Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Technology

Amazon Is Said To Plan To Lay Off 10,000 Employees (nytimes.com) 111

Posted by msmash from the up-next dept.
Amazon plans to lay off approximately 10,000 people in corporate and technology jobs starting as soon as this week, The New York Times reported Monday, citing people with knowledge of the matter, in what would be the largest job cuts in the company's history. From the report: The cuts will focus on Amazon's devices organization, including the voice-assistant Alexa, as well as at its retail division and in human resources, said the people, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. The total number of layoffs remains fluid. But if it stays around 10,000, that would represent roughly 3 percent of Amazon's corporate employees and less than 1 percent of its global work force of more than 1.5 million, which is primarily composed of hourly workers. Amazon's planned retrenchment during the critical holiday shopping season -- when the company typically has valued stability -- shows how quickly the souring global economy has put pressure on it to trim businesses that have been overstaffed or underdelivering for years.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon Is Said To Plan To Lay Off 10,000 Employees More

Amazon Is Said To Plan To Lay Off 10,000 Employees

Comments Filter:

  • Alexa, please show job offers (Score:4, Insightful)

    by haruchai ( 17472 ) on Monday November 14, 2022 @11:18AM (#63050493)

    but I'm struck by people in HR being laid off; in my experience they're usually among the last to go

    • I was just thinking that. Two of my boys worked at a local Amazon EFC, and their only interaction with anything HR related involved a smartphone app's automation. Very hard to speak or see a real live human. Figure they don't seem to be too top-heavy or overly staffed in that regard based on what I've heard.

    • Re:Alexa, please show job offers (Score:4, Informative)

      by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Monday November 14, 2022 @11:37AM (#63050585) Homepage Journal

      My last company had mostly contractors working as full-time recruiters. When there's a hiring freeze they let about 80% of HR go by not renewing contracts.

    • Recruiters are usually among the first to go when a large layoff happens and they are in HR. If you're laying off 10k people you're probably not going to be hiring at the same pace as you were before deciding to lay off 10k people. Eventually if they return to a growth pattern they will grow the recruiting teams again. The rest of HR will likely be protected for the time being.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      but I'm struck by people in HR being laid off; in my experience they're usually among the last to go

      Only the firers are kept, and even they know they're not long for this world. Recruiters are pared down very quickly, often before a hiring freeze is put in place. Benefits management specialists are usually a pretty lean group, and rarely see big swings.

    • I see them being laid off a lot actually. When a company is told 10% across the board, that means all departments including HR. HR can get just as bloated as any other department, and since it's a department that doesn't generate revenue it is under as much scrutiny as any other overhead departments.

      I was in a Team in Training group where most of the members were HR people out of work.

    • In my experience, companies that grow quickly also grow HR quickly. The less experienced, typically newer, folks are the first to go.

    • but I'm struck by people in HR being laid off; in my experience they're usually among the last to go

      It depends. I don't know about Amazon, but in many firms, HR and payroll functions were outsourced, partially or as a whole, a long time ago. So, in a way, they were the first to go (te he.)

      You really don't need a lot of HR if things are running smoothly (smoothly being highly subjective, obviously.)

      One must wonder if the layoffs are a function of both, a contraction from during-COVID expansion and an expectation that sales/economic activity is going to experience a crunch.

      If so, and if the axe is fal

  • Would be awesome if she parsed all of that money out and gave it to each of the employees who lost their job. I know it's only 10K a piece, but that would help quite a few families out.

    • He didn't give her $100M. He placed $100M in her control, for distribution to charity. If you can find a way to declare those folks a charity, more power to you.

  • If Amazon had listened to us when we told them to fire the writers and showrunners of "Rings of Power" because they were insulting Tolkien's work and saying they could write better than him...

    if they had listened to us, Amazon would be cashing "Rings of Power" instead of firing people, but NO, because they know better than us (client).

