the good work. Effectively, Google only had to publicly acknowledge firing 12,000 employees, when closer to 20,000 were displaced for various reasons. It's a shitty shell game to keep the share price high, and force people who stick around to more work for less money.
I might get sick. This is so disgusting I can’t even. Thanks for pointing that out. As an entrepreneur, I always try to make it worth everyones time. Seeing stuff like this just makes me sad.
The "Win-Win" strategy is always the best strategy, long term.
Honestly, I agree that it’s the best strategy for all people involved but not one to retire with. I think our world is much too harsh to accept all people winning. So, while I‘m not willing to do the „fuck you I got mine“, I think that’s the way to make the home run.
I don't know, I retired with that. /shrug
It's only harsh because we don't help each other with the win-wins. Honestly, just think of a world where we all cooperating with each other 24/7, how that would look.
When everyone is fighting everyone then only a few benefit from that, usually the ones already at the top.
I appreciate your thoughts, I really do. But so far we have made different experiences and neither of us can prove that their theory is (the only) viable. I can tell you that I would have retired, had I not given back as much as I did, you‘re saying you actually did. Neither of us knows how much or little the other one actually did, how viable their strategy was to begin with and so on. I don’t see this going very far on that basis.
For what it's worth I'm not basing my opinions on your life experiences, but what I see everyone going through, and "The Human Condition", and how people are.
I believe you're being overly cynical, but I totally understand one's personal perspective can set that level of cynicism, as they go through life.