Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Rumored To Lay Off Thousands Worldwide
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Mon Jan 05, 2009 11:47 AM
from the that's-not-good dept.
from the that's-not-good dept.
nandemoari writes "It seems not even Microsoft is impervious to the effects of this increasingly painful recession. According to reports, the Redmond-based company is preparing to lay off about 17 per cent of its entire workforce in the coming months.
Despite its portfolio diversity — including operating systems, antivirus software, and video game consoles — Microsoft is clearly feeling the pressure applied by a tightening global economy. In fact, there seems to be a sense of emergency to the massive cuts (about 15,000 workers out of 90,000), which rumors suggest should be made official by January 15."
Related Stories
[+]
Technology: CES 2009 Shrinks With Dwindling Economy 76 comments
nandemoari writes "Not long after we first heard murmurs Microsoft may be ready to lay off as much as 17 per cent of its workforce, the popular Consumer Electronics Show, held every year in Las Vegas, is rumored to be shrinking alongside the global economy. The Consumer Electronics Association, host of the CES, estimates that the numbers of both exhibitors and visitors will be down in 2009. The CEA expects about 130,000 people will attend this year, down 11,000 from last year. And about 2,700 exhibitors are expected to attend, down from 3,000 in 2008."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
That's because (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft saw that 10% of their employees were hanging around on /. all day hoping for a first post.
Re:That's because (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:That's because (Score:5, Funny)
And that is why MS sucks. Any industrious developer would have developed a first-post bot already.
I might even be one myself. Written in LISP of course (ironically, not a .NET language)
Parent
Re:That's because (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
a shame (Score:5, Funny)
What's a shame? 15,000 Microsoft employees losing their jobs.
What's a crying shame? 75,000 continuing to work for Microsoft.
Re:a shame (Score:5, Funny)
Ridiculous MS Bashing: This is slashdot. No MS bashing shall be referred to as ridiculous.
During a depression: You folks are in a recession at the moment. The common consensus is that a depression only occurs when real GDP growth declines by 10% [about.com] or more in a year. America isn't near those numbers [wikipedia.org] yet.
grudge with MS: Again, here most people have one of those. Please find a better argument.
fact that you have some imaginary grudge: Look, either it's real and he has one, or it is imaginary and therefore he cannot have it. Your statement contradicts itself and confuses the reader.
that's 15000 people with families: Now, the real point of this whole post was to argue this point. These poor sods getting laid off, working for a software developer, these software developers, these NERDS. They don't have families, they are considered almost iconic if they have gotten to second base! Microsoft isn't laying off 15,000 family members, they are shit-canning 15,000 geeks who live in their parents basement, play Warhammer 40K on weekends while eating pizza and come home after work to play World of Warcraft!
Now back off Anonymous Coward! Back away with these dangerous ideals of yours!
Parent
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to ask...why? I thought Microsoft was massively profitable, even today. Surely they don't have to fire all these people to prevent losses?
If Microsoft is still profitable, despite the recession, then they are really using the economy as a 'cover' to do the layoffs they always wanted, anyways. A good chunk of Microsoft represents divisions that don't make money, and never have. They have all sorts of niche applications, research, online sites, game consoles, ect...none of which, as far as I know, have made them any money. All of Microsoft's dough comes from Windows and Office.
(before you say the Xbox division has made money, check your numbers : it never has made anywhere close to the money that was invested into it for each console. And, once a console is obsoleted, if you haven't made the money you spent to develop it back, you never will)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you look at the blogs of some of the microsoft employees, Microsoft isn't just using the recession to cut unprofitable product lines, they're also using it to cut people who maybe shouldn't have been hired in the first place. Specifically, layoffs are being used as a way of culling the bottom 10 or 20% of performers in order to improve the overall performance of the company.
Parent
You mean (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:You mean (Score:5, Insightful)
Please, spell out "people". You're not text messaging.
Parent
Re:You mean (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:You mean (Score:5, Funny)
I'm pasting farm my celly up unison steve cloud.
Parent
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
"layoffs are being used as a way of culling the bottom 10 or 20% of performers"
Ballmer should be nervous.
Parent
Re:Why? (Score:4, Funny)
Rumor has it they are planning on doing this every month until everyone is in the top 50%.
I can't tell if 'low performer' there means they introduced too many bugs, or too few...
Parent
Interesting Logic (Score:5, Funny)
Rumor has it they are planning on doing this every month until everyone is in the top 50%.
I hope this guy doesn't write code.
