An effective strategy to avoid layoffs at European offices is to cause just enough friction to get HR to give up and divert the firing to lower-rights countries (i.e. USA).
There's a short-term effect there that might be positive, but a long-term effect that would be negative.
There's a reason that a lot of companies won't hire in France or other specific locales where the difficulty in getting out of an employment relationship is so high that it makes it undesirable to get into that relationship in the first place.
Google wasn’t able to layoff anyone in France. What a great win, right?
Well. Once they decide they need to close off a site, where do you think France will be on that list? Or if things are going good and they want to hire an additional 5K engineers, do you think France is a good candidate?
All of this ultimately leads to fewer jobs and lower wages. Just look at tech wages in France.
When you sabotage doing business in your country, you’re shooting yourself in the foot.
In the UK, there is nothing they can do against layoffs.
The only thing is that if the planned layoffs impact more than 20 people (from memory) there must be a consultation. This only makes the process one month longer.
I am also expecting that Google is paying more than the legal minimum to laid off people, which is really the only thing worth trying to negotiate.
Having been involved finances at a multi-national, i doubt this works.
Each country is it’s own free standing company with it’s own P&L. And combined profit is what rolls up into annual reports.
I highly doubt a company like Google would let a country ride with poor profit dragging down earnings per share.
And on top, they arent going to risk US revenue (likely several multiples of most countries in Europe) by firing people they actually need just to avoid laying people off in another country.
It’s cheaper to just do the bare minimum of whatever the country requires for lay offs and be more careful hiring next time to avoid layoffs in the future.
> "It has been difficult for those involved. We have a redundancy process for a reason, so that employees can make their voice heard," they said. "But it feels as if our concerns have fallen on deaf ears."
They’re doing layoffs. In what scenario does negative feedback from employees change the minds of management? “Oh shit we didn’t know this negatively impacted you all. My bad.”
There have been several layers to the criticism. The first is roughly why does a company with many billions in the bank need to lay off anyone. However, assuming that layoffs do need to happen, there has been a lot more criticism of how they were conducted.
In the UK there is, in summary, a right to a fair process – where _roles_ are eliminated, not _people_. That when there aren't enough roles for the people left, they are selected for layoffs in a fair way with transparency on how choices were made. And finally, that when someone is laid off, that they are treated with respect and, for example, allowed legal representation in their meetings with the company.
Unfortunately there have been issues with all of these steps in the UK redundancy process. I don't want to go into detail in public, but there are multiple, very specific points on which employees feel that necessary standards have not been met.
> The first is roughly why does a company with many billions in the bank need to lay off anyone.
I suppose for the same reason as even if you have money in the bank I'm sure that you don't keep subscriptions and running costs that you've determined are no use to you or you think are not worth it.
> The first is roughly why does a company with many billions in the bank need to lay off anyone.
This shows an utter misunderstanding of how businesses or finances of any kind work and would completely discredit anyone who tried to use it as an argument.
> why does a company with many billions in the bank need to lay off anyone
At big tech, efficiency matters more than people. It has always been the case, but it's more exacerbated lately. Google know they will probably never take Apple's #1 spot, but they want to get as close as possible.
You’re right. This should be a teaching moment for innovative tech companies, to avoid growing a physical presence in most of Europe as much as possible. These employees will rarely be a source of innovation or high performance for the company. And contrary to reason, all the advanced social benefits somehow end up being a vine strangling your ability to compete than the ideal that frees you from worrying about basic needs in pursuit of higher goals.
It really depends though, if you work anywhere for less than two years, they can basically fire you (as a person) for no reason at any time.
It's only after two years of continuous employment that you gain more rights.
> In the UK there is, in summary, a right to a fair process – where _roles_ are eliminated, not _people_. That when there aren't enough roles for the people left, they are selected for layoffs in a fair way with transparency on how choices were made.
So go to court? I highly doubt Google is susceptible to a walk out or a strike.
It isn't negative feedback. It is an organized process established in the UK for handling layoffs. The UK workers didn't just say "don't fire us." They offered a ton of different options that, based on actual data, would have produced the same savings as the proposed layoffs. These included things like voluntary layoffs. All of these proposals were rejected.
It sucks to have a corporation say "okay we'll have a discussion and come to a solution that achieves our goals while also maximizing your goals" and then turn around and say "nah, we are just going to do it our way with no changes."
