[Small Bot]

My professional life has been unique in the sense that I've been laid off early in my career AND being in a specific area of HR, I've facilitated restructuring to lay off colleagues in batches across three different companies post that. So, I've been on both sides of the table, so to speak.

My own exit (in a US-based KPO) was like this: Resign by yourself on this blank sheet, or take this immediate-effect termination letter with just the notice pay (that company did not have the concept of severance pay in their Indian division back then). I chose the resignation so that I could hand over stuff smoothly, concoct a story that I have some personal issues so I've resigned, serve out my notice, and then leave with my pride intact. If given that choice today, I'd probably choose differently.

I keep quoting my own experience to educate business leaders that when you are given the order to layoff a set of employees, you don't have any choice but to follow the directive. But you do have the option of doing it respectfully and afford the colleagues some dignity.

I explain my experiences and tell them to have a face to face conversation with each employee no matter how many there are, communicate the decision honestly and in totality, and then inform the employee what all they are entitled to, before wishing them the best, and ensuring that they get the post-exit benefits like outplacement services. And that is not even best-practice, it's the bare minimum that several companies quoted in earlier posts should do.

These days, I work with countries that insist on Unions being involved in a long consultation process before any redundancies could be enacted - like the UK. Things get more complex when the organisation has to let go of staff in even more highly protected labour environments like China, several European countries like Poland etc - you cannot just waltz in and enact a redundancy, the labour department would swarm around you like kittens over treats. The US has almost no equivalent labour protection like that.

[GutsyGibbon]

Originally Posted by Turbohead

Valuable lesson to the youngsters honestly- take a leap of faith and make it when you can but ensure you're hedged to deal with the inevitable. A balance of both is key to survive and thrive in the present day economy.

I am also surprised with the comments on LinkedIn stating that lay offs are unethical.

As stockholders colleagues are conditioned to think - if it's not illegal, it may not be unethical, or necessary evil. Irresponsible, yes. Why were these corporations hiring by the thousands all the way up until they announced the layoffs? I have known people making $500k jump ships to accept $750k or a $M. This is per year, now they lost out on the RSU they had, and they need to start from scratch. Much much worse for people on a Visa in the US.

It's easy to say that they should have expected it, but we are conditioned to think we are worth it. What makes sense is to not get carried away and live within 25% (random number, i mean much less) of income. Even when debt free, living paycheck to paycheck is like playing with fire, when the paycheck seems to be multiplying.

Sure, boycotting corporations is not feasible, but they need some regulations. They keep harping about skill shortage of millions, next week they have thousands of top performers in excess. Even highly paid people are humans, and deserve policies that are humane. Only regulation will give this, faceless corporations on their own will never do this on their own.

Remember, colleagues with RSUs are also miniscule owners of the company, they will secretly side with what suits them.

[Ranabegins]

I myself work in the US staffing industry and in the past year I noticed a huge change in the market. There were suddenly too many opportunities and people were asking for ridiculous amounts of salary. Some people got paid even 50-100% higher when they switched their jobs. I was sure that this is going to come to an end as companies can not afford to hire so many people at such high salaries. These layoffs will lead to a domino effect and I have a feeling that the worst is yet to come.

[m8002?]

Originally Posted by gopalnt

My understanding is that most of the layoffs from big companies are because they hired too many people between 2021 and 2022. And that was because there were too many resignations and that was because people were getting 100% to 300% hike somewhere else, so companies had to hire many more people to soften the attrition. Except for Facebook (which invested too much in Meta) and Amazon (who were making losses in Alexa and in other 2-3 products) all other companies had too many people as their problem. They hired too many people in anticipation of attrition, but the recession (or the fear of recession) resulted in job market getting dry and resignations stopped. Now they have too many people than they actually require.

Aren't the execs in these companies paid millions of dollars exactly to foresee and act on these projections. If they panic and react like a newbie, then why pay them the crazy salaries? Whats the point in taking "full responsibility" and taking home a few "more" million dollars in bonus since you increased the share price and struck to the bottom line?

Like someone mentioned earlier, the pendulum has swung fully to the other side now. But the sad part is when the layoffs come, they don't differentiate between the job hopper who changed jobs every 6 months and the loyal employee who slogged for 6 or 16 years in the same company.

To me the ideal case would be like below:

Employees : Stay atleast for a couple of years learning the ropes and contributing to the team. I reject anyone who has stayed less than a year in 2 companies.

Employers : Retrenching is fine if you are under loss. But hiring in one quarter and firing in the next with an "apology" especially when you are still making large profits doesn't sound good.

[deehunk]

Originally Posted by m8002?

Aren't the execs in these companies paid millions of dollars exactly to foresee and act on these projections. If they panic and react like a newbie, then why pay them the crazy salaries?

What is the contribution of Sundar Pichai to the growth of Google, if so is he also not equally responsible for the present situation? Google is just for example, there was so much hype created about Data Analysts in the last decade, did their prediction fail, or did Data Science fail the operational strategies? Why Sundar still wants to stay in his job? Why CEOs don't quit to set a trend? In India too there are tough laws to even terminate an employee forget layoff, but our labor ministry is least bothered about the mass layoffs happening under the pretext of cost-cutting measures.

