Submitted by ravik_reddit_007 t3_11az9xi in technology
Comments
granoladeer t1_j9x6427 wrote
They're also laying off some desks
whole__sense t1_j9v4jq9 wrote
They lay off old timers and people with higher salaries while at the same time hire a bunch of people at entry-level salaries
qubedView t1_j9w9fx0 wrote
Ahh, I see. We’re at that “bleed talent from the company for short term stock gain and bail from this hot potato before it’s obvious we’re tanking” step.
There was a point in history where what was good for a company’s stock was good for the company in general. But now successful companies are shooting themselves in the foot with alarming frequency. If the stock isn’t going up, then the shareholders get angry. Doesn’t matter that the market is saturated and there is nowhere “up” left to go. The company won’t be complacent with steady massive profits and instead commit suicide just to get that last stock bump.
freediverx01 t1_j9ya44k wrote
This is the result of business schools churning out morons who accept the ramblings of Milton Friedman as gospel. The obscene idea that an executive’s sole duty is to maximize shareholder value (in the short term) without a second thought for customers, employees, a competitive market, or society in general.
jormungandrthepython t1_j9ykeie wrote
Listen to the Costco CEO talk sometimes. He constantly talks about ignoring the board when they tell him to make decisions for short term shareholder gain but long term brand/production damage.
Won’t increase the price of the hotdog or rotisserie chickens (incredible loss leaders), refuses to remove the tuition assistant programs and additional employee benefits, refused to change PTO and holiday pay.
We will see the coming days of brand deterioration. As a SWE it’s already a nightmare looking at company code where companies haven’t prioritized long term value.
My manager and I (I am a tech lead) are currently working on a huge project which will have massive benefits to our company and allow us to respond to management change requests and client needs so much faster. But we can’t tell anyone about it because the second we say we are working on it they will say “don’t focus on that, do these other 10 features because you clearly have time”. When if they give us 3 months to finish this, I could have the 10 features done in a week. Doing them now would take me 6 months…
I’m getting director buy in on some other work as well and seeing him stand up to execs is incredible “we aren’t doing that. Fire me if you want, but that’s a bad move and going to result in a crappy product and half our devs leaving”. Gives me goosebumps, but should be common place. Managers, bosses, CEOs, they are supposed to stand up to the wishy washy desires of the boards and the shareholders for the benefit of the long term success of the company. Not give in to crappy ideas because it looks good on their quarterly bonus.
freediverx01 t1_j9z1pyf wrote
I work in an organization with great leadership, especially at my department level. But I know from experience how rare this is in corporate America, where most middle managers and executives are only looking out for themselves and couldn’t care less about their customers, employees, or the company’s long term success beyond the next quarterly financial report.
Revolutionary_Lie539 t1_j9yqcyg wrote
BOD perps I mean peeps dont even do any work. How would most execs even know how to run a business?. Its just the privileged MBA party messing with workers.
NoiceMango t1_j9yzt7a wrote
That's the entire Country now, the thing that dictates not just the economy but our lifes.
BasielBob t1_j9ywqo0 wrote
>an executive’s sole duty is to maximize shareholder value (in the short term)
This is what gets you promotion or a better job opportunity.
For most C-suite people with business school background the primary duty is not to the company but to their careers.
freediverx01 t1_j9z2ail wrote
The problem is systemic. It’s expected that companies will often want to do the wrong thing out of greed, and the same applies to individuals. But we should have laws and regulatory oversight in place to curb these sociopathic tendencies. Instead, our system celebrates and rewards it. We have allowed the complete corruption of our political and economic systems.
coco_licius t1_j9zfzwl wrote
B Schools are coming around on this but it’s a reaction to what is happening in corporate America and for many it’s too late
freediverx01 t1_j9zixki wrote
First I hear of this.
[deleted] t1_j9vznzl wrote
[deleted]
Test19s t1_j9wpsdl wrote
Assuming it isn’t simply a bluff and that employers in Germany actually want to hire, all of a sudden they look a lot more competitive for, say, Brazilian and Indian talent.
[deleted] t1_j9y9u9k wrote
[deleted]
Ashe_SDMF t1_j9yajqr wrote
Their desk was part of their severance package.
korbonix t1_j9yird6 wrote
In Seattle at least, they really didn't lay off many people in Cloud and then the new building is two years behind on development. Although the building we use is rarely super full because people work from home a lot.
[deleted] t1_j9v31ei wrote
[removed]
dwightsrus t1_j9ydi7u wrote
Exactly my thought too.