Parent
Re:Interesting Logic (Score:5, Funny)
I hope this guy doesn't write code.
He's on the Zune team. Why do you ask?
Parent
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know what happens when they announce this kind of stuff? The top 20% start looking for new jobs and bail out or retire. They don't want or need to deal with the tasks from the bottom 20% who got canned.
My last company got in a crunch and started a round of layoffs.. They managed to drag the selection process on so long almost all the top level admins, DBAs and programmers bailed out before they could name people. In the end there were very few layoffs because all the top people left and didn't get replaced..
Parent
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Specifically, layoffs are being used as a way of culling the bottom 10 or 20% of performers in order to improve the overall performance of the company.
That'll be interesting, then. By and large, every performance measuring I've ever seen has been flawed, and unless it was for very simple jobs, greatly so.
Especially in a development environment, performance is hard to measure. There are anecdotes en masse about people who contributed very little measurable output to a project, but when they were fired the whole thing went down the drain.
Cutting "low performers" has, in my experience, always been a sign of a company in financial trouble. One that desperately needs to save money in order to please stockholders, and employees simply are one of those "cutting costs opportunities" that stockholders love.
Parent
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
"the best thing for them to do is put them all on projects with a 3-7 year horizon"
Do you have any idea how big you're asking them to make the IE standards compliance team?
Parent
In theory, a company could be investing (Score:5, Interesting)
In theory, a company could be investing for a major project, esp. if it has lots of money in the bank.
But those days, when you have (still) have to compete with hedge fund managers who can (could) generate gobs of money doing nothing, a real company doing some real work doesn't look serious.
Hopefully this will change as a result of the current financial crisis, but I'm afraid the right lessons aren't being learned when you see the Big 3 CEOs being lampooned for not taking a bus when they were asking for 20 billions, while nobody asked the bank CEOs how many dozens of millions they spent on blow, hookers and cocaine in the past months, and the fuckers got several hundred billions, for doing nothing but fuck the whole economy up.
Parent
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Jack Welch was the one of the first guys to propose the idea of firing the weak performers and at GE popularized it company wide, firing employees and selling weak businesses. I have not worked at GE, but from reading his book it seems that it is important to measure the right outcome before firing people. When he said that he would sell off companies which were not number one in their industry, the companies started redefining the industry very narrowly so as to be number one. eg: We are the number one company that makes 40W bulbs and toothpastes. He also explains how you can end up firing wrong employees.
So Firing bad employees has been done atleast by one company in times when they were not in financial trouble.
Parent
I worked for Neutron Jack Welch (Score:5, Interesting)
I worked for GE during the days of Neutron Jack Welch. The company culture was fear and intimidation. My immediate manager cried in the office at least one a week. I attended meetings where the secret agenda was that the meeting would continue until somebody cried. In management training, I was directed to march in the hallways chanting slogans to the effect that "no one is irreplaceable." I was yelled at by people who didn't even know my name. I saw people spit on each other. Two people were killed in separate suspicious fork lift accidents.
Welch told his general managers that if they did not produce returns that exceeded the market average, the first thing to happen would be the dismissal of the manager and then the business unit would be sold. The business units then ended all R&D and cut overhead to the bone by eliminating every conceivable soft benefit including the water fountains, toilet paper, and bathroom cleaning. The businesses cannibalized themselves for short term profit while the managers waited out the clock for early retirement or a new job. The successors would just have to deal with the low moral, lack of investment, and empty husk of a business left behind.
Welch was great for share holder, but he was very bad for employees. It's debatable, but he may have been very bad for GE in the long term.
Parent
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
At my work, if a ticket comes in at a certain severity, it's my task to close the ticket, and reopen it at a lower severity. THEN start working on fixing the problem. This doesn't help me serve the clients, but it does help improve our metrics. In fact I don't think I've once heard anything about improving customer service where I work in the past year, it's all about doing more work remotely.
Parent
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Why layoff? (Score:5, Insightful)
culling the bottom 10 or 20% of performers in order to improve the overall performance of the company.
If someone isn't doing a satisfactory job, they can be fired.
But no matter how many people you lay off, you'll always have someone in the lower 10 to 20 percentile. That's just the way statistics works.
There are a variety of reasons why culling the bottom performers seldom improves the performance of the company as a whole:
I've seen management buy into the "layoff the lowest performers" myth far too often to let it go. It is almost always the harbinger of deeper, structural problems within the company, which if left unaddressed, result in the financial collapse of the company. Laying off people - even the worst performers - almost never results in a more efficient company. If you can't fire them for cause, they're more than likely adding value, even if that value isn't being measured by a performance metric. Take that away, and you take away your ability to do business.