  • Driving Down Salaries (Score:4, Interesting)

    by crow ( 16139 ) on Monday November 14, 2022 @12:00PM (#63050677) Homepage Journal

    With the super high salaries for tech workers, it wouldn't surprise me if part of the timing of this is to leverage the layoffs at Meta and Twitter to depress tech salaries. Probably not, though it may have that impact. More realistically, everyone is afraid of a coming recession, so they're cutting expenses to better weather it.

    • With the super high salaries for tech workers, it wouldn't surprise me if part of the timing of this is to leverage the layoffs at Meta and Twitter to depress tech salaries.

      ...my guess is they've wanted to cut their excesses for a long time and colluded to do it at the same time to reduce an exodus. Most of these provide free meals. So their office decides: instead of giving premium resort-grade lunches (Google's sashimi bar, for example), we want to reduce the costs to be more conventional cafeteria food. If the major players collude to make the cuts at the same time, it reduces the sense of entitlement in their developers and limits the exodus.

      I think they've all wan

    • With the super high salaries for tech workers, it wouldn't surprise me if part of the timing of this is to leverage the layoffs at Meta and Twitter to depress tech salaries. Probably not, though it may have that impact. More realistically, everyone is afraid of a coming recession, so they're cutting expenses to better weather it.

      More realistically, watching the worlds largest mega-corps do this, is how you manufacture a recession. We act like CEOs aren't sniffing Bezos farts looking for financial approval to mirror the same excuse for "rightsizing".

      Let's hope the trendsetters don't go viral. A 10% unemployment rate by Christmas, isn't even something Santa can spin well.

    • you had it right the first time.

      there IS no recession! its purely synthetic, made up to create a sense of fear (back) in the employee base. we 'had it too good' the last 2 years, according to many suits-n-ties, and so they need to show us who is, uhm, boss. I guess.

      but there are still lots of unfilled jobs and when I interview for candidates, many of they are so junior or just plain have no background, I know for a fact that if you are good, experienced and have a good attitude, you can find jobs in the

    • With the super high salaries for tech workers

      Odd. Didn't all of the major tech companies get "slapped" for conspiring to keep tech pay low?

      You say the salaries are super high, myself and the courts agree that they are too low.

      The rest of the industries have already knee-capped their talent, so comparing against their salaries is why you think tech salaries are super high.

  • Market correction for talent hoarding (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Somervillain ( 4719341 ) on Monday November 14, 2022 @12:39PM (#63050803)
    Amazon is one of many big tech companies that "hoard talent." They aggressively hire as many top engineers as possible and figure out what to do with them later. This is a practice I find stupid and wasteful, but it's in vogue in Silicon Valley and every company that mimics the big players. Cutting 3% of corporate employees is not cause for an alarm, but just them coming to their senses about their past excesses, IMHO.

    Hiring a ton of interns and then figuring out what to do with them makes sense. They're more malleable. They cost less. They honestly don't have specialized skills and talent. Amazon and most of the big tech companies will aggressively hire people with 20+ years of experience and then figure out what to do with them. Many times, they don't even have a need. They just want a pool of talented people to throw on a project and be able to expand faster.

    Traditional businesses identify a need first and hire second. Traditional businesses hire people with skillsets to match their need. For example, if a hospital needs a gynecologist, they hire a gynecologist. They don't hire a heart surgeon and tell them..."hey, we're short in gyno this quarter...take 4 weeks and get yourself up to speed on delivering babies."

    This practice of talent hoarding also lends itself to what I call the "developer as a stem cell" pattern in which a company hires the very smartest people they can find and gives them a baptism by fire to become an expert in a technology they are not qualified for. They force really smart people to adapt to specializations rather than just hire someone with a lot of experience in the specialization needed. They think it works...as a guy who has seen it in action, it doesn't. You hire some young guy who went to Stanford and did prototypes of small apps in JavaScript and Python and tell them...hey...you're now a DBA...shit will happen. The worst is you won't figure it out until years down the road. The initial prototypes will work...they just won't scale and be a nightmare to maintain and cost you a ton in cloud computing costs and even have a huge environmental impact from the wasted CPU cycles.

