•

Google’s CEO faces employee questions about layoffs — “Why has there been such an extraordinary effort to limit the internal visibility of layoffs announcements?”

Google’s CEO faces employee questions about layoffs

https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/2/24059902/google-sundar-pichai-layoffs-tgif-employee-morale

Employees are mad about layoffs and what some perceive to be a rushed AI strategy.

Google’s CEO faces employee questions about layoffs — “Why has there been such an extraordinary effort to limit the internal visibility of layoffs announcements?”::During a recent TGIF all-hands meeting, Google CEO Sundar Pichai addressed what sources describe as a growing morale crisis inside the company.

66 comments

apfelwoiSchoppen

•

Each and every one of us deserves a union.

corsicanguppy

•

I'm in a union for my day job.

It's big. It's steeped in processes and safety checks, but it makes fewer mistakes and quietly wins.

Would recommend a union every day.

linearchaos

•

Each and every one of us deserves to work for a company that cares enough about its employees that they don't need a union.

That failing, we need protection from the companies we work for and the only viable opportunity at this point are in fact unions.

Edit: Jesus should I take it back and say that everyone deserves to work for a shithole company with no union protection? I said it would be fucking nice if companies could be nice but unions are needed for protection. Either you're all corporate boot flickers or you can't read for s***.

erwan

•

That's not how relations between employers and employees work.

It's like saying you don't need a democracy if the king cares enough about his subjects.

It might work for a time, but the power balance is such that you can't rely on the goodwill of leaders alone.

linearchaos

•

Believe it or not, there are jobs out there that do work that way. It's generally not in public corporations.

That's why I also said failing that we do need unions.

LeroyJenkins

•

he's not saying there aren't any companies that do right to their employees at this current moment. he's saying if left unchecked, it leaves room for somebody to come in and make it bad for everyone. that being said, we've already failed. we need union.

linearchaos

•

So is that significantly different for me saying it would be nice if we could do that but that feeling we need unions?

Blooper

•

It's different because you seem to be saying "workers should be able to be incredibly vulnerable to the whims of employers because employers should be good people". The other guy's response to that is "why would we ever assume employers are going to be good to their employees absent any mechanism to enforce said good behavior?"

linearchaos

•

I didn't say that at all.

Zink

•

Of course we all deserve that kind of employer! Unfortunately, the entire problem is that employers aren’t generally like that.

It’s like saying we shouldn’t need laws against murder if people would just stop the killing, or we shouldn’t have XYZ problems with youth if only the parents would do a good job, etc.

frezik

•

We should not base our decisions on the fact that a few companies are generous enough to treat their employees well. Those are exceptions, and will always be exceptions. Capitalism doesn't reward you for doing it beyond some good PR.

Sometimes, those companies aren't even as generous as it first appears, anyway.

BearOfaTime

•

No thanks.

I've been a member of 3. They made for adversarial relationships between management and employees, with union leadership banking our fees. They cause other problems, like you can't fire the slacker, so people abuse it, pushing the load onto us conscientious workers.

There are places for them, they aren't good for tech.

chakan2

•

Your relationship with management is always adversarial. They might put sugar and spice on it so you don't see it, but they are not your friend.

You sound like you've never been laid off.

frezik

•

Don't even have to be laid off to understand this. "You've asked for a 8% raise on the basis that you were promoted to a higher position last quarter and have been doing more work for the same pay, but we just can't swing 8% right now. But it's OK, we're all friends here. How about 4% instead?"

Son_of_dad

•

This reads like a note from a Stockholm syndrome survivor

tquid

•

The word is bootlicker. There are of course bad union leaders, and the cure is the same: organizing.

roofuskit

•

Yeah, unions are a democracy. If you don't like the leadership get off your ass.

frezik

•

Hell, syndicalists saw this problem over a century ago. They came up with a different solution, not finding how many boots needed tongue polishing.

GBU_28

•

Who organizes the organizers?

apfelwoiSchoppen

•

Agreed!

Edit - This bit is sarcasm but I guess it didn't read that way: Oh the obsequious, always finding excuses and a fall guy below. Management is never the problem and always has the best intentions.

