Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Famous-Ebb5617 t1_j5yrs0r wrote

Reply to comment by Sushrit_Lawliet in IBM Cuts 3,900 Jobs In Latest Tech Layoffs by itsonlyeva

Are you suggesting, that if a division within a company is not successful or a group is overstaffed, a company should not fix their business plan?

5

Sushrit_Lawliet t1_j5zhpwd wrote

Let’s face it. Maybe what you said applies to a few tech companies, but the scale on which most companies are laying off and the kind of employees they’re choosing. It’s literally to appease the shareholders and little to do with the teams or products they’re on themselves.

3

Famous-Ebb5617 t1_j5zv8j3 wrote

But you should think about that for a moment. Why would this appease shareholders? Do you think they just get off on companies firing people? Or do you think maybe it has to do with a cost/benefit analysis? Microsoft didn't destroy their VR/AR team for fun, they did it because financially it wasn't paying off. Same for Amazon's Alexa/Devices division. 'Appeasing shareholders' is another way of saying downsizing areas with low ROI, which is exactly what a healthy business should be doing.

3

GBreezy t1_j5zpumm wrote

Can you add sources to this? That these people are doing something meaningful?

2

Sushrit_Lawliet t1_j5zq2c4 wrote

Just Google, about companies firing employees who did well with their performance reviews, and the kind of teams most got laid off from. There’s haphazard patterns everywhere almost like they played a game of roulette in some cases.

1

GBreezy t1_j5zsal6 wrote

Just google is not a source. And is the source of "did well in their performance review" from the employees themselves. Sounds just like how everyone in prison is innocent. And even if they did well, they were on the wrong team and their are equally as talented people on the other teams. Just because I hired the neighborhood kid to mow my lawn once doesn't mean I am now obligated to employ him even though I do it myself.

2