Thread regarding VMware layoffs

"There is abundant research proving you are wrong, but hey, let's continue to complain about DEI, call the others racists when it's the same white dudes whining about not being the alphas anymore like the other poster said."

Wrong, no research has definitively proved a correlation between diversity in companies, and their success. Are some successful companies more diverse, yes! There are also diverse companies that are not successful - Example: Vmware. In fact since the time VMware started its DEI program, the company has been on a downward spiral. So are you willing to accept that correlation??? Probably not. Nor do I.

Vmware has been failing for many many reasons, none of which have anything to do with its employees skin color or se-ual choices. Just as diverse companies didn't succeed for the same reasons.

I'm also not arguing that diversity is bad. I'm arguing that diversity programs are bad, they operationalize discrimination, and effect the performance of companies in a negative way because they slow down hiring, and force hiring managers to factor in things like skin color and se-ual preference which have nothing to do with a persons ability to do the job.

Rather than citing studies you know nothing about, and throwing out racist tropes like "white dudes" try to make a coherent argument. Notice I never used the trope "black dudes."

"Well said! Diversity does not create successful companies like Team Betsy says."

There is abundant research proving you are wrong, but hey, let's continue to complain about DEI, call the others racists when it's the same white dudes whining about not being the alphas anymore like the other poster said.

And good luck on your next job. Companies are focusing on diversity and the ones which are not, are he-l to work for - but be my guest to go and work for Musk Home Depot or Broadcom. Oh no, they are not hiring, they are actually laying people off... oh well.

For US employees, keep an eye out for your state's WARN Act reports! Supposedly, states are to be notified 60 days in advance of layoffs (might be some # stipulations). That's what I'm watching.

@5ihp+1nVdyvQg

what did ur CA'er friend who is currently at Broadcom say? What did they go through?

I talked to CA’ers who are at BC, they will tell you what you can expect. They went through it. We all know people so call them.

@5ine+1nVdyvQg

Well said! Diversity does not create successful companies like Team Betsy says. Talented, focused, and driven individuals do.

I'll also add that Team Betsy likes to ignore the DEI related studies that show a more diverse workforce has zero effect, positive or negative, on the quality of the company and the success of the business.

Hopefully, someone will now study VMware's implementation of a DEI program and demonstrate its negative effects on the business.

@5mxt+1nVdyvQg

Ge-z, dude, how are you a Sr Director and write so poorly? Also, try the merit of the point I made vs, instead of just saying I'm a white victim.
I also barely understood what you said, but I think I got the gist.

I'll answer you simply - DEI programs incentivize and encourage discrimination - period. It's all about grouping people based on skin color and se-ual orientation, not treating them as individuals.

Hiring is about selecting the best individual for the job. Do you disagree? If we hire individuals, then why should non job related parts of their identities factor into the hiring process like Team Betsy wants? How does someone being black or g-y make them a better programmer, or better at HR, or whatever the job? It doesn't. The same as being white and straight doesn't help with those things, either. Someone should not be denied an opportunity for being black or g-y, nor should they be for being white and straight, which is the effect of HRs policies.

Regarding the feedback from your team, thats great they all blew sunshine and roses at you, but if they disagreed, do you think they would feel safe to do that? NO! That's why we all have to come here and talk about our dismay with VMware's DEI policies on an anonymous board. So not only is DEI discriminatory, speaking out against can lead to a fascist response for those who feel morally superior and virtue signal like yourself.

'We are a tech company, so look for the best technical people. If that person is purple and likes to sc--w trees and rabbits, so be it'

The pure ignorance of the above statement screams I'm a white dude and feel a victim for whats happening because I'm no longer an alpha... (and for the record I'm a straight white dude happily marriried with 2 kids)

Speaking as a senior director the DEI initiative never hampered our teams globally to get the best talent when in fact I got alot of feedback on team and indidivual meetings that it helped people get over their own bias when hiring, that be age, race, gender it didn't matter.