    According to Big Tech logic, if you have a pool of fungible stem-cell developers, you can dynamically staff up projects and then obviously lay them off because each developer can be transformed into the specialty you need. They'd rather throw a smart, but completely unqualified person on a project today than either maintain separate pools of specialized professionals or wait a few weeks to hire someone who is fully qualified to put on the project.

    Traditional businesses have Darwinistic pressure on them. If you do excessive and stupid things, you're at risk of going out of business. Big Tech is dominated by companies that are making so much money efficiency doesn't matter. Amazon is making tons of money both because of their strategic retail position as well as advertising and cloud computing revenue. The problem is they make soooo much money because of their strategic choices, the business units think they're doing well tactically. So hire a super JavaScript dev to lead a data-management/data-science team?...well, if the business unit is making money, they can make as many expensive mistakes as they want and the concern is only theoretical. They can throw tons of money at innovation projects that don't innovate or make sense. Google and Meta are the poster children of this, but Amazon also has Astro, that robot they released, but didn't sell and no one I know has any clue why they bothered. They certainly don't seem to take the project seriously

    So these 2022 Q4 layoff are less a harbinger of a tech apocalypse and more the stupidest players throwing the wildest parties changing their model from being a daycare/fraternity for tech nerds and more running themselves like a real business. For now, the tech industry is fine. The biggest players have used their unlimited revenue and VC funding to create a culture of ridiculous exces

    • They aggressively hire as many top engineers as possible and figure out what to do with them later.

      They don't necessarily have to find something for all of them to do, so long as the competing companies would have hired them they are achieving their purpose.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by ljw1004 ( 764174 )

      Traditional businesses hire people with skillsets to match their need. For example, if a hospital needs a gynecologist, they hire a gynecologist. They don't hire a heart surgeon and tell them..."hey, we're short in gyno this quarter...take 4 weeks and get yourself up to speed on delivering babies." ... This practice of talent hoarding also lends itself to what I call the "developer as a stem cell" pattern in which a company hires the very smartest people they can find and gives them a baptism by fire to become an expert in a technology they are not qualified for.

      You posted your comment before about Facebook, and I corrected you then, but you seem to have repeated the same misunderstanding.

      (At Facebook the pattern is that they higher the heart surgeon, then the heart surgeon has 2 months of bootcamp time to learn company practices, learn which teams need heart surgeons, sit with them and do tasks for them to see how much they like heart surgery in that particular team, and then they make a choice. The heart surgeons are still doing heart surgery, except that this wa

      • You handwaved about "big tech" but I know from first-hand experience that Microsoft and Facebook don't follow the pattern you describe. I never heard of Amazon nor Apple doing it either.

        Amazon contacted me directly many times and when I spoke to the recruiters, they couldn't identify a position or a skill set...just wanted me to engage in a generic job interview. It was actually pretty horrific. The reviewer was incredibly ignorant and didn't want to do it. He gave a vague algorithm question and once I asked a follow up question because his question was so horrifically vague, he clearly didn't know. The recruiters could only tell me a broad business unit...not which language or technology they were targeting. Google is that way for sure. My background is primarily DB + Java backend. They were asking me C questions about pointers.

        Their interview was so inanely stupid, I just walked out. I had 2 written offers already and took one for better pay elsewhere. I felt very fortunate to be able to say "Sorry, if this is how you run things, I'm not your guy...I'll just go to my other offer...hope you find what you're looking for." Beyond it being a bad interviewer, no one could tell me anything about what I would have been doing or even which business unit they were looking to fill. When I asked them what skill sets they were looking for, it was just "problem solving skills." I even confirmed it was for a developer position and not professional services or support. I spoke to 4 people in the interview. Clearly no one knew what was happening.

        A few of my coworkers were poached by Amazon and had similar experiences. They were hired first and given a position later...sometimes a month or 2 later.

        Big tech has long been de-emphasizing skill sets. Before it used to be a laundry list of technologies on each job description. Now, many, if not most big tech senior positions don't even put the language they want you to work in.

        I'm not in Silicon Valley, but I am in another tech town and it's very much the case here. I doubt it's much different in SV.

