Yahoo Called Its Layoffs a "Remix." Don't Do That. 194
Nerval's Lobster writes: Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer, in a conference call with reporters and analysts, referred to the net layoffs of 1,100 employees in the first quarter of 2015 as part of a 'remixing' of the company. A 'remix' is a term most often applied to songs, although it's also appropriate to use in the context of photographs, films, and artwork. CEOs rarely use it to describe something as momentous as a major enterprise's transition, especially if said transition involves layoffs of longtime employees, because it could potentially appear flippant to observers. If you run your own shop (no matter how large), it always pays to choose words as carefully as possible when referring to anything that affects your employees' lives and careers. Despite a renewed focus on mobile and an influx of skilled developers and engineers, Yahoo still struggles to define its place on the modern tech scene; that struggle is no more evident than in the company's most recent quarterly results, which included rising costs, reduced net income, and layoffs.
Do you get extra unemployment benefits with that? (Score:2)
You get an extra 10%/month if you've been remixed instead of merely laid off! Yahoo!!
Re: (Score:2)
It's like beer, some of it goes in the cup ready to be consumed. But then there's the head that just foams up and gets swiped off.
Must feel good the next morning, wife walks in "How do you feel, beer ejecta? Ready for unemployment?" "Yahoo!"
It's Just a Euphemism... (Score:5, Funny)
It's just a euphemism. I remember working for a company that started embracing offshoring, which they called "right-shoring." Layoffs were called "right-sizing." And the executives were called "cunts." Amazing how just a little "word-smithing" can make things sound better than they really are, huh?
Re:It's Just a Euphemism... (Score:5, Insightful)
It never ceases to amaze me the insensitivity with which employers treat the life-changing decisions they make regarding their employees. I get that it's a business decision and that sometimes you have to make the hard call, but that doesn't mean you have to be a douchebag about it. I've seen the gamut, from firing people via text message to inviting them to a "breakfast meeting" and having security box up their stuff while they're in the meeting room (and not giving them breakfast, either).
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen the gamut, from firing people via text message to inviting them to a "breakfast meeting" and having security box up their stuff while they're in the meeting room (and not giving them breakfast, either).
I don't know if "gamut" is the word you were looking for. Both of those things are pretty crappy ways to fire someone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gamut is a perfectly cromulent word to use in that sentence.
Re:It's Just a Euphemism... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been laid off once, but fortunately, it was handled extremely well. The CEO of the company (it was fairly small), called us to a meeting where he sat with us in a room and explained the situation and why it was being done, answering any questions we had afterwards. It's hard to get mad at someone when they're completely transparent about the whole thing, and I had a lot of respect for both him and the company for handling it that way. It still sucked, but it sucked in a way that didn't leave a bitter taste in your mouth.
Note: he didn't use any euphemisms to describe what was happening.
Re: (Score:3)
1st was managed like crap in November of 2001 working for a financial software company. Over the course of 3 weeks they laid off a bunch of people each Friday totaling 1/3 - 1/2 of the company. Each time saying that they done with layoffs for the foreseeable future. Each cut was made primarily by start date leaving their new application without enough workers and some parts of it's development without any workers.
2nd was done ok'ish in March of 2008. Again
Re: (Score:3)
Business is business, I take your point but I think the issue isn't so much insensitivity as being needlessly insulting. I am adult I understand our employee/employer relationship is supposed to be mutual beneficial. Treat me like an adult.
Tell me, "..We have to let you go, its nothing to do with your job performance, its just that your job function is no-longer aligned with our objectives" No I won't be thrilled about it but I'd much rather have an honest statement of the facts than some be euphemism ab
Re: (Score:3)
...to a "breakfast meeting" and having security box up their stuff while they're in the meeting room (and not giving them breakfast, either).
Wow! I would have been pissed.
No one should ever fire me when I have low blood sugar.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you do. Being a douchebag to your victims inhumanizes them and thus makes you feel less guilty about mistreating them. It's why it's such a common practice of various corrupt security forces the world over.
