-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Microsoft to lay off 'thousands' of employees
- Thread starter LordOfLore
- Start date
sloppyjoe_gamer
Gold Member
Have you been waiting all day to do that?
ghostofsparta
Member
this isn't the coal industry. There's many companies hiring, they'll be fine
This doesn't lessen the impact of the blow or make it suck any less. Just going,"Its about money/business/shareholders/etc." isn't really saying all that much.
boxoctosis
Member
Is (1) actually true though, or just received wisdom. This article suggests not;
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordeba...referer=https://www.google.co.uk/&nytmobile=0
KissDaRing
Banned
Or how much of an increased bonus they'll receive in the process....
You don't know much about corporate politics, do you?
What a beautiful human being.
ZSaberLink
Media Create Maven
Layoffs aren't based on performance. By law, they aren't ALLOWED to call it a layoff if it has ANYTHING to do with performance. It's at random. Some hotshots might be laid off as well if they are in the wrong orgs. However, usually at a large company like this, other orgs will pick up these laid-off folks since they already know the ins & outs of their company (in this case Microsoft). It's still not fun at all and kills morale.
Usually though a well-thought out layoff is because there's multiple employees doing the same work that should be consolidated into one. So they come up with specific roles that need to go. Given these folks work at Microsoft, I'm sure they'll be fine, but it's still really crappy whenever it happens.
Usually though a well-thought out layoff is because there's multiple employees doing the same work that should be consolidated into one. So they come up with specific roles that need to go. Given these folks work at Microsoft, I'm sure they'll be fine, but it's still really crappy whenever it happens.
sixteen-bit
Member
I hope everyone lands on their feet.
Hari Seldon
Member
The problem with layoffs is that it destroys recruiting if you are a company that has to compete for employees.
Ziltoidia 9
Member
And here lies the main reason the top 1% continues to take in all the new wealth. They make it to where most people can't even be involved in the stock market by having everyone live paycheck to paycheck. Then when each quarter comes around, if they don't have potential for profit, gotta cut people!
KernelPanic
Member
Your continued employment is a problem for your employer.
If they haven't replaced you by outsourcing or automation it's not for lack of trying.
If they haven't replaced you by outsourcing or automation it's not for lack of trying.
Spaced Harrier
Member
They definitely are based on performance, at least in smaller companies, in my experience. Of course the company won't admit it though.
The Jackdog
Member
blame the system, thats how its set up, not the company
beato_angelico
Member
are we already down to personal insults?
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
that's their job.
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
I think Iwata's position of not firing people to improve the bottom line in a difficult situation was indeed a wise business decision. He noted, that people fearing for their jobs cannot do creative work well. I think that this was a very wise stance and one that helped Nintendo in regaining its footing with Switch, by ensuring development could continue swiftly. Even in non-creative fields I think this view is a very good one to take and it has nothing to do with charity: People who are working in fear, will be less productive. Of course, sometimes it cannot be helped, but this is most likely not the case with Microsoft.
Ziltoidia 9
Member
The system was set up by their ilk so they could do it.
Fucking A bro.
Large transnational companies should have no corporate responsibility or social accountability.
Mass layoffs are specifically a symptom of publically traded companies that live quarter to quarter, because HR is the easiest number to change to make the numbers look better for the next report.
It's also why I'll never make any company I own publically traded. Fuck the generic investment widget mentality of wall street.
Your point is bullshit when you factor the discrepancy between executive salaries and regular joes.
Randolph Freelander
Member
Executive salaries are a worthy topic of discussion. Certainly, when rank and file pay goes up a standard 2% across the board, then a shareholder should expect an executive to live within the same reality. However, that's a separate discussion from what to do with people you could actually operate without.
If a company the size of Microsoft can trim just 5000 jobs paying an average of 50,000 per year in salaries and benefits, that's an annual savings of 250 million. More jobs and/or a higher average compensation package, and the savings increase. If a company can do it and operate at the same or higher level of ongoing profitability, a company should do it.
ridiculous first post.
cpp_is_king
Member
I asked on the previous page, I'll ask again. Suppose a company wants to change direction and do things differently than before, and as a result they want to stop doing X. What should they do with all the people currently doing X? Put them in the boredom room? There's literally nothing for them to do.
They all get decent severance packages and since these are highly skilled workers, and not laborers, many (most?) will likely find new jobs before their severance even runs out.
I agree they should have some social accountability, but "being forced to pay people to do nothing, or do work that isn't in their skill set" doesn't seem to fall in that category.
titiklabingapat
Member
And this where where regulation should come in to ensure a healthier labor market and larger economy as a whole. This 'maximize shareholder interest no matter what' mindset is extremely toxic, as we have seen in the last decade or two.