[deleted] t1_j9yi0v7 wrote
[deleted]
ButtercupQueen17 t1_j9vrenv wrote
Google: doesn’t have enough desks for all its employees
Also Google: NO YOU CANT WORK FROM YOUR COMPUTER AT HOME YOU HAVE TO USE OURS FOR SOME REASON!
TJ_McWeaksauce t1_j9ycn6e wrote
Forced return-to-office plus invading each other's personal space is sure to improve collaboration!
gatorling t1_j9xzydz wrote
This…isn’t true. Remote work is an option for most employees. The problem is that a significant number of people are deciding to work from office and then not actually using the desks. So you see entire buildings of empty desks. Google doesn’t want to continue leasing or building new offices just to house empty desks.
ZeroNine2048 t1_j9y0hbp wrote
The article states that they have to come in a couple of days a week and alternate
Jeremycycles t1_j9yba7m wrote
We did this at AWS when I was there 8 years ago and no one cared
Smith6612 t1_j9xeqqx wrote
>NO YOU CANT WORK FROM YOUR COMPUTER AT HOME YOU HAVE TO USE OURS FOR SOME REASON!
It's a compliance thing. Google can get into serious trouble with many governments for people using un-managed home computers. SOX, PCI, GDPR, you name it. Home computers are an excellent conduit for data breaches. From a legal standpoint, your home computer automatically becomes part of evidence collection if there is ever an investigation by the company. Sure there are resources like Citrix Google could use to let home computers be used... but maybe Google doesn't use that for reasons.
Feel free to disagree, but Google has their reasons. Forcing people to work at an office while taking away their desk is dumb. Forcing people to use company hardware, no.
Western-Image7125 t1_j9xtwx6 wrote
What rubbish. The work is done on laptops which ssh to a secure desktop which is housed inside the office. So what’s the difference between working from a conference room and working from home, when you’re on a laptop and sshing into a desktop to work either way? I don’t know much about networking but if this was an issue then they would have forced all of us to come back to office a long long time ago and not given us a laptop to bring home ever.
Smith6612 t1_j9yigfe wrote
The issue is with the way the program is handled on the computer side. For example if you have tattleware installed for malicious purposes, a keylogger, or something else of the sort, your SSH session may be secure going over the pipe, but information is being lifted from the computer through screen reading or keylogging, or clipboard reading. Just to give an example. SSH is also capable of a lot more than command line access - it allows networked file system access at a host to host level. Socket tunneling (you can use it as a TCP/IP proxy). It allows for remote execution of GUI programs through techniques like X11 forwarding. It also allows SSH proxying and bastion hopping as part of a connection sequence. All of this can allow for information to be copied and sent off to places it shouldn't be, and provide a hidden conduit to the corporate network. I've also seen malware on home systems used for ad injection which configures a SOCKS proxy on the system, installs a root certificate and other high trust files, and perform man in the middle interception of all traffic, including SSH. Unless the computer has a host fingerprint bundle being seeded and managed (which a corporate MDM could do), most people will blindly accept the malicious connection set by the malware's proxy, and now your SSH session is being intercepted.
What companies do to protect against both is use a program like Citrix, where you can see and use applications running on a remote system from any computer, but the software employs protections like the same DRM used to protect streaming video from screen recording and snooping by software. The software can be configured to prevent copy and paste clipboard data from crossing beyond Citrix. It can be configured to allow or deny access to certain file system resources or to prevent interactions with the program from devices which aren't directly attached. Lots of things, but companies find Citrix to be slow or rather high maintenance compared to issuing a laptop. For example, video meetings through Citrix would be a painful experience, and the video calling system might be guarded as a corporate secured resource, so the laptop ends up being a better solution. Software development, you can probably forget about that on Citrix because of how locked down the environment tends to be.
Western-Image7125 t1_j9yqiou wrote
Ookay that’s a very long answer which I mostly don’t understand, you’re probably correct in what you’re saying, but my general point is that it’s pretty unlikely that cybersecurity is the primary reason to bring everyone back to the office. If that was the case we would have received much much more stern commands to return to office or leave the company
Smith6612 t1_j9yxneh wrote
Yeah, the return to office part is a bit different from the situation of using a computer. Office space usage has to do more with companies looking at the finances, and asking why they're paying a lot of money for corporate real estate that isn't being used. Companies sometimes are bound by very long leases, legal agreements between a government and a company in exchange for tax breaks, and so on, and they would want to make sure those buildings are being used to the fullest extent possible. They have to maintain the buildings whether or not people use them, so that's a loss center. I'm certainly no expert in corporate real estate, so there may be a lot more tied into that.
