[GutsyGibbon]

Originally Posted by condor

How reliable is the data on this website ? I checked for a couple of companies, but the numbers dont match. Eg: IBM shows 3900 for 2023, but that was for one specific service Only.

Or are companies able to let go of employees without showing that as lay-off ?

AFAIK, California law requires that Employers file the WARN notice whenever they have a RIF or layoff of more than 75 full-time employees. In the last 25 years, I have seen dozens of layoffs, and they some how structure it such that there is nothing reported in the news. I think they have a lot of exceptions that they can use to not file this and look bad in the community. (the big prominent/flagship companies of cities)

[condor]

Originally Posted by GutsyGibbon

.. they some how structure it such that there is nothing reported in the news.

I think that requirement is from the US Labor Dept and not just CA. And agree with you - many rounds of layoff's would have happened. and not reported. Not just with IBM, but others too.

So wonder how much bigger is the whole lay-off exercise, than what is being reported.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Take DEI. Social justice is the primary goal of DEI, it is not productivity or efficiency. DEI works because most companies have accepted the inefficiency comes with it. They are willing to pay the cost. IT is one of the few fields where one highly skilled person can do more than 10 lesser skilled persons. When you inject DEI into this field, you often have to hire many DEI candidates to replace a highly skilled person who may not tick the DEI checkbox. Current inefficiency allows that. This is not to say DEI compatible person can't be highly skilled. That's a moot point. A highly skilled person doesn't need the crutch of DEI. The inefficiency is caused by lower skilled DEI candidates, not highly skilled ones. Highly skilled DEI candidates actually hate DEI because they want to be recognized for their skill and not their identity.

At Twitter, Musk simply got rid of DEI. From having the goal of total DEI by 2025, they went to zero DEI. He is waging a war against DEI.

https://www.shrm.org/in/topics-tools...usk-dei-racist

From the twitter DEI thingy, it appears the article talks about their "leadership" and executive roles. So shouldn't CEOs, CFOs and VPs etc, start getting laid off, since DEI often is used in the context on "leadership" atleast in silicon valley.

The claim that in rank and file companies have 90 bad DEI related employees to 10 good non DEI employees so requiring 90% layoff and functioning same seems a big far fetched.

With interest rates creeping up, companies not having strong DEI focus also stopped hiring and did Layoffs.

More evidence is required to reach to the conclusion that the over-hiring is due to DEI, and not just poor management.
Esp since when companies talk about DEI initiative they are often talk about leadership, but the layoffs are mostly in the lower levels. Nobody is firing 10000 VPs

[DigitalOne]

Originally Posted by condor

How reliable is the data on this website ?

Not very. Last year when my company did layoffs, this site had reported it once when the global announcement was made, and again when the actual layoffs happened in India and was reported by Indian newspapers. So there was some double counting.

Also since it is based on newspaper reports, there is underreporting when small Indian startups layoff employees which is rampant now.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

From the twitter DEI thingy, it appears the article talks about their "leadership" and executive roles. So shouldn't CEOs, CFOs and VPs etc, start getting laid off, since DEI often is used in the context on "leadership" atleast in silicon valley.

Ah, this is interesting. So in your observation DEI is practiced only for leadership positions, and not in individual contributor positions? So how do promotions work then? If there are 15 whites and 5 non-whites in a non-DEI team, only their leaders will be chosen based on DEI?

Originally Posted by tsk1979

The claim that in rank and file companies have 90 bad DEI related employees to 10 good non DEI employees so requiring 90% layoff and functioning same seems a big far fetched.

This claim is purely yours, I didn't make it. So you can keep this strawman argument to yourself.

I said one highly skilled person can do the job of 10 less skilled people in the IT field. That doesn't mean that every less skilled person is a DEI person, every high skilled person is a non DEI person. That is your assumption, I don't share it. This is like the Cisco case, out of the 3 leadership roles two were given to Dalits based on merit. Yet they were sued by California state for caste discrimination.

In fact, the first person to expose me to the perils of DEI was a very reluctant beneficiary of it.

Originally Posted by tsk1979

More evidence is required to reach to the conclusion that the over-hiring is due to DEI, and not just poor management.

I never said all the over-hiring is due to DEI. What I said was DEI leads to over-hiring. In other words, I said cows have 4 legs. Don't need assume everything with 4 legs is a cow.

If hiring is purely on merit, one can build an efficient team (capitalism). If other aspects have to be considered, like social justice, then it won't be as efficient (socialism). And I don't mind it, as long as it is affordable. I have been called bleeding heart liberal for such views. But let's not claim socialism is equally efficient.

[condor]

IBM at it again:

IBM has joined the tech layoff club once again this year as it announced laying off employees from its marketing and communications divisions, without mentioning the exact number

https://www.news18.com/business/ibm-...s-8814845.html

[ninjatalli]

Originally Posted by condor

IBM has joined the tech layoff club once again this year as it announced laying off employees from its marketing and communications divisions, without mentioning the exact number

Makes sense, no. I guess they laid off the communications guys, who would had the responsibility of communicating the exact number and other details to the general public.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by Samurai

I never said refuse it. But IT folks should not fall into the illusion that you are getting what you truly deserve. Don't start feeling entitled, and then feel bitter when industry dumps you by the side when recession hits.

Wise words now unfolding at a cinema theatre near you!!! Samurai's post is from exactly a year back.

