Having worked at a “name” company is not the big boost to your value lots of people think it is. That’s a lie that those big companies use to get people to accept bad working conditions.
You can't just "work" at the company, you have to produce.
There was an anecdote about Netflix about how a group of engineers who were top performers were let go after they did their part in transistioning Netflix's data center to AWS.
So should we feel bad for the people that got laid off? They will be some of the most sought after people in the industry.
That's exactly it. And the thing is no matter where you worked, if you did great things and have great skills, you're going to get opportunities and recognition. If you don't have the skills and don't do the work, it doesn't matter where you filled a seat.
HR people have to market candidates internally, many times to hiring managers who tell their bosses “Your recruiters don’t bring me quality candidates.” To protect themselves, the recruiters go after brand names. (“Is it my fault they didn’t like someone from Cornell who worked at Google?”)
The reality is this is suboptimal for the company, but can still be rational for HR.
I'm no different as an an architect. I don't always choose the best technology. I sometimes choose the most popular. The practical reason being its easier to find people who know it and there is plenty of documentation. The CYA reason is that if things go south, It's much easier to say it came highly reccomended. "No one ever got fired for buying IBM."
There was an anecdote about Netflix about how a group of engineers who were top performers were let go after they did their part in transistioning Netflix's data center to AWS.
So should we feel bad for the people that got laid off? They will be some of the most sought after people in the industry.