Re: (Score:2)
The sad thing is that many people fall for it time and again. It is like people want to be lied to.
When Euphemisms Collide (Score:2)
It's just a euphemism. I remember working for a company that started embracing offshoring, which they called "right-shoring."
It would be really funny for such terms to evolve into unwittingly offensive terms, like "Economic Colonialism", or "Nerd Trafficking".
Re:It's Just a Euphemism... (Score:5, Funny)
It's just a euphemism. I remember working for a company that started embracing offshoring, which they called "right-shoring." Layoffs were called "right-sizing." And the executives were called "cunts." Amazing how just a little "word-smithing" can make things sound better than they really are, huh?
Yes, but here "remix" may actually be the right word for it.
When you "remix" a song, you take a song that was good on its own merits, fuck with the tempo, add some annoying bleeps, warbles, gaps and/or voiceovers which completely ruins a song.
So when you "remix" a company, you get rid of all the engineers and functional people whilst keeping the designers and giving the upper management a nice fat bonus which completely ruins a company
Re: (Score:2)
It's just a euphemism. I remember working for a company that started embracing offshoring, which they called "right-shoring." Layoffs were called "right-sizing." And the executives were called "cunts." Amazing how just a little "word-smithing" can make things sound better than they really are, huh?
They're not really people anyway; they're just headcount.
Relevance (Score:2)
And Google is whistling "Under My Thumb" all the way to the bank.
"Remix" is also an excellent word for break-up, (Score:2)
divorce and adultery.
Re: (Score:2)
yahoo and its agencies are having a conscious uncoupling?
What's next, hiring Carly? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder what is coming next, hiring good 'ol Carly Fiorina as "Chief Vision Officer" or something like that? I'm sure that'd improve morale greatly. That worked out so well for HP. (Not that their subsequent two CEO's were much of an improvement...)
Where do CEO's learn to talk like this? Weren't they ever front-line employees who rolled their eyes at the exec-speak? (Judging from the breathless and sycophantic comments I see posted on my company's intranet to every word from our Fearless Leaders, I'd say no.)
Re:What's next, hiring Carly? (Score:5, Insightful)
People at that level are advised by groups who are retained to aid with a particular sort of image or messaging. When your words to your staff can affect an entire company's stock price, and thus, affect the company at a fundamental level, you learn quickly to never talk off script.
To be fair, saying the wrong thing and torpedoing a company's stock price can negatively affect not only the bottom line, but it also opens an otherwise good company up for "activist investors" or raiders who might be worse for your company in the long term than having to adhere to an inhuman script filled with euphemisms. A company in the hands of raiders ends up becoming a company split up or sold at a fire sale. That would mean the loss of *all* employees.
Of course, there is a line where that can go from prudence to moral cowardice or even indifference. It is not always clear where that line really is. Few who have been laid off are really able to appreciate the bigger picture, given their current catastrophe.
I do know of one CEO of a small company who personally called everyone he laid off down to a meeting, and explained the situation while in tears. I'm sure it made an impression on them, but in the end, they were all still out of a job. I can't imagine being someone in charge of a bigger company who might have to do that for hundreds of people for multiple layoffs. Admittedly, I also have trouble believing that they could relate to hundreds of people under them as individuals.
If you work for a company over around 100 or so people, and you are an "individual contributor", you can pretty much expect that you will start having upper management become remote unless they make an increasing effort. Humans in general can only maintain only a certain number of relationships realistically, and a CEO probably has just as many outside the company as in it. Don't go to work for a big company and expect a personal touch from anyone but your manager or possibly their manager. They suffer from human limitations as much as anyone. You're going to be treated as a number which only works if the management is run by someone like The Count, who rather fancies numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The point is to motivate the people who are still around. Get them to work hard. Keep them from abandoning the company. I don't know if it will work in this case, but in my experience, people tend to forget the layoffs fairly quickly.
