I find it a little disappointing how when any large company reduces staffing it always makes the news.
I'm not at all saying these people at LinkedIn deserve this, I bet they're smart people and I hope they find new employment very soon.
But speaking generally ... many of us have worked at or worked with big bloated companies. We all know that many of them could be improved by slimming down. But we report on it like its a sign of the downfall.
I always think "Those 960 people had jobs there for a while - that's a positive". I've worked for myself the last 20 years so I'm occasionally jealous of anyone who's had even a year of stable, predictable income.
If you have to fire so many people at once, it means you've fucked up. They should have never been hired, or individually fired a while back, or whatever.
It means the company is making a dramatic shift in how they do things. While this could be good (mass layoffs often mean that the company has finally realized they have a problem), what is definitely means is that they've made a lot of mistakes. It's essentially admitting that they've made suboptimal decisions.
That is why it is reported on, not because it's a morally bad thing or whatever.
If a company like LinkedIn is doing a lay-off, that’s different from business as usual. They’re supposed to be growing. When they grow they fire people along the way. But a lay-off means they have run out of work or can’t employ people profitably. This can mean:
1. LinkedIn has its own special problems. (Maybe I’ll sell and follow another company or sector).
2. The economy is in recession. (Should have gotten into bonds 3 months ago, oh well).
Companies often try to paint structural problems as competitive adjustments, but we know they rarely do real layoffs during flush times.
I disagree pretty strongly. Rather than layoffs, most of these people could be retrained. Cutting costs of < 1k people is not a serious cost cutting effort, it’s juicing short term numbers.
Probably most of the cuts are very political, with certain darlings being given freedom to restructure and layoff according to their whim.
I think the story that companies do this for efficiency is mostly bullshit. That’s just the excuse.
I'd ask "why did they decide to try to get more efficient now"?
And here the answer is: because there's a big overall downturn.
When things are going well, we generally try to find ways to grow. Find new things for people to do if they aren't needed in their current roles. When we have to focus on trimming costs instead, it's usually due to negative factors.
I agree with you in general, but the timing is what concerns a lot of people. With the whole Covid situation and considering that many economies are in free fall, its hard not to get a bit worried - Can my company also do this? could I be next?
I'm baffled by that number given how bad the product is.
It has a lot of potential, but is completely ruined by the social media aspect and their attempt at making it yet another cesspool like Twitter or Instagram, all the way down to the algorithmic feed, likes and reactions.
They should step away from the nonsense and make the tool (because yes it should be seen as a tool and not a lifestyle) easier to use, not harder. Stop getting in my way trying to make me use the algorithmic feed (it forgets your choice after a few hours) or nagging me to add a profile picture (I've said no for 2 years, why are you still trying?) or certain profile details I might not want to share, or "following sources" (whatever that means, I guess it's about following bullshit hashtags so you can have even more crap in your feed). The UI is absolutely terrible and slow for no good reason and makes it painful to use.
The worst is that you might think "okay well the free version for the plebs is nasty because it tries to drum up engagement, but the premium version should be better, right?" WRONG! The premium version is just as bad but instead of wasting just your time it wastes your time and your money.
A lot of them are sales people. LinkedIn as a people business needs a lot of sales reps and account managers to be in contact with Recruiters and other people involved with selling .
I'm baffled as well, especially given how mediocre their website is (and yes I know they have more than just their website).
Usually with those type of comments someone replies explaining that we don't get it and that you MUST have 20000 people to support a website like LinkedIn
> "Our Talent Solutions business continues to be impacted as fewer companies, including ours, need to hire at the same volume they did previously."
We're in a recruitment-related field (online background checking) and we can clearly see that recruitment activity has dropped way off, even in sectors that are largely unaffected by the pandemic.
My theory is that people are clinging on to their jobs tightly as unemployment rises, so discretionary turnover is way down.
Companies commonly use layoffs as an easy way to get rid of under-performing staff, realize cost savings from previous investments (e.g., automation) ahead of schedule, or efficiently reorganize divisions whose execs fall out of favor. Not going to say this is good, but a <10% layoff is not unreasonable for a healthy company, especially when some business units may be stagnating.
However callous it is, roles on the margin get cut when prospects for growth dim.
A lot of the very big companies are quite reluctant to start layoffs if they think the situation can be survived for a few months. They don't want to be seen as evil firing-their-contractors, people-as-expendable, etc. They are an easy target as "big corp".
But if they can see this is going to go on more than the end of 2020, they will start having to confront the need to layoff people seriously. Interestingly, the more certainty they have about how bad it is, the sooner the layoffs.
LinkedIn would be investing in other parts of the business which would result in some job creation and the firm would "work with employees impacted by today's announcement to explore these opportunities"
Good to know that they will first consider rehiring/interviewing the laid off employees and they are public about it.
Curious question: does the employee get to keep the severance package if rehired after being laid off?
I don't know how linked in is handling it, but in a typical layoff situation (I'm unfortunately familiar with several personally, and many more corporately) if you are rehired after your official termination date, you get to keep whatever the termination package was. The company considers you a new employee.
It needs to be this way for certain legal reasons.
Usually the way it works for our company, they give you a 2/3 month grace period where you stay on the books and get a chance to interview externally or internally and you only get the severance (in addition to the 2/3 months no work period) if you move out of the company.
