[roansh]

I wonder how many of layoffs that have happened, the ones coming are actually needed financially. For example: I suspect a lot of companies took the opportunity of the first covid lockdowns to fire some people?

Nothing against it since every company is just improving its chances of survival, just thinking out loud about the reasons they share publicly. Also, of course there would be some whose survival was in good shape, but the layoffs were just to increase the profits?

[culpable_pickle]

Founded in 2016. Raised 926 million dollars. On track for record profits this year.

Yeah, IMHO this was just an excuse to slim down the fat. Better returns for investors and better position to swoop in and grab other businesses that can no longer get funding. Shrewd but heartless IMHO.

[TuringNYC]

More likely: Worried about runway given difficultly of raising capital, cutting down to ensure burn-rate assumes capital isnt raised.

[thathndude]

I think we’re seeing a lot of this in the economy today. I think a lot of the inflation were seeing is companies that know they can get away with it given the narrative, and taking the opportunity.

Same thing here, no one can dispute that the overall macroeconomic picture is deteriorating. So you have cover for some fat trimming

[thawaya3113]

The closest public info I can find is revenues of about $125mm in the past year.

With about 4000 employees, that’s an average of about $30k per employee.

That sounds pretty low to make any sort of profit.

[_fat_santa]

It could also be businesses reacting to the swinging pendulum of the economy, it's been a crazy 2 years.

First we have a booming economy, brought to it's knees by the pandemic. Everything shuts down so businesses lay off. But then it came back, in some places in a very major way, and businesses that were laying off yesterday are back hiring today. But as the economy cooled off again, companies realize they can't afford these inflated workforces and start making cuts again.

[formerkrogemp]

Or, software companies and employees aren't as important as they make themselves out to be?

[jussivee]

I was thinking the exact same thing. It's easy to say it's because of the market sentiments, but you could also use that as an excuse.

Covid lockdowns forced businesses to rethink their operational models. For some remote work etc. turned out to be profitable opportunities - you could do the same with less infrastructure.

On another note, their CEO said "There are exciting days ahead for OneTrust as we transform into the Trust Intelligence Platform company." That sounds pretty wtf. Like someone just put some fancy words in line.

[parkingrift]

Scale up rapidly and then mass fire the bottom 10-25% of performers. This is a well known tactic.

[PheonixPharts]

> bottom 10-25% of performers

I've been around awhile and seen plenty of layoffs, layoffs are almost never about performance at the individual level.

It's nice to believe they are because in times like these thinking to yourself "I'm a least in the top half of performers" can give the illusion that you're safe. However, this thinking is ultimately harmful because when you or your friends and colleagues do get laid off you will continue this thinking and considering it a valuation of your self worth, or the worth of colleagues you respect.

[onion2k]

I imagine this sort of move makes some of the top people leave along with the worst people. If I was in a company that cut 25% of the workforce I'd look for the door regardless of how good I was. Nothing happens in isolation.

[kasey_junk]

I keep hearing people say this, but when I worked doing layoffs I don’t think I ever saw a stack ranking happen. It was always either a)every team loses x% or more commonly b) getting rid of a function or location entirely.

At the end of the day the differences in employee performance just aren’t that big and everyone knows it’s hard to accurately judge.

[myth_drannon]

I only saw the highest paid/everyone in HCOL area and in many cases it was the top performers of the team.

[tech_tuna]

Netflix and Amazon are big, vocal proponents of this.

[abofh]

I mean, rarely do companies have a stack of termination paperwork ready just in case - more likely it was handed down to line managers "We're trying to cut X$ out of our budget, you're responsible for Y% of that, please choose accordingly"

I've definitely had that list ready to go before (and also been on there fighting to say no, it's not tenable for the business to let Y% of my team go). It depends on circumstances and the team.

But yeah, if the company needs to save a few hundred grand off my budget this year, I know exactly who I'm taking off payroll - good enough to not get fired, but more work to keep them on task than they're producing. I'd rather half a dozen juniors that are amenable to direction than a superstar that's a fight to even give bowling bumpers to.

[tech_tuna]

There is always a list. When heads need to roll, the list comes out and heads are selected in some meaningful order.