Ex-Googler says she was laid off from her hospital bed shortly after giving birth:
Would you believe that Google's mass firings from January are still going on? Google's reported mishandling of its biggest round of layoffs ever has employees up in arms, and they're doing everything from walking out on the job to sending angry letters to management.
First up, European Googlers are just now being laid off due to the January announcement. Reuters reports that more than 200 workers were laid off from the Zurich, Switzerland, branch of the company this week. The employees at that office walked out for a second time in protest of the move and even offered to take pay cuts or reduce working hours to stave off the job cuts. Google's layoffs seem driven by a desire to placate the stock market, though, so it's no surprise that these offers fell on deaf ears.
[...] Making Google honor its previous leave agreements isn't just about employees getting paid when they have medical or family issues; it's also about having continual medical care when they need it most. As part of Google's (seemingly discarded) plan to offer employees every perk imaginable, the company has on-site medical facilities that many employees make use of.
While employees' severance packages might come with a few more months of health insurance, being fired means instantly losing access to Google's facilities. If that's where a laid-off Googler's primary care doctor works, that person is out of luck, and some employees told CNBC they lost access to their doctors the second the layoff email arrived. Employees on leave also have a lot to deal with. One former Googler, Kate Howells, said she was let go by Google from her hospital bed shortly after giving birth. She worked at the company for nine years.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Tuesday March 21, @11:48PM
And that's one more reason why you should stay away from "company towns" of any stripe. Even in the rare cases where they're not actively abusive to the current employees, the whole point is still to give the company leverage, to make it more difficult for you to leave.
But that only applies to you - when they have no further use of you, for them it's just as easy as ever to fire you. And then you get immediately hit by all the headaches that they were using as reasons to keep you from leaving.
Bottom line, the healthiest relationship with your employer is "go to work, get paid, go home". Given the huge power imbalance in play, anything more is just begging for trouble.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by darkfeline on Wednesday March 22, @12:00AM (12 children)
> mass firings
Layoffs != firings.
> are still going on
Well, they gave six months severance, so yeah? That's a good thing? AFAIK they were navigating legal protocols in non-US countries, so in that sense it is still going on. But Google isn't laying off more people (unless there's breaking news right this moment), so no, they're not still going on.
> European Googlers are just now being laid off due to the January announcement.
Ah yes, the non-US case I mentioned.
> being fired means instantly losing access to Google's facilities
They're not being fired, but yes that's usually how it works.
> If that's where a laid-off Googler's primary care doctor works, that person is out of luck
Uh, that's definitely a weird situation, and that definitely sounds like a failure of personal planning. Why is your primary care doctor restricted to company facilities? You're practically asking for this exact situation to happen.
Protip: if you rely on a crucial service solely provided by your employer, stop doing that. At least find backups or a migration plan.
I guess it's a good thing people's standards are so high now, but there's a blurry line between that and entitlement (and lack of personal responsibility).
You have to work to eat; we're not at the point where people can just freeload (whether justified or not, according to each person's judgment). Thus, anything you receive is either directly or indirectly tied to your productive value (or handouts that society has agreed upon).
If tech employees actually produce enough value to justify getting leave salary after the termination of their employment as a condition of said employment, then companies will pay for it, and employees who value that will work for said companies. Practically speaking, I don't think 99% of employees care, especially the actually productive ones, and employers won't be able to justify the cost either.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22, @12:30AM (4 children)
If a company that made $60B in a year is firing thousands of employees simply because some venture capital fund manager told them to, they should at least fire the company CEO since that person clearly serves no value and that alone will save more money than firing the employees.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Wednesday March 22, @12:59AM (3 children)
How do you think they got super-rich in the first place?
Super-rich never happens without someone else being exploited.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22, @01:17AM (2 children)
So just shut up and stay in your lane and don't complain?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Wednesday March 22, @01:28AM (1 child)
I wasn't offering a solution. Just stating a universal fact.
Incidentally, not to be depressing, but there is no solution to that particular problem. When inequalities grow too inacceptable, there's a revolution, and pretty soon the new guys in charge get fat and corrupt and exploitative and it starts all over again. It's happened time and time again in history and the problem is still there.
I'm old enough that I'm hoping the next useless revolution doesn't happen in my lifetime. But when it happens, look forward to a short period of misplaced hope, years of war, then a reinstatement of the old state of affairs. And that too is a universal fact.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Wednesday March 22, @08:14AM
I want a new mod: Cynical but true.
I would overuse it.
Cynicism (philosophy) [wikipedia.org], a school of ancient Greek philosophy
Cynicism (contemporary) [wikipedia.org], modern use of the word for distrust of others' motives
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Wednesday March 22, @01:47AM (4 children)
Layoffs != firings.
They're worse. Firing implies the employee did something wrong, or at least failed to perform. But note the shifting language as corporations try to sugar coat things. A layoff used to be a temporary situation where the company would pay some fraction of your regular pay as an incentive to come back when business picked up. It mostly happened for businesses where workload was seasonal.