Parent
Re:Why layoff? (Score:5, Funny)
I couldn't agree more. Three of the companies I have worked at for more than a year closed their doors shortly after I decided to leave. That's the way I remember it anyway.
Parent
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather, if MS is like any place I've ever worked, he was probably referring to the people who shouldn't be in the position that they are in.
unfortunately those are the people who will be deciding who goes.
Parent
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, that's a really douchebag move on Microsoft's part. If they are going to fire a ton of people to increase their profits, why didn't they do this when the economy was ok? Or wait until the recession ends? Essentially they are kicking out thousands of people during the WORST possible time to be fired, and doing this now in order to not look as bad and to prevent lawsuits. (since the best way to do a questionable firing is to lump it together with a bunch of other firings and call it a 'layoff')
I know, I know, Corporations are not your friend, even if they employ you. They are out for themselves, and noone else. But why would an employee of Microsoft be motivated to 'go the extra mile' for a company that does things like this? If a company I was working for did stuff like this, I would quickly lose any loyalty I had and try to find ways to manipulate the system in order to do the least work for the most pay.
Parent
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Err...isn't that what everyone does now?
Not so much the least work part...but, really, the days of loyalty to a job/company....and having a job for life are LONG gone my friend. There is no such thing anymore, aside from very, very small operations maybe.
That's why I like...and advocate more people try to get into contracting. If you are going to, as an employee, get treated with no loyalty...are easily replaceable, they why not get paid contractor rates? And hell...it isn't like you have any more job security as a direct employee..just talking with a friend of mine that is an engineer in the oil rig building business. He mentioned that some work had slowed...and they fired a direct employee..to keep him around as a contractor.
So really, don't get too caught up on this loyalty thing. In most cases, you are dispensible to the company, don't take a job as something personal. It is merely something to earn money from. If you like doing the stuff, even the better, but, don't try to think you will be appreciated personally in the long run. And don't take it personally, it is just business. Yes, try to make the max. buck you can. They are only after the max work they can get out of you.
Parent
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
You still live in the illusionary world, where companies care for anything other than more money? Why do you think, they call them "human resources"? Because you don't work with resources. You use them. And when you used them up, you throw away the empty shells.
They don't even need to attempt to cover anything. It's just you, thinking they had some kind of conscience.
If Microsoft does anything at all, it is, to make more money. There are no second objectives.
And this is not a MS-specific thing. It's the foundation of all capitalism and all companies.
This is why some people hate capitalism. I don't hate. I just think that there is no better alternative yet.
Parent
Profitability Has Nothing to Do With It (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the Dirty Secret: Around the nation there are profitable companies who have been operating "fat" for years, with bloated rosters of do-nothing personnel. You know this -- We all know this, we've bitched and moaned about it on this board and down at the local pub for years. The trouble was, it was just too difficult to fire anybody. In the litigation-happy workplace that was late 20th century America, a guy had to practically set fire to his cubicle with two secretaries tied to chairs inside it before he could be let go.
No More.
Now, all any large company has to do is mumble something about "recession" or "difficult times" and nobody -- employee, manager, or labor lawyer -- will blink twice.
Parent
overhiring intentional when lot of turnover (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Profitability Has Nothing to Do With It (Score:5, Funny)
a guy had to practically set fire to his cubicle with two secretaries tied to chairs inside it before he could be let go.
Sheesh. Why do people keep bringing this up? I'd like to put it behind me.
Read the report. It was all just a big misunderstanding. I did the counseling and volunteered in the burn unit, and as a result I was cleared of all charges and got to keep my job.
And it's "Administrative Assistant" (admin for short), not "Secretary". I learned that in the counseling.
Parent
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to ask...why? I thought Microsoft was massively profitable, even today. Surely they don't have to fire all these people to prevent losses?
You have a lot to learn about how Wall Street works. Being profitable is not enough to keep stock prices high. Brokers and analysts come up with figures [investopedia.com] (sorry for the ads) that corporations have to meet or exceed for fear of a massive sell-off. As a result, corporate executives often order massive layoffs in order to meet these expectations made by Wall Street to keep the value of their stocks high.