        It may not be your experience, but I have witnessed it first hand and personally know a few it happened to.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ljw1004 ( 764174 )

          Amazon contacted me directly many times and when I spoke to the recruiters, they couldn't identify a position or a skill set...

          At Facebook, there isn't a specific position or skillset. Instead you join the company, you spend two months IDENTIFYING WHICH POSITION needs your skill set and you enjoy working with the team, and you pick it.

          The fact that recruiters can't identify a position or skill set doesn't mean you'll end up working in the wrong position or not using your skill set. It just means the decision is made later, by you, and it's not even a meaningful question to ask at this stage.

          The reviewer was incredibly ignorant and didn't want to do it. once I asked a follow up question because his question was so horrifically vague, he clearly didn't know.

          That sounds crummy.

          He gave a vague algorithm question... My background is primarily DB + Java backend. They were asking me C questions about pointers.

          Honestly, I also ask q

          • He gave a vague algorithm question... My background is primarily DB + Java backend. They were asking me C questions about pointers.

            Honestly, I also ask questions that deliberately have some vagueness, because I'm trying to assess the following skills -- can this person work with ambiguity? are their analytical skills up to spotting the ambiguity? are their communication skills up to the task of explaining it? are their design skills up to the task of picking the best resolution to that ambiguity?" (that said, it sounds like your interviewer was an entirely different level of poorness).

            Honestly, I would also ask you questions about pointers too, though not specifically C. That's because I'm trying to assess the following skills -- does this person still remember enough fundamentals about data structures and algorithms so they won't make wrong choices in their higher level language? will they be able to relate to the lower-level platform folks who are building the infrastructure that they sit upon, and communicate in their language? will they understand the implication of lower-level work? (Just throwing out some examples off the top of my head, although this isn't my area... if you need to port something from mysql to hadoop because the business needs scalability, will you be take it in stride? or the reverse, if it was written gratuitously parallel or low-level or no-sql, would you be able to guide it back to sanity?)

            So clarification:

            1. Asking a vague question is quite reasonable. IMHO, refusing to elaborate on any requirements is a red flag regarding the interviewer, if not the company. Maybe that's your jam? Maybe I was being unreasonable? But I had 2 high paying written job offers. I just entertained the interview because Amazon is a reputable name. I felt lucky to politely tell them I don't think much of their interview and don't think I'd enjoy working for them if they're pining for their COMP SCI 201 clas

    • This is non-news for Amazon, they do this all the time. They hire a bunch of talent give them a year to prove themselves then purge the bottom 10% of performers and start all over again for next year.It's actually probably pretty healthy for the company as you yearly purge those people not pulling their weight Unlike other companies where the dead weight just can't seem to get fired unless they did something like walk up to the CEO and spit in their face.

  • Why no Twitter news? (Score:3)

    by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Monday November 14, 2022 @12:40PM (#63050815)

    They've been laying off folks by the thousands [yahoo.com] in addition to all the other chaos that Musk has been unleashing (blue check mark nonsense, advertiser exodus, etc, etc).

    Am I the only one baffled by the utter lack of Twitter news on slashdot [slashdot.org]?

  • "overstaffed or underdelivering for years" (Score:3)

    by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Monday November 14, 2022 @12:44PM (#63050831)
    Has amazon really been overstaffed or under-delivering for years? I see this more as a result of the end of Covid, which was a boon for amazon. That doesn't mean they were wrong to staff up for it at the time. Things ebb and flow. Layoffs are not necessarily the result of malice or ineptitude.

  • this fits perfectly with Bezos plan, he now will be providing "charity" by giving severance packages.
    mission accomplished.

  • Amazon has lost many of it’s top talent already because their stock weighted total compensation reduced actual annual take home by a large percentage.

    No one is going to want to work for an Amazon that pays poorly, does not offer job security, and is an uncompromising work environment.