JeTmAn81
Member
Stakeholders
The Albatross
Member
Marketing automation has significant changed the need for in-house marketing. Organizations like Microsoft still, likely, employee a thousand people in the marketing department, but what used to be done inhouse is now usually done using platforms and vendors like Hubspot or Salesforce for sales and marketing automation.
Do you think that energy companies transitioning from coal or oil to renewables have a corporate responsibility to keep the coal sector going at the same rate as 30 years ago? Some roles are transferable, most aren't. When Volvo transitions from gas-driven vehicles to electric in 2 years, as we all lauded them yesterday for making that announcement, they're not going to be working with the same contractors and vendors who have made their gas-driven engines for the last 40 years. Those vendors are either going to chase different markets or develop different products. Markets change, products change. A product that might have seemed important to Microsoft 10 years ago, like smartphones, is not part of their business strategy today. A product that didn't exist for Microsoft 10 years ago, like cloud infrastructure, is now one of their most successful products.
Microsoft was able to hire these employees 2, 5, or 10 years ago because they were able to adapt 2, 5, or 10 years ago for these roles. Meanwhile, the hundreds of thousands of silicon valley companies from the 80s and 90s who weren't willing to change their business quickly fired all of their employees.
It would be great if the Whaling industry could persist to this day, and a generation of whalers could trust that their children would be whalers, and their children's children would be whalers... But eventually, whaling jobs changed and it wasn't possible for companies to contract and employ whalers.
No one is debating that fact, but it doesn't make it any better. It's the crux of the problem. The notion that there is no middle ground between a "charity" and a completely imbalanced distribution of wages and opportunity is also ridiculous.
The Jackdog
Member
Randolph Freelander
Member
Clippy.
The Albatross
Member
You realize that Microsoft engineers and employees in North America are well paid, the company has very high marks for work-life balance, and it provides great benefits to its employees....... paid vacation, good health insurance, severance packages, and the benefit of having Microsoft on your resume (which goes a very long way in the industry)?
This is the middle ground. Microsoft employs ~130,000 people, they're laying off several thousand. It stinks that they have to cut thousands of positions, it would be great if you could develop a new product and 100% of people that work on the old product can transition over to the new one, but that's not how business works... People have skills that might apply to one product, but not another, or one skill that was very valuable 10 years ago (print marketing designer or Higher Education sales specialist), might not be as applicable. While every company would like to keep on every employee they've hired (trust me, no company wants to layoff or fire employees), it's not like these people are being thrown to the rats to starve in the streets or that some cigar-smoking Microsoft magnate is firing these employees so that he can build a bed made of solid gold. This isn't imbalance distribution of wages or opportunity. Microsoft is a desirable company to work for because they pay their employees very well and it's a good place to work.
There's a lot of inequality in the world and in the United States, but if you're working at Microsoft, in North America, you're generally in the upper economic piece of the pie.
This is true of companies like Enron, but, generally, not Microsoft. I'm a software developer that works for a biggish software corporation, and Microsoft is a very desirable company to work for. Microsoft professionals in North America are paid well by industry standards (and the industry standards are good ones) and they receive good stock options.
There are some significant criticisms of working at Microsoft, like the annual review system which is common in the industry but Microsoft's is notoriously strict), but pay, stock options, and firing people to maintain a stock price is not one of them. If it was, nobody would go to work for Microsoft.
MagnaderAlpha
Member
Thanks Trump.
Pizza con salsiccia
Banned
Exactly, this is just a common occurrence in big businesses like this one.
Most of those that get layed off should be able to find something else quickly, thanks to the experience acquired with a tech giant, right?
What's that got to do with him?
Auto-Reply
Member
This is just how business works, you're losing money? Cut jobs!
You're gaining a hefty profit? Cut jobs!
...
You're gaining a hefty profit? Cut jobs!
...
LinkAndEpona
Banned
That sucks, maybe they should work on making Windows 10 more tolerable.
Ziltoidia 9
Member
I said "and their ilk."
Everything! When Obama was president everything was his fault, now it's Trump's. That's the way it goes.
Sky Interloper
Member
It's not completely surprising. Microsoft has been in a flux since Nadella took over, and the Azure/Office 365/WaaS combo is rapidly changing the main sources of income (and the focus) of the company. The old sales paradigm is not entirely compatible with the new subscription-based services that MS is pushing forward, it's no wonder that they are cutting unneeded positions there.
Same.
Sad it took so long to see this sentiment expressed, but the corporate apologists were in like a shot.
Apple is much more streamlined. They are basically a iPhone company. All their money is made from the hardware of phones.