LeroyJenkins

•

your unions are ass then if you see them that way. but you also don't bring up any of the useful things unions probably did for you behind the scenes. provide legal protection? contract negotiations? COLLECTIVE BARGAINING? hello?

frankspurplewings

•

Unions only work when union leadership is actually working for the betterment of the entire unit, rather than personal clout. I was in a union that ran well, protected employees, and had a great working relationship with management. Issues were handled efficiently and effectively with the contract in place. Then union leadership changed because a retiree rallied to become president, and the effective president stopped trying so hard because of it. So leadership changed and that union went downhill. Current leadership handles issues so poorly, nothing gets resolved and raises are not going to be as high as they could have been negotiated too. The current leadership values the provided lunches at the negotiation meetings over discussion of the actual topics, and working together to come to an agreement for everyone.

Another union I was a part of prior to that was for a big box wholesale store. I was sexually harassed in front of customers by another union member. The meetings were facilitated by management and the union. Management had my side on the issue, but the union advocated for the harasser due to years of service and seniority. They couldn't even guarantee I wouldn't work with him again. I eventually left that job, for multiple reasons, but a big one was that experience really broke me. I never felt comfortable working around that person and knowing that my voice would always be lesser compared to anyone who had just worked there longer.

GBU_28

•

You'll burn for this comment here.

five82

•

I’ve been working in tech for close to thirty years now mostly with larger tech and financial companies. For my parent’s and grandparent’s generation, you could reasonably expect lifetime employment at the same company. Work well and you’ll be treated well.

This started to change when I began working in the 90s and especially after the 2001 and 2008 recessions. Since then, it’s gotten much worse.

Companies don’t want to treat all employees well anymore, just their top talent that they want to retain. Who cares what the rest think because they’re transient anyway and won’t be around for more than a few years. Build around your top people and view the others as interchangeable parts.

Don’t bother investing in the rest of your employees. Just hire when needed, fire those you don’t like, who aren’t a good fit, and who are too old. Firing is one of their top tools if they want a quick cost reduction to boost their stock price.

Maintaining the upper hand of the employee/employer power dynamic is much more desirable than properly treating the people who work for you. If the employees don’t like it, they know where the door is. They’re replaceable anyway. That’s why employees have lost the RTO battles.

As an older worker, I despise how cutthroat the corporate world is now. I feel like I’m about to be tossed out with the trash.

porkchop

•

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but what’s stopping tech workers still at Google from unionizing?

lapping6596

•

I work in tech as well, and I think the biggest reason is workplace mobility. Working at Google famously makes it easy go get a new job.

When work has sucked for me, I went job hunting not trying to fix a broken system

corsicanguppy

•

Some situations look more favourable in the rearview, yes.

kurap1ka

•

Well everyone is being told they are special and top talent until they aren't. Then it's to late since there is a stigma attached and others don't want their shadow cast in them.

Ilflish

•

This is interesting because firings I've been involved with nearly always cut the important staff first because they make the most. The more valuable, the more you get paid and therefore the more you save when they go.

corsicanguppy

•

cut the important staff first

Tell us your management are idiots without using those words.

The "dead sea effect" is detailed as a thing to avoid; your management seems to want to wade in it.

Ilflish

•

I am, but also, this is at multiple reputable places so it's a trend more than just one shitty business. It could also just be companies are less likely to let people stay with them in good faith and it might be about new blood coming in to organise

Modern_medicine_isnt

•

I worked at a big company, after 16 years they let me and many of my coworkers go. I ended up at a late stage start up. They were starting to become more "corporate". Now I work at an early stage start up. They actually care. I am not sure I will ever take a job with a company that is publicly traded again.

kent_eh

•

My plan, if I leave the massive corporate entity I'm currently at is to find work at a place with 2 digit employee numbers.

Trying to get the right things done at a huge company makes government burocracy look like a model of efficiency.

aesthelete

•

Internally they're all like, "why can't we work like a startup?"...partially because of you, Mr. Senior VP of golden parachutes.

five82

•

Permanently Deleted

kayazere

•

“While answering a question about whether any executives had been laid off or had their compensation lowered, he said that, since rolling layoffs began this year, a “higher proportion of directors and VPs have been impacted than levels one through seven.” He also suggested that having to make the cuts is punishment itself. “Part of leadership is also making the tough decisions that are needed.”

Lol, if only the people being fired had someone to fire, then they could punished instead of fired.

phoneymouse

•

Sundar is not a good CEO

lolcatnip

•

But he gave everyone a few extra one-time days off!

