[sovnwnt]

> instead of laying off 10% of their workforce, they had everybody take a 10% wage cut except for senior management, which took a larger cut. So instead of giving 100% of the pain to 10% of the people, they give 100% of the people 10% of the pain.

This doesn't seem like a good strategy for tech. Cutting everyone's salary will dislodge your top performers who can get a better position even in poor market conditions.

[sausagefeet]

> Cutting everyone's salary will dislodge your top performers who can get a better position even in poor market conditions.

Will it? Are your top performers only there because of the pay? And how do you even determine who your top performers are? I see this sort of logic frequently and I don't even know how to measure it, much less believe it.

[sovnwnt]

> Are your top performers only there because of the pay

In an ideal work environment, probably less so than other employees. But I think anyone who has their salary reduced is going to reevaluate their position, and those with more valuable skills are more likely to leave. The question is, what is more likely to cause a serious reevaluation, salary reductions or layoffs?

I think for most tech companies, a single round of layoffs is preferable, as the people who you want to remain are more likely to feel they aren't and won't be affected and not reevaluate their position. The reductions approach could work for smaller or startup companies with a flatter structure, where employees are more invested in the company's goals and successes, either through culture or shares.

[lordnacho]

It's a strange balance. Either you get a pay cut with a job that might cut again, or your colleagues get laid off with the potential that it's you next time.

Either way you'll probably be thinking about interviewing, with a bit less urgency if you get to keep your job.

[Tempest1981]

> anyone who has their salary reduced is going to reevaluate their position

And if they stay, their morale and motivation may drop 10-20%

[hinkley]

Everyone reevaluates their position after a layoff.

And people who quit don’t get severance, so it’s a win-win for the company. Or at least, they seem to think it is.

[MAGZine]

which is to say, in your org, the top performers are not the top paid? not great. sort of sounds like a way to lose your top performers if I'm honest.

[sausagefeet]

As I said, I'm not even sure how to properly measure what being a top performer is.

[coredog64]

I don’t think the math checks out: Salary isn’t the only expense, so you might be looking at a 15% wage cut to keep 10% of the workforce. With stock performance, I’ve already taken a 10% wage cut. Cut another 15% in cash and I’m gonna be super unhappy about my comp.

[sicp-enjoyer]

> With stock performance, I’ve already taken a 10% wage cut

This is such a weird attitude to me. If it goes up you expect the gains, if it goes down the company is letting you down.

Stock is supposed to involve some risk. It's not cash, and you will only be disappointed if you build your lifestyle around it being a certain price.

[pm90]

Its not a weird attitude if there is an implicit agreement between the employer and employees.

BigTech specifically has lured people with the promise of stock appreciation on top of already great base. When stock prices collapsed last year many companies offered “top ups”. The implicit agreement was that stocks only had upside.

[ryanwaggoner]

They didn’t say the company was letting them down, or that it was unfair. They said they weren’t happy about it. You can understand that risk sometimes doesn’t go your way and still have human emotions about it, as well as make different choices in reaction.

[hinkley]

Hence management taking a bigger cut.

Some solutions to this include furlough rather that straight cuts. Those do reduce some infrastructure costs. I can’t reduce service staff and contract work at all if everyone is working 40 hours a week still. We use the same toilet paper, water, electricity, other consumables and depreciating equipment. A saw blade cuts X feet of metal. But I can trim if everyone is working 37 hours.

[FpUser]

>"Cut another 15% in cash and I’m gonna be super unhappy about my comp."

In case of Google they already "overpaid" by more than that percentage wise. Sundar can just say take your unhappiness and shove it up the place. What you gonna do? Quit when every other FAANG is laying off in hope to find something better? I do not think Sundar would give a flying fuck about this kind of unhappiness.

[extropy]

This. Also the bigger the company is, the less the long term loyalty and people are generally there for the money.

So top performers will get moving quickly.

[jleyank]

Betting you’re not one of those with a target on your forehead, eh? Cutting salaries and keeping staff is better for the company going forward. Those driven by comp aren’t those that’ll stay long term. Raises come from switches.

[mejutoco]

Plus inflation on top.

[wpietri]

Will it? Most of the top performers I know are not very motivated by money, and instead value doing interesting work with people they like.

Granted, there are a set of people who are very good at job-hopping while executing a performance of being a top performer. But maybe a company will do just fine those people hop away. Maybe it would do better.

[musingsole]

Layoffs and paycuts don't bode well for any interesting work or keeping people in a mood where they are likeable.

The handwringing and psuedo-calculus of cuts does further damage to any interesting work.

Can't do interesting work when instead you have to fill in for a job previously covered by a junior engineer.

It'd take a hell of a company culture to fight these trends.

[wpietri]

Layoffs definitely hamper morale and disrupt operations. I'm not so sure about paycuts as long as they're done in a spirit of solidarity. I'd be fine with it as long as a) it was temporary, b) execs took the largest cuts, and c) I thought they had a real plan for getting us through the tough times.

And obviously, not laying off people has a much smaller impact on staffing and the work one is doing, so I'd like that part better as well.

[hinkley]

I do a lot of DevEx and performance and reliability work. It’s not as sexy as a mid-boom greenfield Shiny Shiny project, but most of us are reinventing software IBM wrote in 1988 anyway, so the shiny is mostly an illusion.

You need the sort of work I do when you’re trying to get more done with less. Do I prefer using these skills to prevent over hiring in the first place? Of course I do. I’ll even take it for winding down a cash cow so we can start new product lines.

The “goodness” of most people who conflate new with better is a matter of prospects. This kid is going to be amazing someday. In a downturn you need amazing now, not some day.

[silvestrov]

I think it is an S-curve: if you are below the curve, or just on it, then pay amount matters a lot.

But above the curve, everything else matters a lot, especially having a good boss / project leader and a project that makes sense / is actually used by people.

[poszlem]

I am not motivated by money. That's why I am not looking for another, better paying job. But I will if you take from me what I already earn.

Advice to reduce the wages of all individuals is disconnected from reality and likely originates from someone who is insulated from the practical implications of such a decision, such as those in an academic setting.

[scarface74]

Out of the millions of things I find “interesting”, helping a huge corporation make money is very low on the list. The company pays me to exchange labor for money.

[PuppyTailWags]

If my skip-level took a bigger paycut than me to ensure that my team keeps their jobs, then I will take the pay cut also. If my skip-level lays off a non-bottom-performing co-worker and then claims "full responsibility" I'm getting the fuck out of there.

[bagacrap]

Yea, programmers =/= arc welders or flight attendants.