Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Microsoft

Microsoft CEO To Slash 18,000 Jobs, 12,500 From Nokia To Go 383

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the burning-the-platform dept.
DW100 (2227906) writes "Satya Nadella has taken an axe to Microsoft's 127,000-strong workforce by announcing a whopping 18,000 job cuts, including 12,500 from the recently integrated Nokia division. At least 13,000 jobs will go within the next six months." It's official, Ballmer's layoff record has been smashed. From the email sent to employees: "The first step to building the right organization for our ambitions is to realign our workforce. With this in mind, we will begin to reduce the size of our overall workforce by up to 18,000 jobs in the next year. Of that total, our work toward synergies and strategic alignment on Nokia Devices and Services is expected to account for about 12,500 jobs, comprising both professional and factory workers. We are moving now to start reducing the first 13,000 positions, and the vast majority of employees whose jobs will be eliminated will be notified over the next six months."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft CEO To Slash 18,000 Jobs, 12,500 From Nokia To Go

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 17, 2014 @09:32AM (#47474177)

    [Posting AC because I'm talking about my own employer.]

    Bullshit. H1-Bs save employers more than enough to pay for the bureaucratic overhead of hiring them. That's a one-time cost that's easily amortized over the three or six years of the visa, and if you hire lots of H1-Bs, the process can be pretty well streamlined. You can even outsource the paperwork.

    The last time I had to hire two code monkeys, the company hired an agency in India to find H1-B candidates. We interviewed over 20 candidates, and made offers to ten. Two of them turned out to have misrepresented their work histories, we finally hired two, and the rest ran screaming the other way when they saw what we offered. It was infuriating, but the bean-counters wouldn't budge. Get people who will take what we offer or do without.

    This is what companies do. Their employees aren't their greatest asset, they're their greatest cost center. In the long term, it's stupid, but the suits don't care. They only care about this quarter's (or this week's) results. Why buy socks at Nordstrom when you can buy them at Walmart?

  • by core (3330) on Thursday July 17, 2014 @09:33AM (#47474179) Homepage

    Not exactly a surprise
    http://www.theverge.com/2014/7/17/5911909/microsoft-kills-off-its-nokia-android-phones

  • by beelsebob (529313) on Thursday July 17, 2014 @09:35AM (#47474191)

    As a foreign worker in the US, I have no idea where you got that $15 an hour from. I can assure you, I'm paid substantially more than that.

  • by donscarletti (569232) on Thursday July 17, 2014 @09:40AM (#47474241)

    Here's the thing.

    We are moving now to start reducing the first 13,000 positions, and the vast majority of employees whose jobs will be eliminated will be notified over the next six months."

    They are announcing layoffs that will not be implemented, in some cases for over 6 months in the future. That means, for over 6 months, Microsoft employees won't know for sure whether they will be laid off or kept. In management terms, that is going to result in dramatically lower morale and productivity for half a year for what? So that Microsoft can announce 5,000 more layoffs than they are actually capable of firing right now.

    It really just shows how much more Microsoft cares about stock value than running a good company.

  • by GNious (953874) on Thursday July 17, 2014 @10:20AM (#47474589)

    In some (many?) countries, sizable lay-offs have to be announced well in advanced by law - they may just be trying to accommodate for this.

  • by Raseri (812266) on Thursday July 17, 2014 @10:20AM (#47474593)
    Sorry, but nobody checks any of that out, thus, there's nothing to stop any company from putting whatever they want on the form and then paying the employee much, much less. You didn't get fucked over because you're from the UK, congratulations. It's much easier to fuck over people, from third-world shitholes like India, who think $30k/yr is a lot of money.

    I hope you're enjoying your time in the colonies, anyway.
  • by alexo (9335) on Thursday July 17, 2014 @10:32AM (#47474693) Journal

    You should have offered to help.
    For $200/hour + expenses.

  • by gaudior (113467) on Thursday July 17, 2014 @10:38AM (#47474743) Homepage

    Mergers & Acquisitions. It's a Wall Street Term of Art that describes the rape and murder of smaller companies by bigger ones.

  • by Joe Gillian (3683399) on Thursday July 17, 2014 @11:05AM (#47474961)

    I think in this case, it's to avoid lawsuits. "Buzzword Bingo" speeches are made specifically to be as vague and neutral as possible so that there's zero chance of a discrimination lawsuit from someone who gets laid off as a result of these job cuts. A friend of mine just recently showed me a good example of why executives do this. His company went through a round of layoffs, and his was one of the jobs that was cut. Rather than simply use CEO-speak and lay him off, they fired him in an attempt to dodge paying him unemployment benefits - they claimed he was sleeping on the job, but none of the statements the managers there gave to the unemployment office matched up. He brought this up in an appeal to the unemployment office, and they awarded him benefits because they saw through the company's BS.

    Outside of that, though? I think it's a Jungian thing. The CEOs think that successful CEOs speak in buzzwords all the time, so they form their own CEO persona and start acting like that because they want to be successful as well. What they probably don't realize is that the truly successful CEOs don't actually do that unless it's absolutely necessary and just assume they're doing the right thing by using buzzwords all the time. Whatever gets them promoted, I guess.

  • by MikeRT (947531) on Thursday July 17, 2014 @12:05PM (#47475455) Homepage

    You think Elon Musk went into Nokia with an understanding of what Nokia needed as a business? Or merely a view that whatever they were doing was wrong because it wasn't based on Microsoft stuff?

    Don't you mean Stephen Elop? If Elon Musk had taken over Nokia, chances are Nokia would have ended up owning Samsung not being acquired by Microsoft.

Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.

Working...