At least from an IT perspective, it's easier to support someone in person if they have a hardware problem. Especially with the way modern premium laptops like Macs are built, where simplicity in design clashes with troubleshooting, and where tool requirements reach into the "probably not available at home" set. From an information security perspective, one can be more sure that information isn't being looked at by others when they're working at a secured office versus, say, a coffee shop across town.
Companies have their reasons at least. Some are dumb. Some are valid. Mandating work at an office and not providing a fixed desk to go to, pretty dumb in my opinion.
Western-Image7125 t1_j9yyyd7 wrote
The main reason I can think of is the companies want to justify the multibillion dollar office investments. And also the head honchos who have houses in Palo Alto and Los Altos don’t want their property values to decline
Smith6612 t1_j9z7rfy wrote
Haha, yeah I completely forgot about the housing values. I was looking at real estate in the Bay Area a few years ago when colleagues were trying to get me to move out there. I immediately noped out, and said those prices need to have a massive crash and come back to Earth before I consider something like that.
Revolutionary_Lie539 t1_j9yrk8e wrote
Im not sure why some Redditors do not want to use firm provided computers. Its insane. I have a firm laptop. Its awesome. I do WFH once per week. I guess some Redditors are shady.
Smith6612 t1_j9yyrz1 wrote
Beats me. The reasons I hear are because their home environment is set up the way they like and they don't want to recreate it. Or the work hardware is loaded with too much "spyware" / software which bloats it. Or they don't like the forced software updates. Or the hardware is too slow (when I usually argue within me that the software being written is inefficient), and so on, and so forth. Or they don't want to deal with two computers. I see it whether the work computer is some high end workstation or MacBook Pro, or some craptop.
ElectronicGate t1_j9y1shm wrote
No company with even half a brain would let you log into corporate resources without using a company issued computer. No one uses their home computer for that type of work.
Smith6612 t1_j9ygfiv wrote
Actually, you'd be surprised how often people try to use their home computer. Either because it's slightly faster, it's a nicer (more expensive) machine, or because to them, a computer is a computer.
It's an argument I've had many, many, many times with people in the corporate world. Technical controls and strong corporate policy go hand in hand to stopping that.
ElectronicGate t1_j9yqczp wrote
I'm sure there are exceptions, but most companies are going to use a certificate provisioning process tied to the device that is required for connecting to corporate resources. I agree with you that lacking this opens the door for someone to connect with an insecure device and create a whole series of compliance issues.
theneedforespek t1_j9xmx4z wrote
the work from home people don't wanna hear it apparently
Smith6612 t1_j9yim4j wrote
Pretty much... I hear it all the time when consulting.
TheBlueSlipper t1_j9vaiw4 wrote
Brutal. Apparently they laid off the desks too.
BroForceOne t1_j9vsf8z wrote
>Googlers are permitted to work from home a few days each week, so many desks sit empty when only a fraction of staffers are doing their jobs from the company's offices.
Honestly hotel desking is a pretty normal thing for most hybrid work-from-home models.
You can't both work from home and demand permanent office space in an office that you hardly visit.
Enabling_Turtle t1_j9w633x wrote
If I have to come into the office, as in it’s mandatory to come in, there better be a fucking desk with my name on it. My current company has us on a desk rotation and it’s frustrating as fuck. If you miss a day in the office you’re supposed to make it up, but we don’t have a desk for someone to sit in if it’s their “off day”, so we have people all over the lobby, in the break rooms, and in hallways trying to work. It’s bullshit.
If the work can be done from home, then let people work from home. If you’re going to force people into the office, have space for them to work. It’s not that hard.
rominnoodlesamurai t1_j9wgz8c wrote
Not sure why you got down voted. That is some bullshit. First of all, if the work can be done from home, IT CAN BE DONE AT HOME. second of all, if management cannot provide the worker equipment to function, there is no reason for the worker to be in the office. If the management is so insecure (and they are) in their ability to manage at home people, they shouldn't be managers.
Managed work done wrong craters a company.
tiboodchat t1_j9xcsr4 wrote
Not having an ergonomic desk seems like good reason not to go to the office and strong arm HR with working conditions retaliation. I can’t imagine having to work in some random hallway and developing carpal tunnel and back problems for such a stupid policy.
BroForceOne t1_j9whgwj wrote
I mean that's just a company that doesn't know how to manage hotel desking. If you require 30% of employees to be in the office at any given time, you provide enough desks for 50%.
If you require 50% in some tight rotation, then yes you're not saving much with overflow and should just give everyone a dedicated desk.
[deleted] t1_j9widuf wrote
[removed]
melodypowers t1_j9wuphb wrote
We do hotel desking. I wasn't into it at first, but it's actually fine.