Fungah

•

No joke, I think he should be tried for crimes against humanity for how he's lead the merciless sodomizing of of our access to actual information.

If found guilty then he should have a chance to walk out unscathed. Five obscure questions. One computer. One elaborate limb removal device.

For every obscure piece of information he can actually find the answer to within the first 100 pages of results (don't you wish the other pages were real now, you fucking sack of shit?) He loses a limb. If he can't find the info at least once, he gets to watch his limbs get cut off one before it's off with his head and into the nearest, largest sack pile of actual shit we can forget his worthless body parts in.

It would be on youtube and the special would be like 8 hours long. The ad revenue and their utter lack of a sould would keep the executives engaged enough to not repeat his mistakes.

isVeryLoud

•

Strange fetish, but I'll allow it.

bitwolf

•

It's likely that their bonuses are based on share price and the layoffs pumped them.

Same for every company following their playbook, including mine.

TheBat

•

As if Sundar gives a fuck.

Also I don't know if this counts as internalized racism but I think Indian CEOs are mostly yes men trying to implement as much rent seeking as possible. Adobe, Microsoft, Google. 3 major tech companies which have been heavily pushing subscriptions but haven't released any innovative product.

datendefekt

•

Being a bit closer to the C-Level of a larger company, I can assert that greed, lack of vision and jumping on bandwagons is not exclusive to one nationality.

TheBat

•

Yes but I feel like my countrymen are much more prone to people-pleasing (or in this case board-pleasing) because of our culture. We're just expected to bow to authority.

datendefekt

•

We're just expected to bow to authority.

Even if you're the authority yourself? Also: that sounds like a great place for con-men 🤔

TheBat

•

Even if you're the authority yourself?

CEOs like this let the board control them instead of convincing board members of their plans.

And yeah, great place for con-men, especially of the religious variety.

anus

•

Down-voting this without commenting is anti intellectual

Fudoshin

•

The anus has spoken.

lolcatnip

•

In general, no, it isn't. It's for comments that aren't worthy of a response. In your case, it's because of the racism.

anus

•

"that's racist" doesn't exactly take much effort

lolcatnip

•

If you're judging comments based mainly on how long they are, you should be grading high school essays about Jane Eyre, not trying to participate in an adult conversation.

anus

•

You missed the point. I'm saying that some comment is better than none to explain your position or rationality

nutsack

•

That's what all companies do. It's always a surprise, and it's done that way in order to control the situation. That's why when you quit, it should also be a surprise. Fuck them.

kayaven

•

Archived version: https://archive.is/jJAMw

HootinNHollerin

•

Don’t work for evil

sanqueue

•

We have so many laid off engineers that if they were to band together to form a company with all the knowledge they have, I’m sure they’ll be better than the company they worked for.

corsicanguppy

•

If Sundar can take Google and destroy it like this, can we find when he was on the apprentice or was that all deleted scenes?

flop_leash_973

•

Why do the employees bother asking him questions that they already know the answer to in the pit of their stomachs?

I hate to think so many in the field of tech could be so naive of the world around them.

lolcatnip

•

The same reason lawyers ask questions they know the answers to.

frezik

•

They aren't. When the answers are unsatisfying, as we know they will be, questions like this can be a precursor to convincing your coworkers to unionize.

corsicanguppy

•

could so naive

Did you a word?

flop_leash_973

•

That I did, lol. Corrected.

autotldr

•

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Happy Friday.

I’m coming to you with fresh reporting from inside Google, where I obtained audio of CEO Sundar Pichai addressing employee concerns about layoffs, the company’s AI strategy, and more.

All of that below, plus more on the “urgency” push by ByteDance’s CEO and my notes on Meta’s big week.

An archive of past issues is also available online.

If you aren’t already subscribed, sign up here to get future issues in your inbox.

The original article contains 75 words, the summary contains 75 words. Saved 0%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

OmanMkII

•

Wow that's the whole article? I guess the TL;DR is "pay me to find out literally anything"

1024_Kibibytes

•

I opened the link just to make sure. Yes, that is the entire "article". There are 3 links below it to pay them.

AnarchistArtificer

•

I can access the whole article, I don't think I have any anti-paywall stuff on this device either?

friend_of_satan

•

https://archive.li/jJAMw