Out of all these IT companies it seems like Phil is the first to call it a painful process, not just optimisation. Seems like he at least understands what a bad press it is to lay off 2k of people so he doesn’t keep this happy attitude about that, and even promise severance payments. And compared to others, they just had a big merger with dublicating departments and other internal structural shenanigans always meaning future lay offs.
What a weird way to start a year feeling like M$ is the most ethical maneater, although they top the list in hard numbers now. Can’t wrap my head around it.
Your first mistake is believing anything Phil said as even slightly remorseful. Executives are full of shit and emotions for them is an act. These layoffs were probably planned months in advance and it’s not like he can publicly applaud them, anyway.
Did I say I trust him? His speech is probably handed to him by a secretary. I’m talking about that speech even mentioning something besides rising effectiveness of the company further on, it isn’t even mentioned.
It’s literally the point, merging companies are a left join, not a full outer join. The entire point is to save money by removing overlap - anyone who doesn’t expect that has no idea how businesses operate.
there is. this is at a large scale however. and involved cancelling projects. normally this happens because of redundancies in rolls (like QA for example, microsoft already has QA, marketing, stuff like that)
I hope everyone who plays Call of Duty next year on Game Pass takes a moment of silence for the ~2000 people that had to lose their jobs to make it possible.
Of course they know them. That’s how Microsoft buys a multi-billion dollar company and expects to turn a profit - not by continuing to run the company the way it was, but by trimming staff from one or both companies.
Every time there is a massive capital investment, whether by a hedge fund or a bigger company, there is an unstated “and profit by making it worse” in the headline. Sometimes, a poorly managed company can yield profits just through better management, but most of the time it hurts workers which in turn hurts customers, but there is massive profit to be made while the coasting on the inertia of the former quality.
I can say from experience, if your company gets bought out your job is about to get worse if it even still exists.
This always happens with mergers, and it’s disgusting that our government knows this and allows it to happen without a plan.
T-Mobile buying sprint did the same thing. “Oh, we’ll need everyone on deck!” Really? You’ll need 2 teams rolling out the same phone? You’ll need twice as many people managing the same amount of plans? That’s just not how it works.
Surprisingly, as soon as the heat was off of them after the merger they laid off entire departments that were “redundant”. Never trust a corpo kids.
Even without any cynicism, I think the government was more interested in there being tighter competition among cell carriers than they were with the people who will lose their jobs in a merger. With all due respect to those who fall on tough times as a result of that kind of merger, it's a more short term and small scale problem than there being fewer viable competitors in an important sector of the market.
It’s also not necessarily easier, but more understandable, for roles such as HR, marketing, etc…yes, it’s still someone’s job but one company probably doesn’t need two HR teams worth of people and cuts accordingly.
Message being that everyone should have their head on a swivel during a merger and that goes double for those jobs that provide day-to-day business support to keep things running.
eurogamer.net
Aktywne