Thread regarding SAS Institute layoffs

"all pitch in"

pitching in is a nice sentiment, but not enough. at least 3 things have to happen, none of which would be solved by more pitching-in or even more "hardcore-ness".

1. reduce underperforming or bloated areas (such as retail and marketing).
2. reduce in relatively high revenue but slow (negative or positive) growth areas.
3. invest in more promising areas.

the first two are happening, even if slower than a "cutthroat" owner would do. the third: it's not clear SAS owners/execs/the yes-men and yes-women have any competency in this area beyond building a few products and solutions on a successful-at-the-time platform. they don't have experience until now trying to build for or around a rapidly declining platform or launch something totally unrelated successfully (airlines, video games, etc. didn't work. perhaps real estate is the main other success). most successful tech companies also cannot survive the "paradigm shifts". Microsoft might be the one exception (managed to cope with Linux, Google, Apple, Android, Anti-trust, etc., etc. and still survive/thrive). Maybe for SAS, finding a buyer and letting new management figure out #3 is the only/best move.

legacy, vibes, a nice paternalism, buying some time for a few folks who have served for a long, long time.

There will be no more VRBPs...they can just lay off people any time they want. They offer up to 1 year of severance max for layoff just like VRBP. That's very generous.

@1jvn+1rCnvIuy

"There will be no VRBP because it would encourage those critical to the success of the company to leave."

Yep. I agree with you (and @1pxr+1rCnvIuy). SAS has had two voluntary (VRBP) layoffs, an unknown number of targeted layoffs over the past two or three years, and a long, slow burn (layoff-in-all-but-name) as the people with the most portable (read: in-demand) skills leave the company for one reason or another.

I have a hard time believing that the same number of people with the same number of years of experience with SAS-specific technologies aren't needed to continue to "innovate" going forward as were originally needed to create the thing in the first place. Especially given the fact that mistakes were made (as we say). But in almost every important development team I can think of, the number of developers with that experience is less than it was before all of this started, and certainly before the IPO was announced, and this is most true for the core development teams most critical to SAS's success.

@1bru+1rCnvIuy

In my opinion, a VRBP does benefit the company. There are MANY of us who would retire early if provided with an incentive to retire. Otherwise the incentive is to remain on the payroll at the upper end of the pay scale.

There will be no VRBP because it would not benefit the company. They would rather hold on for a little while longer and then let the new CEO or owner chop heads with a pittance of a severance!

"There will be no VRBP because it would encourage those critical to the success of the company to leave."

Unfortunately (for us old-timers who would take advantage of such an offer), I think you are correct.

There will be no VRBP because it would encourage those critical to the success of the company to leave.

I know it hurts us all who still love and work at the company. What can the leadership do that you cannot do yourself? I mean as Individual contributors we have the ability to sound our opinion. If you are in management, it is a different story. Managers are good people, but are put into a position of not being able to speak out. That is why we as IC should speak up often, and contribute positive suggestions to get the company back on track. I believe most managers (and most of us) want the company to thrive. In order for that to happen, we need to all pitch in for a course correction. what do you think? Thumbs up if you agree! Thumbs down if you disagree.

I agree with you OP. Everyone here says it's kind and gentle but I disagree. The executives stopped communicating with employees last year, even about important and obvius recent things -- such as PH departure and layoffs. When was the last time anyone said anything about the supposed ipo?

There's a black cloud hanging over the company and it will stay there until there's some communication and transparency. Where there's no info gossip and speculation will fill the void. Anyone who isn't worried how much longer this company can limp along is blissfully unaware of the obvious signs of trouble. Silence is not kind or gentle.

I've worked at a big tech company beholden to shareholders before. While it may seem like the 10% sweeping layoffs seems ideal, I can assure that layoffs happen outside of that time and were rolling as well. Don't let the big headlines fool you. Layoffs and reorgs were ongoing and happening on a quarterly, sometimes monthly basis. Only the large numbers (required to report by law) made the news. No way is kinder than the other. Just a stark reality that job security is a false security, especially in this day and age.

The slow trickle does give those that remain “a sense of the walls closing in”. But my gosh, they all should have that sense. Anyone who doesn’t is willfully blind.

And the severance packages have been generous — double or triple industry standards.

Finally, the slow trickle allows some senior employees to make it to retirement, who otherwise would not. That’s a huge deal, for people trying to make it to Medicare.

Good business? No, you’re right; this isn’t. Good business would require a 40-50% layoff — which would not be kind.

SAS owners are being kind to their loyal long-term employees, and are clearly not trying to maximize their profits.

Since the people getting laid off are supposedly getting a nice package, I wonder if the trickle is to manage the cash flow for that.

@mrt+1rCnvIuy

It’s all about maintaining the image to the public of #saslife

I think you are correct. It is a legacy, reputation, good vibes preservation effort.

I strive for indifference.