Really most of my team has our favorite spots where we sit. It hasn't been an issue with too many people in at once.
[deleted] t1_j9yetbl wrote
[deleted]
Revolutionary_Lie539 t1_j9yrx8s wrote
I think Redditors are most emotional on headlines. As if employees lap sit each other to "share" a desk. Its hilarious.
GarbageTheClown t1_j9v5tet wrote
This is mainly due to how many remote workers there are. If you are only going to come in intermittently a couple times a week/month, there isn't a reason to just reserve a spot for the other 90% of work hours you aren't there. The only people that get to keep a permanent desk are the ones are in office most of the time.
Enabling_Turtle t1_j9w6a4k wrote
A large percentage of companies are either already forcing most worker into the office for at least 3 days or they plan to implement that this year.
alphasignalphadelta t1_j9xk0pk wrote
Google is actually moving to a 2 days in office instead of previously sent notice of 3 days.
Junkstar t1_j9yc89k wrote
This is what happened just before ibm crumbled apart. Cafeteria style desk arrangements. Nothing permanent. No phones, fewer meeting rooms, noisy as hell. Impossible to get work done.
SpideogTG t1_j9yfypk wrote
This whole thing isn’t difficult but companies are not getting it. Reduce the building size to about 1/3. Have more conference rooms per capita to desks. Let people float to any open desk or claim one if they come to the office a lot. (Some like or need it). Then…. And this is key, TRUST your employees to do what they need to to get their jobs done.
HotFightingHistory t1_j9ylj2u wrote
Translation: They want some people to quit rather than get laid off, so they are using bullshit like this to piss them off.
GroundbreakingGur930 t1_j9xdlw4 wrote
Hot desking has been a thing for some time now.
Can't say I like it.
ImUrFrand t1_j9xl43n wrote
google has been making record profits, these layoffs are to appease wall st which wants to see even bigger profits.
Revolutionary_Lie539 t1_j9ytgam wrote
My take is Google(and big tech) had bad management in the area of employee awareness. They could build smaller satellite offices near where their employees live. I mean its Google! They have tech and money. G spent half a billion on abandoned small lots in San Jose to house their empoyees. Bay area traffic is horrible because employees cant afford to live near the main office. The pandemic offered a way to no longer sleep in a self driving lesla for 3-4 hours a day because its so bad.
Ice_Sinks t1_j9yjjxw wrote
You're fired. Take your desk and leave.
...don't you mean take your stuff?
I KNOW WHAT I SAID!
jonnyclueless t1_j9yl6mi wrote
Are they still anti-work-from-home?
lufecaep t1_j9ywbxn wrote
We need people back in the office to facilitate collaboration. But only one of you at a time.
[deleted] t1_j9uziyw wrote
[removed]
thatmikeguy t1_j9v5vzs wrote
It was the Custodian consortium, they didn't want them back.
butter4dippin t1_j9v7q60 wrote
They should ask google to share some of the profit
[deleted] t1_j9yi4s1 wrote
[deleted]
Wise138 t1_j9ysbs7 wrote
Heads up, it wasn't a "mass layoff".
Miniographer t1_j9zmnz3 wrote
Are they copying Twitter and selling the furniture?
WhatTheZuck420 t1_ja1e0ns wrote
I volunteer to share a desk with Pichai
Autymnfyres77 t1_ja1vvtd wrote
At some point the sucking air sound will stop. They can only take so much from the foundation of what really makes the company produce. It's amazing what we are seeing in real time as they try to take more and more.
jadams2345 t1_ja37hiq wrote
Seems like the perks of being a Googler are taking a turn for the worst
davik2001 t1_j9zd5bw wrote
Flex desks, this is nothing new
FyourEchoChambers t1_j9zdz1t wrote
GASPS I’ve never heard of such a thing! The outrage. Desk hoteling…Maybe I can coin this brand new concept…
bannacct56 t1_j9v9tx4 wrote
I mean if we were in a pandemic I could see a downside, but this seems like a fantastically good idea. I really don't see what could possibly go wrong /s
Hero_Charlatan t1_j9xqcze wrote
And workers will bend the knee bc they don’t want to be fired lol
rmullig2 t1_j9vhsji wrote
If the desks were only built to accommodate one workstation then that might mean forced pair programming.
skizo18 t1_j9x7op9 wrote
This thread has become borderline ridiculous. A company is allowed to make you go back to the office if they are paying you. It’s that simple. If you don’t like it, then quit and go somewhere else.
Just-a-Mandrew t1_j9uyujg wrote
But if they’re laying people off doesn’t that mean they have extra desks?