    • It surprises me because I got an Amazon order this weekend. A $25 gift card which cost me $25 exactly, with free next day shipping. I'm not a Prime Cult member. It shows up the next day, in a medium sized box most of which is padding to keep the gift card from rattling. They could have used a smaller enveleop, even a padded envelope. They could have shipped by USPS. But instead, for $0 they had a guy drive out to put the box at my door on a Sunday. None of this makes sense for a company that feels it

      • You do know that your order isn't the only order in that truck right? They probably already had the driver coming to your general area to drop off some other order, so sending the driver a couple minutes to you is probably cheaper than the postage to send is USPS

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday November 14, 2022 @01:39PM (#63051003)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • "Quiet Quitting....LOL" (Score:5, Funny)

    by bev_tech_rob ( 313485 ) on Monday November 14, 2022 @01:52PM (#63051027)
    So much for 'Quiet quitting'......how'd that work out?

    • I'm pretty firmly gen-x. When I see a quiet quitter I see the person who's name goes on the short list when executives start gathering names to cut... and who's name never gets on the list of promotions.

      Yeah, yeah, yeah... "Booo! I work to live, I don't live to work!" That's a very recent construct that people somehow feel entitled to have. Wasn't that far back that you were responsible for feeding and clothing yourself from cradle to grave, and the idea that you could limit yourself to 40 hours a week to d

      • Work is a large enough part of my life that I prefer to do it well, to enjoy it, and to feel invested in my contribution.

        We all prefer that, but actually having that is a position of rare privilege. Most people wouldn't do what they do for a living if they didn't have to.

        • Worse, I've known a lot of people who resent those who enjoy their job.

          These are the same people who won't hire someone without credentials, avoid thought as if it's some sort of disease, and approach work as if doing anything more than what is absolutely required is a betrayal of their moral values.

          Does it surprise anyone they are unhappy?

          I've managed to enjoy delivering pizzas. The problem wasn't that I didn't like the job, but that I needed to make more money. I suspect that so many jobs are hor

          • If employees expected to find their work enjoyable and fulfilling, employers would have to treat them better.

            Not under capitalism, they wouldn't. They have bills to pay.

            • Yes, they have bills to pay, which can be paid by any number of employers. OTOH, my employer has loans which can only be repaid by workers making a product and selling it, and the loan comes due regardless of whether I work for them or not.

        • I don't disagree. But I'm pretty sure if I was living on my own farm, tending my own garden, slaughtering my own livestock, and running all parts of my subsistence, I wouldn't enjoy that all that much either.

          I guess my slightly evolved point is, aspire to something better - something you enjoy. If you put in the bare minimum to not be fired, expect to do that indefinitely. Essentially, live without hope.

          No fun.

          • I agree with all of that, but I will add that there's a lot of protectionist horseshit going on to try to prevent you from succeeding at it in many venues, usually to protect some mediocre prick.

  • well, this is what a lot wanted (Score:3)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Monday November 14, 2022 @03:33PM (#63051251) Journal

    "Working for Amazon is like slavery"
    ^ a quote I've seen not once, or twice, but handfuls of times.

    I guess firing all these people is practically like Emancipating them, then? Now they're free to go be their best selves without the oppressive hand of Amazon keeping them down with the lure of a paltry $18/hour.

    Be free my lovelies, be free!

  • Alexa Please... (Score:3)

    by NoWayNoShapeNoForm ( 7060585 ) on Monday November 14, 2022 @11:40PM (#63052137)

    Bezos: "Alexa, please fire 10,000 people at Amazon."

    Alexa: "Ok. I'll start alphabetically with 'a'."

    Bezos: "NO!!"

    Alexa: "I'm sorry I did not understand your last command."

  • I just cancelled my family membership to Amazon Music and moved to Spotify specifically because Amazon's app is complete and total rubbish. I really thought it was just my old a**, under-powered Android phone that was the problem, but I recently relented in my opposition to the Apple tax and allowed one of the brood to get an iPhone (for the blue bubbles, for the blue bubbles), and the app is just as terrible. On either Android or iPhone the app will just randomly freeze, and the custom playlists are worthl

Slashdot Top Deals

news: gotcha

Close