In my opinion, this is a major flaw in the way our economy operates as these layoffs ultimately do more harm than good. Corporations that do these types of layoffs often hire many new employees as soon as it looks like they will beat The Street's expectations and will spend massive resources to train them, only to get rid of them down the line. Employee's are all unique and should be treated as an investment, not a commodity. [wikipedia.org]
Parent
It's about time. (Score:5, Interesting)
Lisa Brummel is a Microsoft Senior VP. She's in charge of human resources, and given some of her other decisions internally, I think she'll do the right thing and cut some weight from Microsoft.
Re:It's about time. (Score:5, Funny)
There are lots of smart people who deserve jobs at Microsoft.
Why, what did they do wrong?
Parent
Ah, an innocent victim, have we? (Score:5, Insightful)
Following your logic far enough reveals that we're all guilty of murder.
If you were half as clever as you think you are, you'd be able to rationally sort reality from your own hatred of Microsoft. BTW, this is coming from the president of a Linux User Group.
Take a step back, get some perspective, and stop allowing yourself to be so emotionally involved with technology. It's fine to be passionate about a technology... up until the point where it replaces rational thought. After you cross that point, you lose respect, geek cred., and any chance to be taken seriously. There are plenty of brilliant people who will never impact the world because they lost all creditability. Don't be one of them.
Parent
Last Week's "News" and Most Probably Inaccurate (Score:5, Informative)
A CNBC report out today appears to put to rest continued rumors of significant Microsoft layoffs coming this month.
In recent weeks, two blogs -- Mini-Microsoft and Fudzilla -- have both reported that Microsoft is preparing to lay off large numbers of employees before the company announces its second quarter earnings on Jan. 22.
Neither blogger quoted inside sources and both later backtracked on their reports.
Re:Last Week's "News" and Most Probably Inaccurate (Score:5, Funny)
Neither blogger quoted inside sources and both later backtracked on their reports.
Couldn't you have prefaced that with a "Spoiler Alert" warning? Or waited for a few hundred more posts?
You've ruined all the fun. If Slashdot is ever forced to lay people off, it'll be because of people like you interfering with everyone's God-given right to enjoy or otherwise take part in idle speculation, rumour-mongering, Microsoft-bashing, car analogies, or invoking the meme of the day.
Parent
Re:Last Week's "News" and Most Probably Inaccurate (Score:4, Informative)
This is happening, people just don't want to go on record.
In the town I live, with a MS campus, this has been the fact for a while. Many people were given 60 days to find new jobs, with massive amounts of people taking other unfilled jobs internally. Since there has been a hiring freeze for a long time, there are lots of open jobs.
They'll probably eliminate a lot of 'positions' but not a lot of 'people.'
Parent
Cuts are to Trim the Fat (Score:5, Funny)
Don't worry! the cuts are just "trimming the fat" on Microsoft, to make it a more "lean" company.
Cuts are expected to be in the following "unncecessary" departments:
- VISTA Marketing
- Quality Assurance
- Software Testing
- Maintenance Programming
More stock drops? (Score:4, Interesting)
These are the kind of crappy rumors (like Steve Jobs is sick, OH NOEZ!) that cause stock to drop, and then Microsoft really will have to cut some jobs.
H1B issue will be key (Score:4, Interesting)
In theory they can't lay off a ton of people in the US without pushing the H1B's out the door first - but it's unlikely they'll want to lose a bunch of their most cost effective workers. Be interesting to see what happens, they could have layoffs without layoffs (say it's all performance based), or the US could escape most of the cuts while the rest of the world gets layoffs. Suspect we'll see soon.
Re:H1B issue will be key (Score:4, Informative)
"or the US could escape most of the cuts while the rest of the world gets layoffs"
If you read TFA, it implies that the cuts are expected to be heaviest overseas.
Parent
Bailout (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Predicted a while ago (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft is still massively profitable. This downsizing will only make them more profitable. Microsoft may not be the #1 player in 20 or even 10 years, but this event has little to do with that.
Parent
Re:Companies do this kind of thing all the time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably because, for Microsoft, this doesn't happen all the time. I can't remember the last time Microsoft laid off 15, 10, or even 5 percent of their workforce.
Parent
Re:More FOSS developers (Score:4, Interesting)
If i had a guess, I'd think a lot of the people getting laid off will not be the core software engineers... Part of tech support, part in their offshore offices (since they had stated it had caused them more than a little bit of problem in the past), and the people that everyone wants fired but never were (there's always a lot of those, in any team).
With a sub 20% number of layoffs, very, very few people with the actual talent and drive to work on FOSS would be part of the job cut...unless they do things such as close an office and fire everyone in, regardless of importance.
Parent