The only thing that can make a layoff 'good' is if it gets rid of the dead-weight, the coworkers who weren't really contributing anyway, probably wrote buggy code, and were slowing
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, she is merely continuing what others started, I am aware of that.
I don't see the big deal (Score:2)
I really don't see what the fuss is about. I have a lot of empathy for people who lost their jobs but software -- especially if you have Yahoo on your resume -- is a booming industry and there are plenty of jobs out there. I honestly can't muster too much sympathy for software developers who are unemployed right now.
That being said, Yahoo did need a "remixing" and whatever word you use to describe it is rather unimportant. I don't see why that was a point of focus in the story. Companies aren't around to ju
Re:I don't see the big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Being laid off sucks. You may well be relatively confident that you have a new job in the works, but all the capital you might have gained in that company is over, save for perhaps, some references you can get if you didn't piss off your managers or co-workers and maybe some non-worthless options.
It also can come at inopportune times for your financial situation. It is a pain in the ass to get a loan for a new house when you haven't been in a new job for very long, and that's even when you chose to move jobs for a bigger paycheck, and so should be able to be more capable, rather than less capable of paying the bills.
More to the point, despite it being just "business", you wonder how you ended up on the selection list. Even if you're relatively sure that it wasn't merit-based retention, layoff time is when managers remove people who they couldn't justify outright firing, but are more than happy to throw to the wolves when the reaper requests his quota.
And of course, finally, while there may be many jobs out there on average, it is very possible that you're too expensive or too old, or your skills were too specific to get you a comparable position elsewhere. And it is known you were laid off and need a new job, there is a real chance you'll get lowballed. You can be up shit creek if that happens and you have a family to support who were relying on every last dime you made to support them.
tl;dr Having more job opportunities available only makes being laid off suck slightly less. If you had wanted a new job, you'd have gone and gotten one yourself.
Yahoo is still a "tech" company? (Score:2)
>> influx of skilled developers and engineers, Yahoo still struggles to define its place on the modern tech scene
If it helps put it in context, I recently left a Midwestern tech job and advertised a yahoo email address (rather than one that would have highlighted my moonlighting - ahem) for people who wanted to stay in touch. The number of people who showed up on Twitter to give me shit for still having a Yahoo address was telling.
Re: (Score:3)
Finance.yahoo.com, is also dying. Thank you CEO Marissa Mayer, you have taken what used to be a valuable and interesting resource for investors and completely fucking ruined it.
Regarding Yahoo mail, since you can't take your yahoo email to another server, exactly what are we supposed to do with what is for many of us what we consider our permanent email address. I don't want to tell all my contacts to find me at a new address every time a new domain becomes popular. Then again, I don't want any more job rel
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it has gotten worse under Mayer, but to be fair, Yahoo finance was "unimproved" some years ago, turning from a usable set of forums to pages full of unreadable bling. What I don't understand is why Mayer (who was supposed to be responsible for Google's simple, spartan look) hasn't done the same for Yahoo. Or perhaps she has
Re: (Score:2)
yahoo.com? or yahoo-inc.com? There's a real difference...
Now anyone can be CEO (Score:3)
...since apparently common sense, intelligence, sensitivity and interpersonal skills are not prerequisites for being a CEO of a global company anymore.
Kinda makes me wonder what relevant skills she actually does have.
Re: (Score:2)
Forbes [forbes.com]
Patheos [patheos.com]
arts.mic [mic.com]
thestar [thestar.com]
Is anyone really surprised that CEOs don't show the slightest regard for the well-being of the lives they can impact the most?
Re: (Score:2)
No but I seriously would like to know how/why people that screw over others and make such bad decisions cen even get the chance to be CEOs, and why apparently many if not most CEOs are like that.
Re: (Score:2)
CEOs and the truth (Score:5, Informative)
CEOs like to use special language because they are all sociopaths and have trouble with the truth.