Those that are giving out about DEI when we are being acquired by broadcom... Shut up

Flip the switch.. If broadcom let you go and you go for interviews... What if they evaluated you on items other than your experience and abililty... The white dude brigade would be up in arms.

When the DEI initiative first began to get traction at VMW, if you read between the lines of the internal propaganda and so-called "data" supporting DEI, you could see that Team Betsy was conflating "there is diversity at successful companies" with "diversity creates successful companies". This misrepresentation of correlation as causation was either intentional, or could just as likely have been their incompetence making them unaware of the distinction between the two. Either way, it was most likely just a confirmation bias grasping at data to support the preconceived notions of a few virtue signalers.

Mass Hiring Confirmed!!!

The salt from those salt mines don’t just magically appear in your salt shaker!

I wasn’t blaming the diverse hires, that would be racist like you are being for blaming the “white dudes”

No my point was to call out the efficacy of the DEI program, or lack thereof. Betsy, Kit, HR has been insinuating that having a more diverse company both racially and se-----y would magically fix all our technical and financial problems. Which it obviously didn’t fix anything. All it did was the slow the companies hiring process down and forced leaders to hire based on factors that have zero effect on the success of the company.

Instead of prioritizing knowledge skills and ability, Betsy told us to prioritize skin color, and who people like to sc--w instead. This type of thinking is beyond stupid!

We are a tech company, so look for the best technical people. If that person is purple and likes to sc--w trees and rabbits, so be it.

What I’m saying is color and how someone gets off shouldn’t matter or even be a variable in the equation. When you force those things to be a huge factor like Betsy has, you create problems like slowing down the hiring process. You drastically limit the pool of talented candidates as trans Latinx people are a super small part of the population.

So please don’t project your racism and desire to discriminate on me. Clearly you don’t like white people, and you are the one with the problem.

"By the way, I thought having more diversity was supposed to make the company better. Why are failing so badly if that was the case? Could it be perhaps, we should be focusing on the tech more than superficial BS that has nothing to do with solving our customers problems?"

Yeah, let's blame the diverse employees for the failures and not the white dudes MD and the other ones from Silver Lake for deciding on who the leadership at VMware is, milking us dry during the Dell acquisition and after and now selling us to Broadcom to make even more money without ever giving a damn about what our strategic positioning should be or trying to make this company work.

IMAGINE if we would ever blame the white dudes. Come on, now.

Not really sure how “confirmed” is news… If you have more than two brain cells you knew this was coming.. and frankly WAAAY overdue.

Wonder if the Business Insider sources know just how “massive” the casualties are on Day One?

"Similarly, why would you post more Marketing jobs when you know they will be cut? None of this makes sense unless you know the hidden agenda that motivates these decisions."

This is simple, Google evergreen reqs, these are reqs that are opened but never filled to give the illusion that they are hiring/ increasing head count. VMware has been doing this for the past year and a half in multiple different BU's just like many other tech companies.

Broadcom running company for last year intimately involved in detail VMWare affairs. Illegal and raghu and execs allowed it to happen.

Too bad Khan blew it in msoft, it would be easy to investigate.

With a $50 million bribe, I think that the main thing that Magoo has been doing is handing over USB drives of detailed financial and personal information to Hock and his crack right-sizing management team.

He hands them over in the back of goodwill where he buys his used white Hanes t-shirts and underwear.

Certainly agree that the behavior of hiring and RSU grants is being make in the usual fantasy island status quo if the c-suite and senior mgmt levels. They are all being fired and policies are going to change.

Many at VMware will have a rude awakening because mgmt can’t say something as simple as “should” the deal go through. you can “expect changes”based on public documents and statements by Hock. The C-suite is paid off to lie and do whatever is necessary to “preserve the asset as whole”, but no other folks in mgmt are being bribed by change in control gifts.

For those not in the bribed C-suite, to say “you don’t know” is id--tic and insulting. You do know, there is evidence of what Hock has said and in the documents produced to govt agencies.