In the US there are little protections so the company just gets to say "you are all fired" but the policies are supposed to be different in some other countries. Since the end result was that Google just picks however they want it feels like crap that the UK folks had to wait 2.5 months to figure out who was going to be fired with no influence at all in the process.
>The UK workers didn't just say "don't fire us." They offered a ton of different options that, based on actual data, would have produced the same savings as the proposed layoffs. These included things like voluntary layoffs. All of these proposals were rejected.
What were the specific list of proposals? The only one you mentioned (voluntary layoffs) is a bad idea because it leads the most talented people to leave.
> It isn't negative feedback. It is an organized process established in the UK for handling layoffs.
The “it”s you are referencing here are different things. There is a formal process. And employees did give negative feedback.
I was never suggesting the formal process is negative feedback. In fact that seems non-sensical which makes me wonder how you thought that I thought that made sense. It seems like a lazy dismissal, quite frankly. In what way could someone think an overarching policy is negative feedback on a particular event?
There's a specific process: https://www.gov.uk/redundancy-your-rights/consultation - plenty of opportunities for disputes to arise. We can trust the union will want to make a fuss, and Google will want the opposite, but the article is a bit light on details.
I can't imagine many development staff would be in a union? - though maybe some are. And even if not, some might be sympathetic if Google are being a bit careless about their legal obligations to the people being made redundant.
Working in the UK you come to realize, these feedback processes and their denial, are both usually expected and part and parcel of the negotiation dance.
Earning wages way above average does do that to some people.
In my home country I'd estimate 3/4 tech workers are completely out of touch with the harsh reality most people live in, and because of this, nobody will shed a tear for highly paid tech workers loosing their jobs.
>Sundar Pichai previously said he takes "full responsibility" for the decisions which lead to mass layoffs, and has now been accused of hiring sprees for "vanity".
The same way CEOs say "I take personal responsibility for this layoff". Thoughts and prayers.
What else do people think taking full responsibility means? It doesn’t mean they can somehow prevent the action they are taking responsibility for, nor does it mean they are going to inflict some symbolic hardship on themselves in response.
It basically just means “I deserve the blame.” To which people puzzlingly reply as if they are trying to escape blame.
Why? This is basic capitalism, every party cares about their interests. On one side you have companies laying off people to increase profits (some of them have billions in their account), on the other side people walking out to prevent future scenarios for their own interest
> In what scenario does negative feedback from employees change the minds of management? “Oh shit we didn’t know this negatively impacted you all. My bad.”
Imagine a scenario where everyone walks out from that company, would it change the mind of management?
Being in the USA my whole life, I was curious what they meant by "redundancy process", if there were laws in the UK governing layoffs that we might not be used to in free-for-all USA.
But here's all I found, from [1], basically:
> Your employer needs to show they have a redundancy process. They can decide what the process is, but it should always include a meeting with you to talk about:
> * why you’re being made redundant
> * the next steps in their process
> …Your employer’s process has to explain: how they’ll choose people for redundancy; how long the decision will take; what meetings you can go to and when; how you can appeal if you’re chosen for redundancy…
> …You should get invited to at least 1 meeting between you and your employer. Your meeting should happen before your employer has made their final decision about who will be made redundant…
> …You might be able to challenge your redundancy by making a claim for ‘unfair dismissal’ if your employer hasn’t told you these things
That, which is apparently legally required, is definitely not something that is guaranteed to happen in the USA, or really probably ever happens quite like that. (internal appeals process for a layoff? Unheard of in the USA).
I don't know if this law was followed or not by Google; or if this website I found is completely accureate, or if there are additional UK customary practices we should know about. (The OP article was not great, actual reporting would be including something on if Google broke the UK law or not). Perhaps someone from the UK could give us some context? But it doesn't seem like "these people are out of touch", it seems like possibly the commenter is out of touch with law and practice in the UK (and Europe)?
I suppose someone, perhaps the person I'm replying to, could say, who cares about this process, what difference does it make, in the end the employer still gets to lay off who they want, their decision, nothing in that process needs to change their minds, and people still won't be happy.
That may be; I'm still curious for a report from a worker in the UK of how this works out in practice.
I could see that process making people feel like they had a bit more dignity even when getting laid off, which is not nothing.
