>The UK workers didn't just say "don't fire us." They offered a ton of different options that, based on actual data, would have produced the same savings as the proposed layoffs. These included things like voluntary layoffs. All of these proposals were rejected.
What were the specific list of proposals? The only one you mentioned (voluntary layoffs) is a bad idea because it leads the most talented people to leave.
> What were the specific list of proposals? The only one you mentioned (voluntary layoffs) is a bad idea because it leads the most talented people to leave.
Roughly, voluntary redundancies, pay cuts, unpaid sabbaticals, job trades, and various other implementation details.
They also presented a range of options for those at risk of, for example, deportation, including those at risk of deportation to face legal consequences at home or conscription. None of these suggestions were accepted.
Voluntary redundancy does not mean that anyone can choose to be laid off, but rather that anyone can apply. The company could reject applications from critical people.
Sabbaticals tend to increase retention, as those with long tenure can take a break without quitting.
And anyway, the company doesn't necessarily only want to cut the "bottom talent", they may want to cut expensive talent.
Yeah, there should be a process where people are evaluated by their peers to measure their performance and impact. The input from people who have demonstrated high impact should weigh more heavily.
Oh wait, Google already has that. If that's not working well, that's its own problem. These layoffs were somewhat indiscriminate, with high-performing people getting fired.
It may be a worse idea for the company (though I'm not sure - the US layoffs weren't based on performance). But, as far as I can tell, the response has not been "these suggestions are unacceptable for reasons X, Y, and Z, please propose additional suggestions" but instead has been "nah, we are just gonna do what we want."
I am blending the Zurich case with the UK case in my mind, though. There's a lot to keep track of here.
>The only one you mentioned (voluntary layoffs) is a bad idea because it leads the most talented people to leave
Not necessarily.
Also people who have been sticking around out of inertia and doing the bare minimum. People ready to retire a bit early. Etc. Basically, it's reasonable to think that most people who would volunteer--especially at a very top-tier pay job--might well not be there in a year or so anyway. (There is I guess an argument that the people who are going to leave anyway will leave with or without a package so why pay for the package?)
While you might not want to choose people purely based on volunteers, it's not clear that taking at least some volunteers doesn't benefit both the company and workers.
It makes Google a less competitive employer. It’s better than being laid off, for those that would have been laid off. But worse for the top 94% of people that Google wanted to keep. Why optimize for the bottem 6%?
Why would you assume that people on the edge of leaving Google in exchange for a package are going to stay there anyway--and, especially, put any real effort into it.
I'd be willing to bet that whatever 94% Google ended up deciding to keep would not be the "best" working on the most important/strategic projects and unlikely to leave Google anyway in the next 6-12 months.
What were the specific list of proposals? The only one you mentioned (voluntary layoffs) is a bad idea because it leads the most talented people to leave.