[m8002?]

Originally Posted by deehunk

but our labor ministry is least bothered about the mass layoffs happening under the pretext of cost-cutting measures.

You can't have things your way all the time. If you want labor ministry to control layoffs, will you be fine with them dictating salary and increments as well?

Ideally the free market should manage the demand and supply equilibrium.

[deehunk]

I pity those individuals who hop between jobs just for salary hikes and incentives, one will be paid the best if that position/skill deserves a high salary. My point was that there is labor protection in India too as per the law, but the working class is ignorant of such laws. The big companies know that it is easy to manipulate things to lay off people in India. My first salary was INR 2200 in 2003 in Bidar and my last drawn salary in 2022 was INR 2.2 lakhs, never referred by anyone nor recruited from campus. There will be a lot of members on the forum like me, financial discipline is a must for either the employee or employer.

[Small Bot]

Originally Posted by m8002?

You can't have things your way all the time. If you want labor ministry to control layoffs, will you be fine with them dictating salary and increments as well?

Ideally the free market should manage the demand and supply equilibrium.

I agree. The very lack of too much labour protection is actually a major attraction to companies that have set up shop in India. Restrictive employment laws tend to provide more protection to the employee, but can force employers into unwanted contractual obligations if proper due diligence isn’t paid. This is the prime reason why companies prefer to increasingly outsource jobs to India more than to maybe China or Vietnam. I'm not opining on whether it's right or wrong, but just calling out that we can unfortunately sit on only one end of that seesaw at any given time.

[AppyS]

Mind boggling salaries being demanded, people jumping ships like crazy, e.g. 30lpa demands by 4 or even 5 yr experience guys. Managers handing out job offers after just 1 round if you are a "Full Stack Developer" just to fill positions, and candidates shopping around to inflate already inflated multipliers. Well the writing was just on the wall, and appears the worst is yet to come. An enterprise exists primarily to be profitable for shareholders and this nonsensical scenario can't self sustain any longer. And yes those crazy office campuses and sushi meals won't pay for themselves.

[balenoed_]

Originally Posted by deehunk

…one will be paid the best if that position/skill deserves a high salary.

The best? Not necessarily. And no in most cases. You deserve what you ask for is what I learnt from more than a decade long association with a company. I am pretty much sure that is the norm in this industry

[FrozeninTime]

These kinds of job losses will slowly push the public into the hands of socialist politicians who will seize every opportunity to bring more restrictive labour laws in future, more taxes on well-to-do. Already 90% of wealth is held by 1% of people, which is not acceptable and will lead to unrest in the longer run.

[Voodooblaster]

Great Optics

Microsoft Organised Private Sting Concert At Davos Before Announcing Mass Layoffs

Link: NDTV

[deehunk]

Originally Posted by FrozeninTime

These kinds of job losses will slowly push the public into the hands of socialist politicians who will seize every opportunity to bring more restrictive labour laws in future, more taxes on well-to-do.

My father worked in a PSU handling labor issues for 40 years, there are already enough restrictive labor laws in India but the working class which is really affected by such mass layoffs is not aware of labor laws. If we cannot provide adequate employment to the younger generation, it will be a disaster in the future.

[buzzy_boy]

Originally Posted by FrozeninTime

These kinds of job losses will slowly push the public into the hands of socialist politicians who will seize every opportunity to bring more restrictive labour laws in future, more taxes on well-to-do.

In India, many large software companies operate within SEZs which have some of the least restrictive labor laws in the world. There are strict rules around unionisation (stricter than US laws - beleive it or not), and lax policies regarding retrenchment. What's more, Indian citizens can't insure against being retrenched.

These laws have prevailed since 1992 across many so-called socialist, and so-called capitalist governments. The European union has some of the most labour friendly laws, and they're doing much better than us in terms wealth distribution.

Companies must be allowed to run their business as they see fit. My argument is that the Indian State must do more to enhance the social safety net for the unfortunate who do get fired.

After all, many of those being laid-off are some of the most honest taxpayers who pay anywhere between 40-80 percent of their income as direct and indirect taxes.

[Caramba]

Originally Posted by buzzy_boy

In India, many large software companies operate within SEZs which have some of the least restrictive labor laws in the world. There are strict rules around unionisation (stricter than US laws - beleive it or not), and lax policies regarding retrenchment.

Not sure where you got this is information, but it is not correct. SEZ's are not exempt from labour laws as generally applicable to others. Certain sectors (mostly IT) have exemptions from some laws, but nowhere are they exempt from following retrenchment requirements. As far as unionisation is concerned it would be illegal to prevent this, as the right to form associations and unions is a constitutional right, subject to only reasonable restrictions by the state for specified purposes. Note if an employer prevents an employee from forming or joining a union this would be an "unfair labour practice" under applicable law, opening them up to punitive action.