In general, I agree with the workers that it would be better if the decision of who to layoff is not solely the employers, but the employees actually do have a say in it. The legal process above is not necessarily that. To get that, you usually need a union, and this is one of the things union contracts often cover.
Instead of 'walking out', how about they get a new job? Thats the ultimate form of protest. Google employees have been told for years that they are the smartest people in the world. The puff pieces on Business Insider and major news outlets saying its harder to get a job at NASA or get accepted into MIT have really inflated these peoples egos. Lots of normal and low ego people at Google, but the place certainly radiates snobbery.
This is a ridiculous thing to say when the market will be saturated since all companies are letting people go.
They are walking out because unlike the US there is a process to this, the company is supposed to listen when it's employees make alternative suggestions to save costs.
The story behind the Google employees’ strike is not so much about whether they will lose their jobs or not, but about their anger at the management that refuses to listen to anything they have to say.
It seems the primary complaint is that Google is having one-on-one meetings and not allowing employees to have a union representative with them, or any support person at all unless they have a doctors note.
There's other complaints as well around how the company is handling reimbursement of legal expenses for laid off employees who want to get legal advice before signing the settlement agreement.
It's strange to see US based workers to bash on Europe based workers who push back for their rights. Even if you don't see any "rights" to fight back, isn't it to your own benefit that someone else is fighting for more rights/better conditions? Why would you sit back and accept to be the scapegoat for conditions that you didn't cause or you didn't have any say over at the first place? The companies are laying of people, because? They are not earning as much as someone says so, while sitting on cash reserves?
You have the head of cyber security making almost 1/2 as much as many CS grads right out of college.
People can and will say they want more rights... but if that were _really_ true you would see tons of tech workers breaking down the door to get into Europe. As it stands, the complete opposite is happening.
How is that at all related? US paying more is not mutually exclusive to people in Europe to fight for better conditions/their rights? Do you consider this to cause US to pay less and in turn lost income?
Sorry to break it to you, but it's already happening and not at all related to what happens in Europe, but to US's own incompetency on responsible economics.
Yes but that role you link to will open up a lot of doors, revolving doors as they say. Also does the UK have paid speaking engagements like the US does?
No, that is not to my benefit. As a US based employee I would generally rather have fewer employment rights. While this might increase my risk of getting laid off, this also makes it easier to find a new job. Employers are more likely to hire me if they know they're not being locked into a long term commitment. And greater labor flexibility increases the average economic growth rate; a rising tide lifts all boats.
The amount of cash reserves is entirely irrelevant. Why would shareholders want to waste that capital on unnecessary employees when it could be invested in growth projects or returned as a dividend?
I’ve heard it described as “Americans think of themselves as temporary poor future billionaires”. Not all Americans, but this is why you see so many simping for the rich even when its not in their own interests.
That is their right, of course. Could this be a sign that it is tough in the SWE job market at the moment?! Usually moving on from Google would have been a non-issue to find a new job.
>Could this be a sign that it is tough in the SWE job market at the moment?!
No. There's plenty of companies hiring everywhere. SWEs will not be unemployed.
It's probably tough only if you expect to still make post-pandemic boom Google TC and perks at Google WLB.
Which is why it's wise to avoid lifestyle inflation. If you ever land a lucrative job during a boom, don't expect it to last forever and start buying Ferraris and max out your loans. Be humble and wise with your spending so you can whither any storm.
I don't think so. The article says that this about the union being ignored. At this point it seems like a European ethos vs American. The Europeans are standing up for the collective right unions. It think this gets lost on Americans.
I think this only scratches the surface. China has a social credit system. Who's to say that these major corporations do not have a employee rating system? Speak out about layoffs? Your rating goes down. Agree to come back to the office? Your rating goes up.
How much longer before these types of internal valuations work their way into a database for other companies can see?
Take it one step further: what if you apply for a job, and that job knew that you had walked out in protest at your last job, organized to create a union, or maybe refused to come back to the office because you wanted to work from home.
What impact would that knowledge have on your chances of gainful employment?
Mortgage underwriters could also consider one's activism as a contributor of credit risk and decide not to lend to them. They may be more likely to lose their job, falling into arrears.
Readit News
There's a reason that a lot of companies won't hire in France or other specific locales where the difficulty in getting out of an employment relationship is so high that it makes it undesirable to get into that relationship in the first place.
Google wasn’t able to layoff anyone in France. What a great win, right?
