"About 10% of the global workforce will be affected ... the move is not meant to cut costs and that the company expects to re-hire the same number of employees,"
Sounds like Sasan is copying Elons approach to management
I wonder when investors will see this for what it is, a waste of money.
If you are hiring the wrong people your HR\hiring process is broken.
If you are hiring people with lower skill levels than expected, you could make a relatively small investment into upskilling them. Cheaper than fire + severance + rehire.
If you are firing people who are unmotivated you have a culture problem and are just putting a band aid over it while you burn through staff that you have invested in.
I've been on the hiring end of the spectrum for a while (and our teams haven't done any lay offs).
One thing I've definitely noticed as a repeating pattern is a lot of candidates who are laid off were making astronomical salaries compared to their years of experience. E.g. I recently interviewed a marketing manager candidate with 4 years of experience who was asking for a salary higher than an engineer with 10 years of experience. In today's current market, I'd expect the engineer to be earning 30-50% more due to higher market salaries in engineering and more yrs experience.
A lot of companies prior to doing lay offs had a lot of junior/mid-level employees earning what (today) would only be offered to a senior.
Companies can't go to their employees and say "Oops, we hired you at a salary that, today, is too high for the role you're in" -- I guess they could try, but that conversation wouldn't go over well with most people.
I also don't really blame companies for being in this situation. They had to offer inflated salaries because the only alternative was to hire no one during the covid boom.
So basically, by firing and re-hiring, you can reset an entire department's salary bands. Which sometimes can be healthy especially if people within the company share salary info with each other, and a newly hired person with 10 yrs experience finding out they earn 30% less than someone with 3 years experience, just because of the timing of when they were hired.
It's kind of a lose-lose situation for everyone involved. (Including the company who in many cases would prefer not to churn the staff just to reset salaries back down to market levels)
> I also don't really blame companies for being in this situation. They had to offer inflated salaries because the only alternative was to hire no one during the covid boom.
Then don't hire?
The point of full-time is to avoid uncertainty and instability. If you want that flexibility as an employer, then pay the premium of contract developers. This is why you need to have no "right-to-work" legislation for prevent non-cause firing. And no, "I can get cheaper" is not a valid cause.
Stability creates economic growth. I work for a Fortune 500 company. I expect to keep working at it for the next 10 years. That means I treat my income as a revenue stream, and that if I lose my job I can find another relatively soon with a relatively similar salary. I buy cars and houses and trips and in general budget as if there is more income coming. This grows the economy.
If you make employment precarious, then I'm gonna treat each pay cheque as a windfall that will be hoarded into a low-risk savings because I have no security and no idea how many more may come. This shrinks the economy.
So, if you want to grow the economy it's best to reduce future uncertainty and over reacting to current events and smooth out bumps.
...and if you don't want to honor the social contract of a full-time job, then just hire contract workers. Otherwise it's just as sleazy as saying you want a relationship and then ghosting after fucking. It's gross.
Were you even paying attention? The 2008 crisis was caused by trying to continue growth by looking for more and more people to lend to even those that didn't have the credit history to be worthy of it.
Almost all crises (nature ones excluded) are caused by greed, and the desire for indefinite (or continuous) growth is the usual indicator of that greed.
Economic can't grow forever - resources are finite, time is finite, space is finite, number of people is growing slower than the economy ...
The only thing that grows forever is money printing.
> newly hired person with 10 yrs experience finding out they earn 30% less than someone with 3 years experience, just because of the timing of when they were hired.
That's the problem with how pay scales, job titles and performance evaluation are setup. If there are no standard way to set this for everyone then this will bound to just happen again and be a recurring pain.
Unfortunately the only obvious solution I can think of is to have salaries that can go up and down like the stock market, so that employees are always paid market rates.
But of course that won’t fly at any company. Every employee expects annual pay increases no matter what.
And these increases are based on what? His improved speed of work, or improved quality of work, or better company culture, or just the time that has been passed?
