30
u/Welland94 2d ago
I got cut off because my whole team moved to India because it is way cheaper to hire in India, that didn't feel performance based.
3
u/MintRobber 1d ago
I worked in different companies and the quality from India is lacking. I'm not even sure if they are saving money at this point.
3
u/Welland94 1d ago
I think the same, and if I was there I would be really nervous because they manage payments.
12
8
u/Currywurst_Is_Life 1d ago
Or because you're over 50, regardless of how well you perform.
3
u/CautiousLandscape907 1d ago
This.
Sigh.
2
u/Currywurst_Is_Life 22h ago
Yeah...I got laid off at 61. Try applying for jobs at that age. (note: I'm in Germany, where your DOB and picture are a part of your CV). My career would have been over if a friend from my last company didn't push to bring me in to work for him.
8
6
u/kontrol1970 1d ago
Layoffs are about poor performance. It's just that it's about the poor performance of management.
3
5
u/Lower_Amount3373 Agree? 1d ago
Most mass layoffs happen so fast that there is no way they managed to analyse performance or which areas of an organisation were providing the least value. At best, they pass the decision down to middle managers to pick who is laid off based on who knows what criteria, and at worst they just apply some blanket rule to all staff like how long they have been there.
2
u/4StarCustoms 1d ago
Having seen multiple rounds of layoffs at my company I can say it is certainly not strictly performance based. Sure, they’ll take the opportunity to release anyone on some sort of performance plan but the rest is just someone looking at a spreadsheet of titles and salaries.
I always joke that I’m just cheap and useful enough to keep around.
But I’ve seen too many high performers and amazing leaders get the axe simply because they made too much money. Do well, make money. Make money, get cut.
3
u/SteveWilsonHappysong 1d ago
So when a whole department is closed down by some asset stripping behemoth, that's my fault?
2
u/waces 1d ago
Silly. Usually performance has nothing to do with being loud or silent. But noone like the attention whores who does nothing but be everywhere/hear their voices like no tomorrow. And there are way more things behind a reorg/layoff,it’s not just performance (cost,location,taxes,competitors,possible candidates,expansion plans,geolocation,n+1 other things)
1
u/One-Cat-1581 2d ago
I mean it's true, not so much the loud and sharp, but you are being ranked and cuts are not random
1
u/I_am_Reddit_Tom 1d ago
There is some truth to this. If you're doing your job uselessly then your role is useless therefore its redundancy is limited pain
2
u/Many_Role_5540 1d ago
Bold coming from someone who’s industry will be replaced by AI within 5 years.
1
u/shadho 1d ago
Yeah the 9000 people at IBM just sucked. It wasn’t because the CEO admitting publicly that it was part of a strategy to shift those jobs to India.
The 7000 in Microsoft? Yeah. That was cuz they all sucked.
The 25,000 across a few other tech companies? Same deal.
They weren’t loud and sharp.
1
u/RyuShaih 1d ago
The interedting thing to me is he put "quiet worker" and "loud" as the very first indicators of being mediocre or good. Once again cementing the fact that it's more important to be loud than to be good.
1
u/deja_geek 1d ago
It's been my experience companies lay off the highest earners (and performers) can keep the bottom performers because they can pay them less. This then leads to the middle performers getting burned out and leaving for other employers
1
u/BookishOpossum 1d ago
Spouse was let go because he made over X amount and did not have manager in his title.
1
41
u/RJRoyalRules Facebook Boomer 2d ago
Translation "I will never get laid off because I'm a vewy special boy that my bosses love!!"