That fact you “don’t know” the exact specific details of who is exactly getting fired twists the meaning of “don’t know” to absurd levels.

Managers, you need to take a moment to reflect that you sound like Clinton - “I did not have se-ual relations…”.

Own the change, prepare and mentor your direct reports for change in an acquisition vs putting your head in the sand and say nothing or say “I don’t know”.

Leaders lead, and we don’t have leaders up and down the whole mgmt chain. You all “I don’t know” managers should be embarrassed.

My only a consolation is that a good amount of you will be fired.

"Latest we heard from our VP: BC is not happy with the optics of the article."

Of course, because 'informed' people leaked the right-sizing plan details to Business Insider. However, keeping this agenda a secret, or continuing the obvious fallacy that a VMW status quo will be maintained, was unlikely. Too many highly paid VMW management are delivering tepid performance on net-new growth goals, from the BC lean and mean org perspective.

"Why would VMW spend 100m bucks on RSU retention that will only vest in March and then fire biz ops people on August 31st, i.e. before the deal closes?"

It only makes sense if you are Raghu and Betsy, reacting in their alternative reality.

Similarly, why would you post more Marketing jobs when you know they will be cut? None of this makes sense unless you know the hidden agenda that motivates these decisions.

Why would VMW spend 100m bucks on RSU retention that will only vest in March and then fire biz ops people on August 31st, i.e. before the deal closes? Makes no sense.

Broadcom running company for last year intimately involved in detail VMWare affairs. Illegal and raghu and execs allowed it to happen. They know everything and told raghu what to do. Our leadership has sold us all out we are all pawns and going to get fu---d.

@2xsh+1nVdyvQg How is receiving a notice from a company i don't work for yet any better than the company i do work for giving it to me on behalf of that same company?

I fully admit ignorance of the laws in this area but honestly i don't think any reasonable person can claim that this is ok in spite of it being perhaps legal.

"Lots of conjecture here, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it's still illegal for VMware to act on business decisions with overt direction from Broadcom until the deal is done and dusted. I would think that would mean there is zero chance that layoffs will be announced prior to the deal closing - likely sometime in the next couple of months.

My money is on the layoff notices coming through about one month after the deal closes because they'll need a few weeks for all the managers on both sides to review team lists, plus another week or two for Legal and HR to plan the nuances of the layoff (notification timing, security, data preservation, hardware recovery, etc.)."

You are wrong, and it's not conjecture but a fact that Broadcom will provide offer letters or layoff notices prior to the close date. You are getting caught up in the semantics of who will do the layoffs. Broadcom will give everyone a WARN notice, not VMware.

Also post-broadcom we will STILL be VMware. Just not the fluffy, throw away lots of money, create stupid positions, and obsess over things like DEI VMware. By the way, I thought having more diversity was supposed to make the company better. Why are failing so badly if that was the case? Could it be perhaps, we should be focusing on the tech more than superficial BS that has nothing to do with solving our customers problems?

I couldn't be more excited after reading the redacted version of the document! This merger can't come soon enough, and I want to be on the train to AVGO/VMW long! Let's get this done!

I have customers needing this type of feature direction as the document lays out. We have a pent up demand to execute from the product teams, so this will really give innovation a boost like never before. The ride will be exciting, amazing, and profitable... please get this deal done yesterday!

If I'm reading this correctly, this is a long time overdue and will make the OG customers very very proud. This is for the customers! That's why we're here.

For those saying layoff will be 1 months after close that makes no sense. After close VMware as a company ceases to exist so you will have to be:

1. An employee of Broadcom - which means offered a position and imported into BC payroll and paid by Broadcom

2. Laid off immediately without being imported into Broadcom

The option of being on VMW payroll after close does not exist and BC isn't going to make you an offer, go through onboarding etc just to lay you off 1 month later

Latest we heard from our VP: BC is not happy with the optics of the article. Will now start scheduling calls with everyone. Aim is to find out if people are even interested in a permanent job, or rather a temporary one (or none at all).
It’s not as bad as it sounded!