Re:CEOs and the truth (Score:5, Interesting)
This, incidentally, is the reason there are so few woman CEOs: The sociopathy is a job _requirement_ and there are fewer female sociopaths. That those are not in any way inferior in pathology though, is amply demonstrated by Meyers, Ginny and Fiorina. They can lie, cheat, steal and kill companies with the best of them. It also shows nicely that calling for more women in CEO positions is entirely bogus: It will just get those sociopaths a booster.
Re: (Score:2)
That is nonsense. Raising to a CEO position does not require negotiation, but backstabbing, forming of clubs and being utterly unconcerned with anybodies welfare but your own.
The "cannot negotiate" happens to be mostly untrue but may explain why women earn a few percent less (apparently 5% when the statistics are done right) for the same work on average. In most jobs requiring advanced skills, even that difference vanishes.
Re: (Score:2)
CEOs like to use special language because they are all sociopaths and have trouble with the truth.
Not true. Not all CEOs are sociopaths. There are examples of fine CEOs who aren't. Hmm, I can't think of any examples but I know I've heard of some once.
I need a reminder (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I need a reminder (Score:4, Informative)
Serious question: what does Yahoo! do that earns them money? I honestly can't name anything off the top of my head.
They own some percentage of Alibaba. It's seriously something like 110% of their net worth - people have said that, without it, Yahoo! is actually worth less than $0.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since you don't seem to understand the concept of net worth, here's some light reading about Yahoo for you:
How much is Yahoo worth without Alibaba? Not much. [bloomberg.com]
Now according to that particular story, Alibaba only makes up 88% of Yahoo's total value. But others have calculated it differently, with their share of Alibaba being worth even more. Google can help you find those.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, here's an opinion piece - also from Bloomberg:
Is Yahoo’s Business Worth Less Than Nothing? [bloombergview.com]
However I shouldn't have been so cavalier about all this, since Yahoo's potential failure affects a lot of real people with real families and obligations. If you're one of them, I apologize.
Re: (Score:2)
I had a domain name registered with them for a few years. I moved when after 20 support emails they still did not understand what I meant by "running my own DNS server and that they should point to it". So I know what they do to pass the time: demonstrating incompetence. But no idea where their money comes from. Masochists?
Have you seen picture of her? (Score:2)
more names (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, Yahoo was rudderless and in a nosedive before Marissa Mayer arrived. But she got a huge amount of press when she took the job - almost certainly because she is a young-ish attractive female in the tech sector - and she has failed to do anything that significantly improves Yahoo's fortunes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
well, she took away the work-at-home perk. there's that.
oh, wait, you asked what she did to -improve- things there?
nevermind.
Double Standard much (Score:2)
http://gawker.com/5987043/yahoo-ceo-marissa-mayer-installed-a-nursery-in-her-office
Re: (Score:2)
A "Fiorina" is also nicely descriptive. And in a few years when IBM has no silverware to sell left, a "Ginny" could describe that. With apologies to the women-folk of course, but these female CEOs are just so much more memorable and had all the BS "women are better" crap to prop them up.
I doubt it's on the table, but (Score:3)
She's not all bad... (Score:5, Informative)
To her credit, when the employees complained about them being stack ranked at a general meeting (i.e. they vote who is the worse in every team and then fire them), she categorically denied it was stack ranking with no explanations and then proceeded to read a children's book to everyone. That showed a lot of respect to...
No wait...
http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. I didn't really believe it at first, or was wondering if it was taken out of context some how... but no...
Douchery Remix Video (Score:2)
Seriously, how is Yahoo still a thing, anyway? The last time they were actually useful was in the '90's!
"remix" is reasonable in this case (Score:2)
I think calling it a "remix" is reasonable in this case. The idea is Marissa wants to get rid of some of the people hired under the previous CEO and replace it with much more talented people. Abuse of the term is still bad of course.
Mayer's Plan for Yahoo (Score:4, Funny)
Rip. Mix. Burn.
