I concern is not the Layoffs but the manner in which they were done. The percentage was not uniform across teams. Some teams had only 15% while some teams ( Not On-Prem)) had close to 45%. No one knows how people were selected. We have seen some good performers being shown the door. Many new hires shown the door. Entire team let go. This is just madness. People had quit stable well paying jobs and joined Oracle and they were let go before they had the opportunity to prove their worth. It’s not that the Big O is in losses that they had to resort to such cuts. There would be no motivation left among the existing employees to perform well when they see such things happen.
8 replies (most recent on top)
@a9 While O is a mediocre place to work I have seen far worse.
Don't forget, employers are under no legal obligation to provide severance. I've worked at places where I saw people dismissed and who got nothing. When I tell acquaintances how much severance O pays, their eyes boggle.
@ba Huh? Companies aren't families and employees at will can be terminated at any moment and communicate the decision the way they choose t. It looks like some folks were expecting a farewell party with fireworks.
@av wow, the fact that you don't see what you posted as f'd up is scarier than what you wrote.
Oracle credit rating has been downgraded. If you were in the same situation and could "lay off" members from your household you would probably do the same ito go back to financial sanity.
@a7 there are far worse places to work than Oracle. Of course they will always be able to hire people. I bet most of the people who were let go last Sept and still haven't found a job would gladly take their jobs back for less pay and longer hours.
And yet they will always find people to work there. It's like battered spouse syndrome.
Motivation going forward is your paycheck and benefits. Getting fired for cause gets you zero severance. Getting fired during a layoff doesn't have the negative perception as the few here and there during regular business. The hiring managers on the outside know when the layoffs occurred the smaller numbers look like performance issues. The new hires let go were probably offered up by their managers to save more experienced employees. The high performing experienced employees were probably added in by senior managers as a purely cost based decision. Now that we have over 8.25 billion people on the planet you really have to do a lot more to stand out from the crowd.
Your last sentence is true. (well, the rest too). In our team, literally the BEST people were laid off. What remains is junior folk who don't have experience, AND are now severely unmotivated to do well. They see the best performers laid off - doe anyone think that's motivational?