Whether it is an employee seeking a job for better pay or a business entering a new contract at a rich price it pays not to oversell yourself or demand the absolute highest you can because when the pendulum swings the other way as it definitely will you will be the first to be dumped.

In my earlier vocation this behaviour was most pronounced amongst pilots who could at times jump ship for a 50% or 75% raise in times of sudden booms. This then forced us to hire at similar rates to keep the lights on. I used to caution these young and not so young folks not to do that and make themselves extremely vulnerable to a pink slip the day the tide turned. And interestingly none ever believed the tide would turn. When salaries go up employees get locked vision that it is a linear climb up forever. Sadly, the tide always but always turns.

[wocanak]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

I used to caution these young and not so young folks not to do that and make themselves extremely vulnerable to a pink slip the day the tide turned. And interestingly none ever believed the tide would turn. When salaries go up employees get locked vision that it is a linear climb up forever. Sadly, the tide always but always turns.

It is not that they think tide won't turn. It is just that they don't think continuing with the same company at lower pay is any guarantee of safety when the tide turns.

This is especially true post 2008, when Indian companies have also started layoffs. After that many of my reportees leaving for higher pay, used to ask point blank, "If I take this advice and stay can you assure me I will be less vulnerable in bad times? This way at least I can put aside more for the inevitable bad times."

Excluding small companies/startups, where there can be some personal rapport, in mid size and above companies it has come down to you take care of your interests and I take care of my interest.

[AltoLXI]

Originally Posted by wocanak

"If I take this advice and stay can you assure me I will be less vulnerable in bad times? This way at least I can put aside more for the inevitable bad times."

Classic payoff matrix decisions - can't blame them.

In fact, in a market driven economy, why should either parties whine and try to play the tug of war? Market conditions will always determine who comes on top and there will be an equilibrium - neither an employer nor an employee is doing a favor to each other.

[Vishal.R]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

I used to caution these young and not so young folks not to do that and make themselves extremely vulnerable to a pink slip the day the tide turned.

I think what Samurai suggesting and I am also agree from my experience in industry, is that if the opportunity is good there is no problem is accepting it.

Only things to avoid are,
1.) Consider it as a signal to enhance life style. (e.g. take big housing loan)
2.) Associate the CTC / designation with social status.

[JediKnight]

Tech Layoffs highest since dot-com crash.

• With tech layoffs at their highest since the 2001 dot-com crash, the job hunt is getting harder and many in the industry are being forced to settle for pay cuts if they can find a new gig at all.
  
• Since the start of the year, more than 50,000 positions have been slashed at over 200 tech companies, according to tracking website Layoffs.fyi.

[SS80]

Last year during the great resignation, we saw people jumping jobs in IT with Triple digit hikes and 100% WFH demands etc.
I guess it's the turn of employers to play their game, this year my company gave single-digit, almost zero hikes. I am not an IT guy, but any client-facing role job in any MNC will face some aftermath of this distant industry's issues.

The reason quoted was - that the whole industry is down, layoffs everywhere, the budget is limited etc. I guess all corporates will make use of this situation to save some money and wipe out some of the jobs. Especially for the highly tenured, least skilled employees, who simply don't upskill themselves, become comfortable with the work environment and probably have an endless home loan EMI looming on them always.

[Samurai]

I saw this news item, and I couldn't believe the height of ignorance behind this demand.

https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/te...-12475711.html

Protesters demanded the state government to end the exemption given to the IT/ITeS sector from the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act.

I am not against job security or employee benefits like severance or pension. In fact, my 87 year old widowed mom just received a hike in her family pension. My dad retired from the bank in 1992 and his former employer is still paying pension, even after his death 9 years ago. She makes nearly as much as entry level WITCH employee. The retired officer's union manages to get them a hike every few years. In fact, my mom now makes more than my dad ever did in service or after.

When my dad was working the bank, he didn't fear about losing the job. If the bank tried anything funny, the officer's union would jump in and fight on his behalf.

So why is this not possible in IT jobs?

Look at the cost of employee benefits in an industry like manufacturing or banking, it never really exceeds 10% of the total expenses. Also, those industries don't see wild fluctuation in human resource requirement and attrition. That means they can hire at a slow rate and don't really have to resort to layoffs. Retirements will take care of it. Therefore, the companies can afford to provide job security. For example, Maruti's employee cost is around 5% of their total expenses. A 10% increase in employees is not a great burden, it adds 0.5% more.

Both these factors don't hold good for IT industry. The employee cost of Infosys (a famously low paymaster) is around 65% of their total cost. And that's low. It can be as high as 75%-80% in smaller high paying companies. Next, IT HR requirements has wild fluctuation. One may have to ramp up 10%-20% based on a new project. Once that project is complete, it would barely need 10% of the original number to maintain it. Can an IT company afford to keep the 10%-20% additional staff, when the payroll is 3/4 of the total cost? It really can't. Yes, there are deep pocketed big tech companies that were doing exactly that, but it was by choice. These days shareholders don't approve of that at all. That's a discussion we already had few pages ago. If that becomes mandated, most companies don't have the deep pocket for that.

That is why job security in IT industry is not a really possible. Unless... we bring the wage cost below 10% of the total cost. Is anyone willing to work in IT for auto industry employee's salary?

You can either ask for high salaries or job security. If you ask for both, companies will be forced to simply shut shop and move to another state or country.

[tsk1979]

On a lighter note. Poor baby will need to start working 70+ hours every week. after all that's what the grandpa wants

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com.../108584066.cms