Well. Once they decide they need to close off a site, where do you think France will be on that list? Or if things are going good and they want to hire an additional 5K engineers, do you think France is a good candidate?
All of this ultimately leads to fewer jobs and lower wages. Just look at tech wages in France.
When you sabotage doing business in your country, you’re shooting yourself in the foot.
The only thing is that if the planned layoffs impact more than 20 people (from memory) there must be a consultation. This only makes the process one month longer.
I am also expecting that Google is paying more than the legal minimum to laid off people, which is really the only thing worth trying to negotiate.
Each country is it’s own free standing company with it’s own P&L. And combined profit is what rolls up into annual reports.
I highly doubt a company like Google would let a country ride with poor profit dragging down earnings per share.
And on top, they arent going to risk US revenue (likely several multiples of most countries in Europe) by firing people they actually need just to avoid laying people off in another country.
It’s cheaper to just do the bare minimum of whatever the country requires for lay offs and be more careful hiring next time to avoid layoffs in the future.
1. An executive’s or senior director’s résumé fodder
2. GDPR compliance
Innovation is attracted to free and efficient markets.
> "It has been difficult for those involved. We have a redundancy process for a reason, so that employees can make their voice heard," they said. "But it feels as if our concerns have fallen on deaf ears."
They’re doing layoffs. In what scenario does negative feedback from employees change the minds of management? “Oh shit we didn’t know this negatively impacted you all. My bad.”
In the UK there is, in summary, a right to a fair process – where _roles_ are eliminated, not _people_. That when there aren't enough roles for the people left, they are selected for layoffs in a fair way with transparency on how choices were made. And finally, that when someone is laid off, that they are treated with respect and, for example, allowed legal representation in their meetings with the company.
Unfortunately there have been issues with all of these steps in the UK redundancy process. I don't want to go into detail in public, but there are multiple, very specific points on which employees feel that necessary standards have not been met.
because it's a for-profit company, not a jobs program.
I suppose for the same reason as even if you have money in the bank I'm sure that you don't keep subscriptions and running costs that you've determined are no use to you or you think are not worth it.
This shows an utter misunderstanding of how businesses or finances of any kind work and would completely discredit anyone who tried to use it as an argument.
At big tech, efficiency matters more than people. It has always been the case, but it's more exacerbated lately. Google know they will probably never take Apple's #1 spot, but they want to get as close as possible.
Sorry I implied your job isn’t a human right guaranteed for life.
So go to court? I highly doubt Google is susceptible to a walk out or a strike.
It sucks to have a corporation say "okay we'll have a discussion and come to a solution that achieves our goals while also maximizing your goals" and then turn around and say "nah, we are just going to do it our way with no changes."
In the US there are little protections so the company just gets to say "you are all fired" but the policies are supposed to be different in some other countries. Since the end result was that Google just picks however they want it feels like crap that the UK folks had to wait 2.5 months to figure out who was going to be fired with no influence at all in the process.
What were the specific list of proposals? The only one you mentioned (voluntary layoffs) is a bad idea because it leads the most talented people to leave.
The “it”s you are referencing here are different things. There is a formal process. And employees did give negative feedback.
I was never suggesting the formal process is negative feedback. In fact that seems non-sensical which makes me wonder how you thought that I thought that made sense. It seems like a lazy dismissal, quite frankly. In what way could someone think an overarching policy is negative feedback on a particular event?
I can't imagine many development staff would be in a union? - though maybe some are. And even if not, some might be sympathetic if Google are being a bit careless about their legal obligations to the people being made redundant.
Of course, the companies just pay lip service to this.
Earning wages way above average does do that to some people.
In my home country I'd estimate 3/4 tech workers are completely out of touch with the harsh reality most people live in, and because of this, nobody will shed a tear for highly paid tech workers loosing their jobs.
They'll be fine though, they'll find other jobs.
The same way CEOs say "I take personal responsibility for this layoff". Thoughts and prayers.
It basically just means “I deserve the blame.” To which people puzzlingly reply as if they are trying to escape blame.
While ultimately hollow, we have far more robust employment laws than US counterparts.
Legally mandated advice, negotiatations, worker councils and voting are all things i've experienced in my short time being de-employed constantly
Deleted Comment
Why? This is basic capitalism, every party cares about their interests. On one side you have companies laying off people to increase profits (some of them have billions in their account), on the other side people walking out to prevent future scenarios for their own interest
> In what scenario does negative feedback from employees change the minds of management? “Oh shit we didn’t know this negatively impacted you all. My bad.”
