I am looking around at potential jobs and see quite a few open positions for this. Why are they hiring for these rolls? Are people currently in these rolls leaving in preparation of the oct merger, or are they ramping up this team?
I see the other poster asking about coming on, and it sounds like the general consensus is "avoid vmware/broadcom like the plague", but it would be interesting if it excludes/includes this role.
Seems like the timing for this position would su-k if you get it, given the runway probably sept 28 to start. That would give you one month to ramp up and then possibly get canned with little to no severance. I am not sure if I could take that position if you already have a paying job. It’s not a slam dunk like getting a job at VMware used to be.
"So does that mean you think this role is safe to take?"
Unfortunately, I have no idea. However, the customers they service are typically high value accounts (apparently BC's favorite) and support SRs, escalations, and customers wanting their priorities driven within GS is not going anywhere.
The original posters question is very valid, risk has to be weighed. I don't know much more than what the general VMW employee base has been told so I can't sway either way
“ The SSM is the only role that can provide a comprehesive update for a customer that has multiple SRs open. ”
So does that mean you think this role is safe to take?
"I'm in GS",
so am I and not a SSM. Lets just call it a draw. TSEs are overworked, TSMs are understaffed, SrMGRs and Dirs etc are out to lunch. Basic talk track for 10+ years. Tell me something new. The SSM is the only role that can provide a comprehesive update for a customer that has multiple SRs open. Let alone 30 across 6 groups and 30 TSEs. They may annoy TSEs for updates but they deflect and de-esc more cr-p then you know
"90% sure ssm is a safe move"
uhh what?
90% sure ssm is a safe move. They’d be sociopaths to hire someone now if they didn’t think it was safe.
“ Just this week I saw a customer ask for an uplift on their case. Two hours later the SSM says they will do so, which consisted of them updated the case to "uplift requested".”
So is your issue with that ssm or all ssm roles? Why would they be hiring at a time so unsure if they weren’t generating revenue? Seems like you have a ha---n for them and just don’t like them in general.
You have no clue what SSMs do.
I'm in GS, and I see what SSMs do every single day. Which is nothing to help the company.
Just this week I saw a customer ask for an uplift on their case. Two hours later the SSM says they will do so, which consisted of them updated the case to "uplift requested".
Please tell me how that adds value. Better yet, tell Broadcom.
Post from TheLayoff.com
I posted this, I will say that I am not disgruntled, and left a while ago. I loved my time at VMW (Many years). I hope it continues, and would entertain going back IF it's a good move.
“Support Services Managers do not drive revenue. TAMs do, and they are paid for via line item in the customer contract. SSMs are not a line item, and will be removed/minimized. Which is fine, because they're a focking joke and everyone in GS knows it.”
You have no clue what SSMs do. Which is fine. If they are on a chopping block it hasn’t nothing to do with your version of value. Apparently customers see the value as customer attachment is increasing. And we also sell SSM as a contract line item. Get educated before you comment
“ SSMs are not a line item, and will be removed/minimized. Which is fine, because they're a focking joke and everyone in GS knows it.”
I thought they specifically were a line item, just like tams
Support Services Managers will be on the chopping block. There are already 100 of them in NASA, and there will not be need of any more, once we move to the customer tiers.
Only the strategic tier will have actual Support Services Managers, the other tiers will share a pool of SSMs based in Costa Rica.
Support Services Managers do not drive revenue. TAMs do, and they are paid for via line item in the customer contract. SSMs are not a line item, and will be removed/minimized. Which is fine, because they're a focking joke and everyone in GS knows it.
"VMware is posting openings as to not look"
I personally know two people who have been hired. They know the risks. For them, it was more of them leaving a shittier situation and just taking a flyer because they paid them way more than they were making. They looked at as: well, if I get laid off, whatever, they'll just go back on the market and if they can't find anything with what the salary Vmware offered they'd just eventually ask less. Both are not married, no kids, etc.
Should they survive whatever cuts, I'm sure it'll be a rocky year or two but eventually it'll settle. Similar to Citrix now, it seems to be settling in.
I heard (yes more hear-say)
It's just hear-say. Not true. It's what disgruntled people want to believe is true. For some reason, people don't want to accept that VMware is making money, does good work, and has good teams. Schadenfreude at their own expense.
It makes sense (but hear say) some key members of the support functions have moved into these roles......
“I heard (yes more hear-say) that VMware is posting openings as to not look like its dying. Postings that they have no intention on hiring for.”
Why would they go through 4+ rounds of interviews with 20+ candidates just to appear as if they were not dying?
I heard (yes more hear-say) that VMware is posting openings as to not look like its dying. Postings that they have no intention on hiring for.
the general consensus is "avoid vmware/broadcom like the plague"
The consensus of people on this site, who are an already biased group.
Answers have been posted around, but voted down. Some people left and this is their backfill. Some teams are still ramping up and building. Just because there's an acquisition it doesn't mean we're just going to stop making a product or adding features.
If a team has the budget to continue hiring, then they're in a good space.