Really more of a mashdown. n/t (Score:2)
Remixing My Search Engines (Score:2)
Like 'sunset' (Score:2)
Am I right in thinking it was Yahoo who spearheaded the mealy-mouthed use of sunset to mean terminate?
On Web 2.0, nothing is ever cancelled, closed, or shut-down. Only ever sunsetted.
Re: (Score:2)
No, "sunsetted" has been around for a long time. Although historically it's been used to describe systems that are old and obsolete and getting replaced with new ones.
You'll hear "sunsetted" frequently in the military to describe systems being retired, usually after decades of service because they're falling apart and their replacement has been in production for nearly a decade.
I don't know whose comfort they're considering... (Score:2)
...when executives use euphemisms like "right-sizing." (I have never heard of a company that "right-sized" by hiring more employees). Even "layoff" is a euphemism because a "layoff" means a temporary suspension. "We'll have to let you go" means that you want to leave and they are reluctantly but graciously acceding to your wishes.
They may be trying to make themselves feel more comfortable by pretending they aren't doing something hurtful to their employees.
As for how it makes employees feel, I wish I could
Stalin Remixed his cabinet (Score:2)
and now the photos only show 2 members instead of 10
Re:Women CEO's. (Score:4, Informative)
Because male CEOs never use stupid euphemisms for layoffs.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right.
This line from the article says it all and it's got nothing to do with race or gender:
If you run your own shop (no matter how large), it always pays to choose words as carefully as possible when referring to anything that affects your employees' lives and careers
Re: (Score:3)
It was probably suggest by HR, which we all know is populated by people of undetermined gender and questionable intelligence.
Re: (Score:2)
Questionable? The only question is if they can tie their own shoes or if someone does it for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I remember seeing the book, and then later some spoofs came out.
The spoofs were more educational.
Re: (Score:2)
Thomson did this to staff just before the Reuters merger too.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
A company's one thing. Just be thankful there's no chance of one running the country.
Hang on a minute...
No, hang on another minute...
Shit, gimme a beer.
Re:Women CEO's. (Score:4, Insightful)
A company's one thing. Just be thankful there's no chance of one running the country.
Hang on a minute...
No, hang on another minute...
Shit, gimme a beer.
So far, the alternatives are a garden gnome from Canada, I mean, Texas, an ophthalmologist that can't spell "education" from Kentucky, or a really thirsty Floridian.
(That beer is looking mighty refreshing...)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Vote Sam Adams?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Women CEO's. (Score:4, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stein
Re: (Score:2)
If we're lucky, we might be able to get her vote count into three digits!
Re: (Score:2)
So far, the alternatives are a garden gnome from Canada, I mean, Texas, an ophthalmologist that can't spell "education" from Kentucky, or a really thirsty Floridian.
And they are all looking better than Hillary.
Re: (Score:2)
Until the Republicans stop their anti-science, party of stupid and mean rhetoric, no thinking person should take them seriously. And certainly don't vote for them! Anyone, even Hillary, is better than them. I'm not saying they don't have their points, or that the Democrats don't have big problems of their own, but they've really screwed up in recent decades.
The War of Choice was one of the stupidest and meanest actions performed in decades. We haven't done anything that dumb since Vietnam. Cost a gre
Re: (Score:3)
But....but....but all my SJW friends said she would rejuvenate the company with her Super Vagina.
Are you sure they didn't say she would "remix" the company instead?
Re:Ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if she's still lobbying for more H1B's to fill all those piles of unfilled jobs that Yahoo supposedly has.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't present a corporate restructuring (including layoffs) like a kick starter campaign.
You sure we shouldn't be suggesting that companies use Kickstarter in order to avoid layoffs?
We've seen some pretty insane shut-up-and-take-my-money ventures, like the one where man is hungry and needs 10 bucks to make potato salad. What does Kickstarter net him for potato salad? $55,000.
Re: (Score:2)
Drop the sensitivity, and just start looking for the next gig.
I believe that should be "Drop a beat! There is always the next Gig."
