They initially mentioned effected positions will be moved to AI related roles but now email sent today sounds like its layoff and they will try to help find new positions?
15 replies (most recent on top)
CK said the headcount wouldn't change, but 8000 would be impacted one way or another...well 8000 will be impacted and they'll hire back that amount in low cost countries...I survived the big India push back in the 2000's...it failed massively then and it will again
There are definitely build/development teams are being laid off. I can confirm that, as I am effected.
Have you seen our AI?
: @1yzb+1s3sjzdK Yeah. I know. I think, too, some other factors come into consideration. First, they’re not terribly bright… strike that… they terribly lazy, so to have X thousand of colleagues impacted with a possible individualized solution for, say, even a quarter of them would have been a bit more effort than they were probably willing to expend. Second, the “planning” they did (probably not terribly complex, let’s face it) would be several orders of magnitude greater for them to tackle if they couldn’t just say “get rid of Y# of T4s in wherever”. Finally, there are probably legal risks that the company just found not worth their while in allowing one people to move around. When it’s all said and done I really don’t think any of them care enough about anyone besides themselves to put any real thought into it. It’s simply easier to cut thousands of people, have those left work at 185% to handle the extra work, and let the somewhat dimwitted shareholders think they actually did something of value. None of them deserve the jobs they have clearly the wrong people are being impacted. And you’re right. We ALL deserve a more ethical place to work in, one that actually gives a sh-t about people. SAP was once that place… not anymore.
@1nfe+1s3sjzdK I understand that. I am ok with getting according to that location but they should have offered an option if that was really the case Or cut some pennies from their paychecks.
@nbk+1s3sjzdK
When they refer to "high cost" locations they are not referring to the office space, etc... they are referring to the people. Salaries in some locations (for example... ALL of the US) are much higher than in other locations (Buenos Aires, Manila, etc). So, volunteering to work in a "low cost location" but without taking a significant pay cut... just not in the cards.
The bottom line? SAP just views the US as a high cost country. They love to sell to US businesses... but want to support them with low cost "resources" sitting in Manila.
Really sorry to hear this is the reason and how things were communicated. It should not be this way. No clarity, no compassion, no empathy.
I sincerely hope you land somewhere soon, and in a place better than SAP.
Yes - they lied. I was terminated today with a reason of high-cost location in Reston, VA. I asked if they can open a position in a low-cost location and I am ready to work from there but they said they can't do that. I can apply for open positions with some priority code but nothing matches my current position. If a high-cost location was the only concern - they could offer transfers Or let people WFH but no option was given. I believe that I deserve a much better ethical place. This too shall pass :)
Allowing affected employees to be rehired, how does that work when they were let go for being in a 'micro location' as mentioned by the Reston VA Travel Analytics employees? If they're in a location that is cut, the chances of being rehired do not exist in my opinion.
It was never about restructuring and reskilling, if you haven't noticed the trend yet, last year in 2023 we went thru almost identical situation. The reason was a need to "Transform into a Cloud company"
https://www.asug.com/insights/q1-2023-sap-enters-new-phase-of-strategic-cloud-transformation
Shortly after this announcement and layoffs the stock shot up.
This time it's another excuse to do 'restructuring' in the name of AI.
After the announcement shareholders were bullish because of the AI trend, and the stock shot up again.
Combine all of this with the alleged stock buy backs and they've essentially both pumped the stock to ATH, while reducing operating costs for the company.
They know exactly what they are doing, and its unlikely they converting people to AI roles unless you are already in a highly technical position that can help them achieve that goal.
They're trimming the fat as a cost cutting measure, while finding new ways to remain profitable.
Most of the AI services are delivered by third party external systems.
Oh no … CK has lied ? 🤡
You are naive. They never planned to move the affected people to AI roles. They plan to move general roles to low cost locations or just eliminate them. AI is the excuse they use.
If you believed that people would be re-allocated to AI roles then I’ve got some snake oil to sell to you.
The "ai" talking point is a bunch of bs. None of the in house "ai" we use would be able to take anyone's job anytime soon.
"ai" is the big buzzword that is hot on the market right now. As we don't have much innovation in our actual products, we are slapping "ai" into them to keep up with the times.