This is the first one where I've noticed that they have X amount of days to find another job in the company. I wonder how that works and what percentage of the 100 will actually not end up laid off.
Ultimately I found a transfer role, but it was a bit past the deadline. With a couple days ago I went to HR with evidence that the transfer was in-progress and on track, and they extended that time for a couple weeks.
The funniest part was when I asked HR if I should come into the office while I was looking, and HR was like "I don't see why you'd bother".
The infuriating part was that my position was eliminated because the team lead didn't like me. Three weeks after my transfer deadline the position was re-opened. HR didn't really do anything about that, and my new manager asked me not to push on it.
A lot of this going on right now. Business is strong and companies don't necessarily want to let top talent go, but they simply can't afford the R&D expenditures anymore; it's all going to interest payments.
“simply choose not to afford” is more correct here. YouTube is in no danger of shuttering due to lack of revenue and financial support from the corporate entity that operates it. Instead, that entity is choosing to weaken YouTube by layoffs, rather than accept a decrease in net revenue after expenses. This may or may not stem from US taxation changes, but it is regardless critical to distinguish between cannot (e.g. “the business will collapse from debt if we don’t layoff workers”), versus, will not (e.g. “profitable business chooses to layoff x% workers rather than reduce profits x% due to tax law change”), when considering these tech layoffs. YouTube is not under threat of collapse due to lack of funding, so the latter applies.
My point is that we should not implicitly frame layoffs as “cannot afford” without having evidence or claims to support that. If YouTube cannot afford 100 engineers, YouTube’s profitability at all hinges on $50mil/year of expenses, which is a rounding error to the overall business operating it.
It is highly unlikely that the future of YouTube hinges on the absence of these 100 engineers, given the financial and megacorp contexts available to us. Thus, usage of the “cannot afford” framing in this case comes across as an unsupported argument that YouTube is in severe financial distress.
If that distress is real, let’s hear more about it! If the layoffs were due to dire circumstances around funding and runway, that’s material and interesting news — and would explain why the corporation had no choice (“can’t afford”) in the matter.
The article mentions "operations and creator management teams". I didn't interpret that as engineers. But either way, if they aren't required, why pay the money? You can put it to something else instead.
The way a lot of layoffs work isn't that those fired weren't required but rather that their work load gets spread out to the rest of the org slowing everything down.
For example, HP fired the in house IT staff and instead contracted it out to an offshore IT firm (which was not great). This lead to just about every department creating their own shadow IT group and a lot of things that should be easy to do (like granting permissions) becoming an absolute nightmare.
And where is that "something else"? Stock buybacks. [1]
Now, it might well be true that moving a key department offshore is worth less to the company than a buyback. But I don't think it's been demonstrated that that's the case for these 100 employees at YouTube.
Whether that benefit is profit or control or some other causes, given the evidence presented their decision to layoff workers was voluntary – not compulsory.
If there is some evidence that HP was facing collapse or legal issues or some other impending doom, which outsourcing IT prevented, then that’s interesting and worth discussing, focusing on the core question I’m raising in this thread:
Is this layoff voluntary or compulsory?
If it’s perceived as compulsory, then that needs to be considered and discussed – which defends against the tendency of misleading framing by corporate PR that presents voluntary layoffs as though they were compulsory.