Of course, that was in the days when even corporations were expected to have a moral compass and to show loyalty. Way back in the before time when mass firings would be punished in the stock market because it was seen as a sign of a failing company.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Wednesday March 22, @12:14PM (3 children)
The thing is, loyalty swings both ways.
My grandfather worked at the same company from when he was 14 to when he retired. There was no familiarity between staff and management, my grandfather was always "Herr Grampsname" to his boss and to him, the boss always was "Herr Direktor". That also didn't change when Herr Direktor was replaced by Herr junior-Direktor, the owner's son. But there was something between them that doesn't exist today anymore: Mutual respect and honesty. Herr Direktor always knew the exact family situation of every single worker. Not because he was snooping, but because he knew that asking a worker about how his wife who had an accident was doing or how his son got over the measles shows to the worker that he really cared. Grandpa also told of how a child of one of his coworkers died and Herr Direktor was there at the funeral. To my grandfather, that was pretty impressive.
Such a boss can ask anything from his workers and it will be done. That also pretty much ensures that nobody dares to slack off, not for the fear of being fired, but simply because the don't want to lose the respect and esteem of someone they respect and hold in great esteem.
That doesn't exist anymore. If a company treats a worker like some cog in a machine that can be replaced, don't expect the cog to consider the machine any less replaceable.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Wednesday March 22, @01:42PM (1 child)
Perhaps it wasn't to show to the worker that he really cared.
Perhaps it was that he really cared.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Wednesday March 22, @03:08PM
Well, I wasn't there, but either way it worked, my grandfather really felt like his boss did give a damn about him. Likely he did. Few people are that great actors.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday March 22, @02:03PM
Exactly that. When corporations turned mean, they enjoyed a few years where employees hadn't gotten the message yet. To this day, companies act as if they're still entitled to the respect, courtesy, and loyalty they once deserved and got but the rest of us are on to them by now.
(Score: 2) by lentilla on Wednesday March 22, @11:53PM
An interesting conundrum, but I wouldn't want to be too quick to assign it to a lack of personal planning.
I actively avoid automotive insurers that give a keen price based on only insuring named drivers. (This is advertised as the insurer "getting to know you properly".) From my perspective, if I lend you my car, I expect my insurer to cover that. Also from a moral perspective: the average human won't grok that your mate can't share the driving on a road trip.
So the problem becomes: at what point do you accept the cheaper price? If insuring your car or having a baby is half the price with restrictions and/or caveats, is this not a rational consideration?
As for the person whose access to their primary care doctor was cut off... well, one assumes they were on a good wicket for nine years and then the good times ceased. Unfortunate for them, but life doesn't always work out in a personally convenient fashion. In this case; as in many; "personal planning" can rationally be "I'm on to a good thing now, let's ride this one out, and if and when it stops, we'll find an alternative."
The real story here is that healthcare in the United States is irredeemably broken. The same boring story we hear over and over again, but not being a US citizen I can't help fix it. That 99% of their population suffers because of this and yet they refuse to fix it boggles the collective mind of the developed world. I can only wish them the fortitude to fight the system, the compassion to acknowledge the humanity of others (and of themselves) and the wisdom to see it doesn't have to be this way.
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Thursday March 23, @04:07AM
In the United States, it's too late for that. Many, many years ago, I did have private insurance despite having a job -- for this exact reason that you listed. I didn't want to be dependent on my employer. That ship has long since sailed. It's too expensive for just about everyone to have your own private insurance these days. There is no backup in the United States. It's a very ugly situation.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22, @12:02AM (5 children)
In the U.S., they companies are required to offer COBRA health insurance to former employees. The former employees must pay for it themselves, but they have continuing health insurance if they want it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday March 22, @03:32AM (4 children)
So about that: The rates I've generally gotten offered for COBRA plans are often 2-3 times what I can find on healthcare.gov. And no, the COBRA plans weren't dramatically better in terms of what they'd pay out.
COBRA was created to solve a problem that doesn't exactly exist anymore now that the Affordable Care Act exists: Before that got passed, for a lot of people including yours truly, if you weren't on an employer-sponsored health plan, you couldn't buy health insurance at all, because the insurance companies only wanted customers who would pretty much never make a claim. So COBRA solved that problem by saying that if you'd previously gotten employer-sponsored health insurance and lost your job for whatever reason, at the very least you could buy something and not be completely screwed. But it was always expensive, bad insurance that the insurance companies didn't really want anybody to buy. And of course if you were the sort of worker who never got employer-sponsored health insurance in the first place (basically, anybody blue-collar and non-union) you couldn't take advantage of COBRA either.