Imagine a scenario where everyone walks out from that company, would it change the mind of management?
In no scenario this will happen. People have competing interests, and very few actually care what happens job-wise to his/her colleague.
Expects Google to do things differently… out of touch. For the exact reason you cite - Google will act out its best interest.
But here's all I found, from [1], basically:
> Your employer needs to show they have a redundancy process. They can decide what the process is, but it should always include a meeting with you to talk about:
> * why you’re being made redundant
> * the next steps in their process
> …Your employer’s process has to explain: how they’ll choose people for redundancy; how long the decision will take; what meetings you can go to and when; how you can appeal if you’re chosen for redundancy…
> …You should get invited to at least 1 meeting between you and your employer. Your meeting should happen before your employer has made their final decision about who will be made redundant…
> …You might be able to challenge your redundancy by making a claim for ‘unfair dismissal’ if your employer hasn’t told you these things
That, which is apparently legally required, is definitely not something that is guaranteed to happen in the USA, or really probably ever happens quite like that. (internal appeals process for a layoff? Unheard of in the USA).
I don't know if this law was followed or not by Google; or if this website I found is completely accureate, or if there are additional UK customary practices we should know about. (The OP article was not great, actual reporting would be including something on if Google broke the UK law or not). Perhaps someone from the UK could give us some context? But it doesn't seem like "these people are out of touch", it seems like possibly the commenter is out of touch with law and practice in the UK (and Europe)?
I suppose someone, perhaps the person I'm replying to, could say, who cares about this process, what difference does it make, in the end the employer still gets to lay off who they want, their decision, nothing in that process needs to change their minds, and people still won't be happy.
That may be; I'm still curious for a report from a worker in the UK of how this works out in practice.
I could see that process making people feel like they had a bit more dignity even when getting laid off, which is not nothing.
In general, I agree with the workers that it would be better if the decision of who to layoff is not solely the employers, but the employees actually do have a say in it. The legal process above is not necessarily that. To get that, you usually need a union, and this is one of the things union contracts often cover.
[1] https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/redundancy/check-your...
They are walking out because unlike the US there is a process to this, the company is supposed to listen when it's employees make alternative suggestions to save costs.
It seems the primary complaint is that Google is having one-on-one meetings and not allowing employees to have a union representative with them, or any support person at all unless they have a doctors note.
There's other complaints as well around how the company is handling reimbursement of legal expenses for laid off employees who want to get legal advice before signing the settlement agreement.
https://jobs.theguardian.com/job/8512191/head-of-cyber-secur...
You have the head of cyber security making almost 1/2 as much as many CS grads right out of college.
People can and will say they want more rights... but if that were _really_ true you would see tons of tech workers breaking down the door to get into Europe. As it stands, the complete opposite is happening.
This sounds like an assumption based firmly in the American value system. This part is often missed:
> 25 days annual leave (rising to 30 after 5 years), plus 8 public holidays and the King’s birthday
Anyway comparing a government job to big tech isn't fair. It is big tech salaries that are unusual, not the other way around.
Sorry to break it to you, but it's already happening and not at all related to what happens in Europe, but to US's own incompetency on responsible economics.
The amount of cash reserves is entirely irrelevant. Why would shareholders want to waste that capital on unnecessary employees when it could be invested in growth projects or returned as a dividend?
It is not in our interest to emulate Europe when it comes to tech.
Deleted Comment
No. There's plenty of companies hiring everywhere. SWEs will not be unemployed.
It's probably tough only if you expect to still make post-pandemic boom Google TC and perks at Google WLB.
Which is why it's wise to avoid lifestyle inflation. If you ever land a lucrative job during a boom, don't expect it to last forever and start buying Ferraris and max out your loans. Be humble and wise with your spending so you can whither any storm.
Definitely easier said than done in today’s economy, however.
How much longer before these types of internal valuations work their way into a database for other companies can see?
Take it one step further: what if you apply for a job, and that job knew that you had walked out in protest at your last job, organized to create a union, or maybe refused to come back to the office because you wanted to work from home.
What impact would that knowledge have on your chances of gainful employment?
Corporations can cancel people too...