[amelius]

> Layoffs suck and no one wants to do it, but sometimes it's needed to save the ship.

But they always fire the weak employees, not the ones that can easily help themselves.

Maybe we should have some laws that randomize the layoffs ...

[onion2k]

they always fire the weak employees

This is definitely not the case. Companies use a lot of different mechanisms to choose who to lay off, and it's rarely entirely performance based.

[steveBK123]

Arguably from what I've seen it is TOO random or non-performance based.

Some combination of personal dislike and unfamiliarity.

The people making the cuts are not line managers and are sometimes given very short amount of time to make their cut list. So "oh I know that person" stays vs "I have no idea what they do / they asked me a pointed question in a meeting once" goes.

[scarby2]

I've been laid off twice, neither time has been performance based.

once i was on a team of 2 ICs and a Manager - only the manager stayed - the company is now about to fold. Other time i was let go as part of the entire US arm

[steveBK123]

Yes, most layoffs I've seen in my career are of the "mass layoff" variety, and these are generally far from being performance based.

There's just too many people, the decision making is too quick, at too high a level.. and more driven by cost / future strategy (so which teams to cut deeper).

[infamouscow]

When layoffs are random, it engenders a profound sense of betrayal among those who have diligently gone the extra mile. It severs ties and creates a chilling effect, dampening the morale of those who remain.

Employees, acutely aware that their efforts might be disregarded in the next round of cuts, become increasingly disincentivized to exceed expectations. The result is a workforce more focused on survival than excellence, fostering an environment where mediocrity thrives.

[JAlexoid]

Why would you fire your best and brightest? That would be like throwing out good fruit, when there are spoiled ones.

No, it's a very poor idea to force companies to lay off at random.

[bastardoperator]

We should start with the executives who didn't perform/execute, they're the biggest liability.

[pclmulqdq]

This often does happen along with layoffs when a company is in real trouble. A problem of silicon valley culture is that you basically can't fire anyone for underperformance, so you need to have these sorts of layoffs as a prophylactic measure to cull the heard. So that means you get a cycle of "overhiring" followed by "layoffs" and that is working exactly as intended.

[bastardoperator]

California is at will, you can fire anyone for anything or even nothing. I'm yet to see poor performing executives take themselves out before they take out the people that actually create value. You don't need to have layoffs, you need better leaders, and they're the last ones to get culled, usually running off with bonuses for under-performance and lousy work.

[pclmulqdq]

Legally yes, culturally no.

[bastardoperator]

In certain cultures its okay to hurt people and not face repercussions. We typically refer to those cultures as underdeveloped.

[johnnyanmac]

>That would be like throwing out good fruit, when there are spoiled ones.

Have you seen the industry lately? They don't care unless they have leadership who actually has tech experience. The company will float long enough for the next executive to worry about the consequences.

To put it more charitably: They may want to care but there's too much beuracracy to holistically figure out performance, and the stats measured are horrible 99% of the time anyway. So yeah, it all comes down to "vibes". Which is probably worse than random for tech workers. They won't feel short term consequences, so it's not a big deal for them if they lose a few "best and brightest" (they will probably leave after the layoff announcements anyway).

[Clubber]

>But they always fire the weak employees

What you are referring to is called rightsizing and it's taught in business schools, but almost never implemented well. I would guess it's because it takes to long to figure out who's weak and who's not and they are in a hurry to cut costs.

[heyjamesknight]

This is a joke, right? If a company is underperforming, then the underperformers are the first to go. Market economies require efficiency. Capital flows in the direction of success. Impeding this flow with regulation is a great way to create a malfunctioning economy.

[pixelatedindex]

I’ve seen instances where the people with the most seniority are let go first because they cost the company more.

[johnnyanmac]

Nope. it REALLY depends. Sometimes underperformers are focused on. Sometimes worst ratio of performance to pay is focused on. Sometimes it's random if lawsuits are a worry (AKA they want to layoff the older workers but need to shuffle in some others so it isn't suspicious). Sometimes it's purely vibes for who's picking who to be laid off.

There's no consistent layoff strategy. Especially not in times like this.

> Impeding this flow with regulation is a great way to create a malfunctioning economy.

yup, and look where we are heading next year...

[indy]

Isn't firing the weak employees the correct long term strategy? Especially with regards to ensuring that the remaining employees stay employed

[s1artibartfast]

Im not sure if you are sarcastic or not.

If not, I think you have a highly unrealistic opinion of who the company operates for.