Usually there is a wording in a papers that need to be signed in order to get severance - if rehired, severance won't be paid (plus reject the right to litigate). This is easy to implement as severance might be paid in be-weekly cadence (like salary).
I'm sorry to hear about people losing their jobs. It sucks, especially now when there is so much uncertainty.
LinkedIn makes a lot of money through recruitment ads - five years ago it was at least $300/month for professional positions in hot markets. If companies stop posting ads or switch to cheaper alternatives (some companies still use Craigslist) the impact will be significant for LinkedIn and its employees.
I'm surprised. LinkedIn has to be one of the major sites whose traffic has gone up in recent months, with so many people looking for work and stuck in front of a computer.
It's awful to see such a large reduction in force when MSFT overall is up 30% year to date. I haven't heard of other FAAMG companies making similar moves.
[+] [-] habosa|5 years ago|reply
I'm not at all saying these people at LinkedIn deserve this, I bet they're smart people and I hope they find new employment very soon.
But speaking generally ... many of us have worked at or worked with big bloated companies. We all know that many of them could be improved by slimming down. But we report on it like its a sign of the downfall.
[+] [-] prawn|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smabie|5 years ago|reply
It means the company is making a dramatic shift in how they do things. While this could be good (mass layoffs often mean that the company has finally realized they have a problem), what is definitely means is that they've made a lot of mistakes. It's essentially admitting that they've made suboptimal decisions.
That is why it is reported on, not because it's a morally bad thing or whatever.
[+] [-] projektfu|5 years ago|reply
1. LinkedIn has its own special problems. (Maybe I’ll sell and follow another company or sector).
2. The economy is in recession. (Should have gotten into bonds 3 months ago, oh well).
Companies often try to paint structural problems as competitive adjustments, but we know they rarely do real layoffs during flush times.
[+] [-] mlthoughts2018|5 years ago|reply
Probably most of the cuts are very political, with certain darlings being given freedom to restructure and layoff according to their whim.
I think the story that companies do this for efficiency is mostly bullshit. That’s just the excuse.
[+] [-] majormajor|5 years ago|reply
And here the answer is: because there's a big overall downturn.
When things are going well, we generally try to find ways to grow. Find new things for people to do if they aren't needed in their current roles. When we have to focus on trimming costs instead, it's usually due to negative factors.
[+] [-] rishav_sharan|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LaundroMat|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nextgrid|5 years ago|reply
It has a lot of potential, but is completely ruined by the social media aspect and their attempt at making it yet another cesspool like Twitter or Instagram, all the way down to the algorithmic feed, likes and reactions.
They should step away from the nonsense and make the tool (because yes it should be seen as a tool and not a lifestyle) easier to use, not harder. Stop getting in my way trying to make me use the algorithmic feed (it forgets your choice after a few hours) or nagging me to add a profile picture (I've said no for 2 years, why are you still trying?) or certain profile details I might not want to share, or "following sources" (whatever that means, I guess it's about following bullshit hashtags so you can have even more crap in your feed). The UI is absolutely terrible and slow for no good reason and makes it painful to use.
The worst is that you might think "okay well the free version for the plebs is nasty because it tries to drum up engagement, but the premium version should be better, right?" WRONG! The premium version is just as bad but instead of wasting just your time it wastes your time and your money.
[+] [-] downvoteme1|5 years ago|reply
16K people spanning the whole globe is not bad .
[+] [-] sshagent|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rainyMammoth|5 years ago|reply
Usually with those type of comments someone replies explaining that we don't get it and that you MUST have 20000 people to support a website like LinkedIn
[+] [-] ponker|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] actuator|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beachy|5 years ago|reply
We're in a recruitment-related field (online background checking) and we can clearly see that recruitment activity has dropped way off, even in sectors that are largely unaffected by the pandemic.
My theory is that people are clinging on to their jobs tightly as unemployment rises, so discretionary turnover is way down.
[+] [-] curiousllama|5 years ago|reply
However callous it is, roles on the margin get cut when prospects for growth dim.
[+] [-] supernova87a|5 years ago|reply
But if they can see this is going to go on more than the end of 2020, they will start having to confront the need to layoff people seriously. Interestingly, the more certainty they have about how bad it is, the sooner the layoffs.
[+] [-] thebean11|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jiofih|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MagnumPIG|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vandleyindust|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bdcravens|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saos|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] harshulpandav|5 years ago|reply
Good to know that they will first consider rehiring/interviewing the laid off employees and they are public about it.
Curious question: does the employee get to keep the severance package if rehired after being laid off?
[+] [-] compiler-guy|5 years ago|reply
It needs to be this way for certain legal reasons.
[+] [-] AlphaSite|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vvladymyrov|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ilamont|5 years ago|reply
LinkedIn makes a lot of money through recruitment ads - five years ago it was at least $300/month for professional positions in hot markets. If companies stop posting ads or switch to cheaper alternatives (some companies still use Craigslist) the impact will be significant for LinkedIn and its employees.
[+] [-] jlokier|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patrickaljord|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bryanrasmussen|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gundmc|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mark-r|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pixelbreaker|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] 6c696e7578|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dyingkneepad|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ceo_tim_crook|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mattoxic|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aahhahahaaa|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 12xo|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kgraves|5 years ago|reply
'Microsoft to extinguish 960 jobs worldwide'.
There, fixed it for you.