this is common even if the company does well and have no layoffs. companies constantly post "vacancies" but those positions are already filled, they do this so they always have people in the pipeline to backfill those roles, and hr needs something to justify its existence. but for meta they are still hiring in rl which is the main reason why the layoffs happened in the first place. mark is stubborn and will not solve the root of the problem, this layoff is just a bandaid that will quickly need to be applied again
8 replies (most recent on top)
The people here do not realize that there is a Labor Department requirement that "We, the company, XYZ, made every effort to look for local USA employees to fill this position, but did not find any. Therefore we would like to sponsor the Labor Certification of employee ABCD who has the skills we need and would like him/her to get a Permanent Residency."
All companies go great lengths to get this task done. Some even end up calling employees like me for "namesake interviews" - where the interview is an eye-wash to basically prove a point. Truth and reality is that there are a ton of employees with Permanent Residency or citizenship who can do the same job.
Facebook is very well known to use interviews for harvesting ideas, designs and solutions to their own problems. I have personally seen my interview design being A/B tested on Facebook 6 months after I designed it during an interview whiteboard session.
Legs and Engineers for the Legs are comin!
How does that make any sense? The goal is to reduce costs by laying off people but at the same time, we're going to add more employees?
Makes perfect sense. The most useless people go, and some useful specialists with proven track record in areas which are hard to come by will come.
Of course they need another 100 engineers to add the leg feature for the avatars. Perhaps even more ("female") PMs to post Tiktok videos to show what a wonderful place Meta is.
So there should be! There are still niches that need filling.
How does that make any sense? The goal is to reduce costs by laying off people but at the same time, we're going to add more employees?