You can thank Obama for making that at least less of a problem. Of course, it doesn't do jack squat to solve the problem that if you're unemployed, you probably can't afford to buy anything that's not immediately keeping you alive, so that means you'll probably skip out on buying health insurance.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by GloomMower on Wednesday March 22, @12:52PM (3 children)
Are you sure? It makes sense in my experience, but I always thought it was just the same plan the employer had, you are just paying for it all, instead of your employer paying for it?
When I tried to get on COBRA back in 2007, the monthly premium was going to be 3000, which was more than a monthly wage I made at the job. I just thought, "wow they pay for some good insurance for us". I obviously couldn't afford it.
As an employee I believe our monthly premium was like $150. Compared to $3000 on COBRA. I assumed the employer paid the $2850 difference. That was a lot of money for insurance for a 26 year old that never went to the doctor.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday March 22, @01:54PM (2 children)
What likely actually happened, with numbers possibly not quite right but should make the point clear:
1. The sticker price of your employer-provided insurance is $3000 / month. The insurance company's actuarial types know that the actual profit point for insuring adults was something like $275 / month back in 2007 dollars, but they're going to inflate the sticker price to deal with what's about to happen in the next step.
2. Your employer's HR department, especially if it was a bigger employer, used the number of people they needed to insure as leverage to negotiate that down to $300 / month per employee. HR got to go to their boss and brag about their 90% savings on health insurance. This is something whoever handles benefits for your employer does on a regular basis.
3. So when you were employed, you paid $150, the company paid $150, the insurance company made a profit, everyone was happy.
4. Once you were no longer employed at the company that had negotiated the 90% savings, you're back to being offered the $3000/month sticker price.
The same thing happens in the negotiations between insurance companies and hospitals: The official price the hospital charges is ridiculous, the insurance company negotiates it down to something reasonable, but people without insurance don't get the benefit of those negotiations and end up having to pay the ridiculous price.
People from countries with national health systems that are regulated or even run by the government to provide reasonable care at reasonable prices are reading all of this and thinking it's absolutely insane.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by GloomMower on Wednesday March 22, @02:28PM
Okay, probably what happened. Is gross.
(Score: 1) by lonehighway on Wednesday March 22, @04:12PM
Most companies with a hundred or more employees are self insured and pay companies like BCBS or Aetna, etc. to administer claims. They then pay an underwriter to backstop unusually large claims in excess of the amount of money set aside to cover employee claims. Or something like that.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday March 22, @03:25AM (2 children)
A lot of white-collar employees have this notion that they should be loyal to their employers in some way because the company looks out for their well-being.
That second part is and has always been total bullshit. Your boss can and will fire you in a second if they thought it would help the company or their own position within it. Your boss's job is to keep you working as hard as possible while convincing you to accept as little compensation as possible. HR's job is to reduce the cost of providing benefits to the company in ways you don't notice. HR's other job is to protect the company from being sued by you or a government regulator, mostly by convincing you not to report to anybody wrongdoing management happens to engage in.
No matter how good you are at your job, you are in the eyes of management completely disposable and replaceable. You always were. Your goal in any job is to collect as much as you can, pay down whatever debts you can or build up as much savings as you can, and prepare to either retire or move on to your next job. Quitting every couple of years is often a very good career strategy, and threatening to quit or even going as far as getting another job offer is a good way of extracting concessions from your current employer. Any behavior that looks like genuine company loyalty simply marks you as a chump to be exploited more thoroughly.
The pandemic really should have made this clear, when lots of white-collar employees realized for the first time that their bosses would be totally fine with them dropping dead if it helped get the company profits up.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Wednesday March 22, @08:20AM
Heh, I would link to Dilbert, where employees rank ninth in valuable assets, just after carbon paper, but Scott Adams got cancelled.
(Score: 2) by corey on Wednesday March 22, @10:34PM
Isn't it sad that it's swung so far this way, relative to ~70 years ago when business leaders were statesmen/women(?) who saw lots of value in their staff? Where people worked at a single place their whole life and literally invested themselves in the company success.
Something went wrong with capitalism since then. Maybe it's having shareholders who are not the employees nor government?
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Wednesday March 22, @10:54AM
Good luck attempting to contact another human being at Google.
(Score: 2) by MIRV888 on Wednesday March 22, @11:42AM (1 child)
“One thing’s sure and nothing’s surer
The rich get richer and the poor get – children.”
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday March 22, @02:58PM
As seen reflected by the authoritarian position: Down with commoner's access to birth control!
It simultaneously makes the commoners harder to exploit because they're less desperate to feed their kids, while also reducing their population, driving up the market value of their labor.
Ban abortions! Ban birth control! Ban sex education! Nothing good (for the authorities) comes from any of them.
And of course the authorities themselves always have plenty of options - good luck finding a politician pushing abortion bans that hasn't coerced a mistress or three into getting one.
You'll notice even the most draconian bans proposed in the US, which make it illegal to go to another state for an abortion, say nothing about going to another country. So the elites who can afford international travel on a whim always have safe legal options.