I don’t know anyone personally who was laid off in this round, but I’m curious about the age distribution of those affected. Historically, it tends to lean heavily toward older employees, as Citrix has repeatedly demonstrated a clear bias against them. Was that the case again this time?
12 replies (most recent on top)
S--trix was a reputable company with the potential to improve and expand their product line but they failed. It's just another company destroyed by useless CEO and PE firm.
When I got my papers in one of the previous rounds there was a page showing the age distribution of the layoffs. I believe this is a requirement at least in California. The group above 50 was the smallest at that time.
Isn't it obvious? What is the fewest number of employees / least amount of salary needed to keep the lights on until the carcass is picked clean? Old, young, doesn't matter. If the company can stay in "business" (such as it is) without you, then you're gone.
I don't know if TK believes in karma.
Yes, there were older employees impacted. People with years of experience. People who will struggle mightily to get a job in today's tech sector. They'll be seen as too qualified, too costly, too slow, or not diverse enough. The PE gods have no humanity or respect for the human dignity of these workers, whom, in many cases gave many years of loyal service to build what Citrix became and could continue to be. Yes, the severances are pretty good. But I know people who were cut in the big layoffs of '22 and '23 that STILL haven't gotten a job. Their severances are long gone. And yes, they are older technologists. And those that have gotten jobs, had to settle for much less pay. Of course, a business exists to make money. But it's hard to have any respect for the lame leaders that run this sh!t show now as we watch them dismiss good, loyal people, and pocket their multi-million-dollar bonuses.
No it was not an attack on older employees. I’ve been in meetings where these decisions have been made and many factors come to play including salary, unvested stock options (weight around PEs neck), fully loaded cost, location and whether an office can be closed. If PE thinks they can survive without you or get somebody else to do your job cheaper then you are toast.
There is also bias in play as I have heard TK unfairly complain about Ireland and the Irish several times. Nallapan will give your jobs away to a buddy of his in a heartbeat often at a higher cost. God knows what deals are happening out of view.
The PE execs are a bunch of crooks, navigating a very thin line of legality. Happy to be out of it.
Strictly Financial is my guess. This cut was across the board having impacted both young and mature. Was told of quite a high number of younger people as well as those over 40's. TK and the Board want to know how much less can CSG operate with little to no people is the end game here before they pivot towards selling and dismembering CSG.
I don’t think there was any rhyme or reason. I know of some highly technical, extremely knowledgeable people who were let go. In fact, they were supposed to present for my customer next week, and now we are scrambling to find substitutes.
Looking at those that I know were let go, I'd say tenure/age was not really a factor. It was more about removing people who didn't contribute in a significant way. Younger employees who are not very familiar with the products and so still spend a lot of time building up their knowledge rather than producing something, and long-tenured folks who over time have lowered their work effort and so they are no longer worth their salary. Again, this is from the group of people I know were let go.
It’s more based on seniority, which does tend to be older people.
I think it's a mixed bag.
At least 5 juniors in the teams I deal with are being laid off, all in their early 20s. The length of employment in each case is less than 1 year.
I expect that, in cases I'm aware of, the bosses want to reduce the teams to skeleton crews to maintain the product for a short while longer. It's unfortunate. There's less motivation, time, and energy, from seniors to improve things from the bottom-up.
If the BUs do future rounds of hiring, they will need to go through the laborious task of reintroducing the legacy codebases to another group of new developers. This alone is a future cost that can hardly be mitigated and makes me think there will be layoffs of entire teams next time around. I've never seen so few young people retained.
A very unfortunate way to start the year off. I hope everyone that remains is considering their own options wisely.
Based on pay for sure
yes