Lay-off, or Welcome to Broadcom, emails will be sent 1-2 days after closing per usual BC M&A process. "Lists" are being made right now, or have already been made. 30K+ emails to VMware employees need to be sent. They will not wait to do this work until after closing.

Raghu and Betsy live in an alternative reality. They're still posting new marketing positions on the jobs board. What are they thinking? It seems like they're flipping Hock the bird, knowing how he historically runs a very lean marketing org at BC. It makes no sense.

Also, anyone applying for these open jobs must be out of options. What kind of talent joins a company with this obvious headcount problem, and current leadership volatility?

"they'll need a few weeks for all the managers on 'both sides' to review team lists"

Apparently, you didn't read Hock's EU review commentary about his opinion of the failing (redacted) leadership at VMware, and how he plans to make big changes. Both sides won't decide, the BC team will decide (just like they did with CA, Symantec and Brocade).

What about this scenario, given the point about legality? VMware will initiate a preliminary layoff in advance of the closing, so that BC can get a head start on their right-sizing goal they have set for the eventual total headcount. Meaning, independent of BC.

FYI, I think the Insider article had more than one 'informed' source about the plan.

Lots of conjecture here and correct me if I'm wrong, but it's still illegal for VMware to act on business decisions with overt direction from Broadcom until the deal is done and dusted. I would think that would mean there is zero chance that layoffs will be announced prior to the deal closing - likely sometime in the next couple of months.

My money is on the layoff notices coming through about one month after the deal closes because they'll need a few weeks for all the managers on both sides to review team lists plus another week or two for Legal and HR to plan the nuances of the layoff (notification timing, security, data preservation, hardware recovery, etc.).

Maybe Laura started the rumor ;-)

Seriously, look at her bio and track record. She could be the CMO of a spun-out EUC BU. That's more likely, given her background. I can't imagine her in a leadership role at BC.

Some say Laura will be the new CMO iof BC. Interesting

Wow if @1idq+1nVdyvQg is right then we should expect a significant cull in sales.

I know how bloated, in efficient sales is. Way too many people who have got fat for doing f all at VMware. Contracts sold in a peculiar way which never benefits the customer. Interesting times. Time is ticking and not long now.

@1iab+1nVdyvQg SG&A- Sales, General & Administrative expense. In other words, what percent of revenues is not counted toward building product or netting out as profit.

At Broadcom, this is roughly 5% of revenues. At Microsoft it works out to be slightly below 15%. At VMW, it is over 65% of revenue! I look at a whole lotta earnings reports and I've never seen it this high for a reasonably mature company. It means VMWare is beyond morbidly obese with people that don't create product.

What does GS&A stand for?

"Here's the core issue: during every meeting the BC transition team had with VMW leadership, valid concerns were raised about the bloated GS&A org structure, and the many layers of VPs and Sr Directors with questionable leadership responsibilities."

Well said, this place is more bloated than a blowfish on diuretics. Those people are also way overpaid.

Here's the core issue: during every meeting the BC transition team had with VMW leadership, valid concerns were raised about the bloated GS&A org structure, and the many layers of VPs and Sr Directors with questionable leadership responsibilities.

It's now unclear if any of the senior leadership are credible from the lean culture perspective of the BC team. Plus, the due diligence process has also resulted in serious questions about the VMW's sales and marketing talent recruitment process. Too many people trying to justify their existence, with no accountability to performance goals or meaningful revenue growth objectives.

I AM INDISPENSABLE!!! I’D LIKE TO SEE THEM GET ALONG WITHOUT ME!!!

Ummm…whelp. Maybe I was wrong.

(Probably me in a few weeks)

All of you that stayed, hoping for some bright, shiny future where your work is valued, are delusional to the 10th power.

All of you that stayed for a severance are now going to be competing against each other for the next job.

GTFO! Now!