How do any of these apply if you have a top-heavy workforce that is strongly overpaid relative to its output? Or if you over-hired for certain roles during a temporary economic situation and retraining to other roles is non-trivial? Over time organizations tend to collect a lot of people who aren’t worth their salary. This is one way to deal with that.
The incentives are also there for middle/lower-upper management. You get to cut the people you don't like. You get to intimidate the remainder into accepting fewer promotions or raises.
People are acting all confused that this is happening when it is very clearly explained by the financial incentives. Its not some giant meritocracy, its people skimming off the top.
I note in UK you are not supposed to use redundancy for performance management, and immediately rehiring into "redundant" positions opens you up to legal action from the people made redundant.
Stuff like this is why Europe will always forever be extremely economically uncompetitive. The language you Brit’s use, “redundancy” is tailor made to psychologically prime your population into a productivity death loop.
> Stuff like this is why Europe will always forever be extremely economically uncompetitive.
People will argue any workers rights and protections at all make countries less competitive.
Honestly though? So be it. Corporations don't have a right to exploit people as they see fit and protecting the weaker party, the employee, is more important.
"We could have infinite growth and make way more money if only we could abuse you more"
Can you expand more? My country (US) also uses euphemisms to soften raw exercises of power, dominance, rejection and other uncomfortable things. Why do you think this makes the UK/Europe bad if they use them as well?
fairly sure the Lean Startup book is based on intuit, which is funny given that rather than a product company, they are a lobbying organization so distasteful that even a country generally tolerant of distasteful lobbying finally succeeded in passing them like a kidney stone
> Intuit Inc. is cutting 1,800 employees, the company said Wednesday, marking another major jobs cull in tech.
> About 10% of the global workforce will be affected, Chief Executive Officer Sasan Goodarzi said in a letter to employees. He said the move is not meant to cut costs and that the company expects to re-hire the same number of employees, primarily in its engineering, product and sales divisions.
> Shares of the software company fell 1.6% in premarket trading on the news.
Who isn't in "engineering, product, and customer facing roles such as sales, customer success, and marketing"?
--
Also keep in mind "All employees in the US will have 60 days before they leave the company with a last day of September 9, 2024." isn't out of the generosity of their heart. It's to be compliant with federal regulations (WARN ACT [1]).
Don't forget Intuit's lobbying corps. Someone's got to carry out the noble mission of backhanding money to legislators to stop tax filing from being easy.
I wonder how much of this is related to them seeing that their fax filing goolden goose is about to be seriously diminished and is just a change in priorities? Espcially after also killing mint in favor of whatever their other offering now is.
But is this a case of the people being cut don't match the skills necessary or are the roles going to be the same but different teams/locations?
I wonder at what ratio, it will not make much financial sense to outsource to India. For example, for us, we can get folks in Ireland for less than half than the U.S. Much lower for eastern and central Europe. The time zone difference is more favorable than India. Quality of work is generally better as well.
I love the US/Pacific IST difference two windows for interaction each day. On the other hand Europe is very hard to work with.
And the actual reason to hire in more cities is to find the precious resource of brilliant people. Cost savings is prima facie short term, but the folks who can solve hard problems with beautiful code is worth a lot.
Not owned but started there. The Argo stack is a CNCF project that "graduated" in 2022.
Anyway, although there's still code coming from Intuit, nowadays I think there is a sizable portion of contributions coming from Akuity and Codefresh, among others...
Defunding the ACA is challenging because it would throw the health insurance markets off a cliff ans lead to millions of people losing their insurance. Thats much more scarier than losing access to a free software provided by IRS.
AI is the last thing you want involved in accounting. Book-keeping and tax preparation are exercises in precision at a very high level of semantic knowledge. You have to understand why money flows through a company. These are skills the chatbots are proven incapable of demonstrating. Moreover, the parts that can and should be automated already have been for the last 15 or so years, with automatic transaction importing and prefiltering tools (none of which used chatbots).
The average business owner is usually overwhelmed with the backend of running a business by the time they come to me. If a client told me they used accounting software with AI features, the first thing I'd do is fully audit their books and review any filings done using chatbot-affected records.
Sounds like Sasan is copying Elons approach to management