My question is who is remixing Yahoo?
Re: (Score:3)
12 years into my career and I've never been fired it laid off. Maybe you need to rethink how good you think you are?
If you never fail, you aren't trying ambitious enough projects, or you're sandbagging. If you're not occasionally pissing off managers, you're not doing your job as a senior engineer. Sometimes you get a petty manager who only wants minions and finds an excuse to remove you. *shrug* If you're good, you move to a better job.
I do interesting project the right way, and I target aggressive schedules. I tell managers when they're full of shit. If that's not right for a company, I'll be leaving eventually,
Re: (Score:3)
Your view on this is quite absurd. No-one should get fired for occasionally "pissing off" a manager or trying an ambitious project. If you get fired over this, and find that acceptable, I suggest you look up the definition of Stockholm Syndrome.
Re: (Score:3)
12 years into my career and I've never been fired it laid off. Maybe you need to rethink how good you think you are?
If you never fail, you aren't trying ambitious enough projects, or you're sandbagging. If you're not occasionally pissing off managers, you're not doing your job as a senior engineer. Sometimes you get a petty manager who only wants minions and finds an excuse to remove you. *shrug* If you're good, you move to a better job.
I do interesting project the right way, and I target aggressive schedules. I tell managers when they're full of shit. If that's not right for a company, I'll be leaving eventually, one way or another. Why work at a crap company?
As is usual on slashdot, you are generalising from your own situation.
The truth is that, for most people, a job is just something that lets you eat and pay your bills, and the concept of "interesting" is just a handy bonus rather than a necessity.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite the opposite. I have quite a comfortable level of retirement savings, and while I can't actually retire just yet, I'll have no stress if I don't have a job for a few months (which would be unlikely as about 2 recruiters a week ping me, as my resume now has many interesting projects that actually shipped). After your first 10 years or so, the only way to stand out is to point to particularly good stuff you've delivered, so if you're not going to get a new cool project out of a year's work, you're jus
Re: (Score:2)
12 years you say. So, right after millions lost their jobs when the Dot Com bubble burst. You graduated and found a job that hasn't disappeared. Bully for you.
Re: (Score:2)
And Walmart is laying off people because of "plumbing issues". Yeah, right.
The employees are being flushed. Seems clear and direct enough.
Would be amusing to see what would happen if every Walmart in America tried to unionize. They can't all experience plumbing issues, because there'd be nothing left except some confused buyers and warehouse staff. Oh, and a few hundred thousand shipping containers filled to the brim with Dora the Explorer dolls and Hello Kitty t-shirts.
Anything less would've disqualified her as CEO (Score:2)
I think your sarcasm just flew right past me. She's no captain... unless you're thinking that Costa Concordia's Chicken of the Sea from a few years back (hot damn, never thought I do quote F_x News). I am waiting for an adventuresome CEO to phrase this type of affair as a bad case of diarrhea...
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like "we are finished fucking you". Hmm. Appropriate.
Re: (Score:2)
I get the idea that Yahoo isn't actually turning around. They're doing worse and they're going to continue to do worse and they will need to continue to lay off.
AOL had this thing in 2010 when that other Google person became CEO there where they were planning to just have one big layoff so that they could get on with life. That would have worked, if they hadn't kept fundamentally sucking ass.
Re: (Score:2)
We juss gettin' dis corporate remix started, y'all. Lemme bring out mah cronies, homies. 50 cent ain't got nuttin' on these 1 percenters. Give it up for Dr. Downsize and Lady Off. Yeah...both down with OPP! Foshizzle my nepotizzle.
We remixin' all night. My posse is packin' pink slips and escorts off da premizez. Any clockpuncher here past midnight is half off...da payroll.
Re:Yahoo needs to innovate, not self-mutilate... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
She was a female Republican CEO. Seeing as her competition is Hillary Clinton, obviously some people think that if there is going to be a female president, it should at least be a Republican.
Re: (Score:2)