Hacker News

points by theodpHN 3 days ago | 0 comments

The mass buyout offer to 25% of Microsoft's workforce comes less than a week after Microsoft President Brad Smith proclaimed to employees: 'We stand by our people. We always have. We always will.' in a video he posted to LinkedIn.

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7518428...

[–] adrian_b 3 days ago

To be fair, such "voluntary exits" with a generous severance package are well above the practices of most US companies, where great numbers of employees are fired without warnings and with little compensation.

So there is some truth in the claims of the MS President.

[–] somenameforme 3 days ago

People often confuse what 'at will' employment means. All 'at will' employment means is that the default is that a worker can quit or be fired at any time without either party having recourse. But this can be overridden by contracts and for basically all white collar and higher paid jobs, it is.

I'm not privy to a standard Microsoft contract so I can't say for 100% certain, but I'd be quite shocked if they don't provide a clause that workers can only be terminated for cause. So they're legally required to buy out contracts if they want to get rid of a substantial number of workers in a short period of time.

[–] m348e912 2 days ago

> So they're legally required to buy out contracts if they want to get rid of a substantial number of workers in a short period of time

Sounds like you might be European. The US doesn't have contracts for salaried employees most of the time. In the event of a layoff, no notice is required, no mutual termination agreement needed, no consultation takes place. You are terminated (sometimes effective immediately) and if you're lucky you may get a severance package, which is not required by law.

[–] _heimdall 2 days ago

Unless something has changed drastically since I worked at MS, they absolutely can do mass layoffs without having to buy out contracts.

Sure they offer severance, industry norm is usually 1-2 weeks of severence per year of employment, but in no way are they contractually limited to only lay people off for cause.

Firing an individual is different, on that front they are careful how its handled to avoid being sued and having to settle. Employment laws also vary by country, I'm mostly familiar with US laws.

[–] somenameforme 2 days ago

Yeah that would make sense. If they state in their contract that they're free to terminate you in exchange for what they're offering now then that would explain what they're offering now.

What I was responding to is somebody above thinking that Microsoft was being "generous" with this deal - what I was saying is that they were almost certainly just sticking to greediest possible behavior that stays within the bounds of the contract. You can describe billion dollar multinational corps in quite a lot of ways, but generous isn't one of them.

[–] _heimdall 2 days ago

Oh gotcha, I may have misread you comment!

In comparison with what I've seen in big tech layoffs over the years, this offer is pretty "generous" in comparison. I'd assume any layoff following this would be as well, at least beating the 1-2 week per employed year norm.

[–] bootlooped 2 days ago

> But this can be overridden by contracts and for basically all white collar and higher paid jobs, it is.

Is this really true? I believe all of my software engineering jobs have been at will, and there was nothing in the documents I signed that would give me any benefits or rights if my employer wanted to fire me.

[–] WorldMaker 2 days ago

In the US "at will" employment in many states means that companies don't ever need employment contracts. Jobs have terms and conditions, often these are explicitly not written as employment contracts and you never actually sign them, you just agree to them by nature of showing up to the job. Even for white collar and higher paid jobs, companies like the CYA nature of not having a contract they can be considered in breach of, but a document they can use as a stick.

US "at will" laws really are that bad. The US has a strange history with labor laws.

[–] senordevnyc 2 days ago

and for basically all white collar and higher paid jobs, it is.

I'm bewildered that you think this is the case. Have the widespread layoffs in tech over the last few years not aptly demonstrated to you how false this is?

For the vast majority of white collar jobs in America, there isn't a contract that the employer has to "buy out", and the employer can lay them off with sufficient notice (WARN requires 60 calendar days if the company is above a certain size, etc).

[–] janalsncm 3 days ago

Only a MSFT employee can say for sure what their employment contract is these days, but I found an old court case where they used pretty standard “at will” language.

https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/no-breach...

[–] somenameforme 3 days ago

That's very different. That was them rescinding a job offer before a 'real' contract had been signed in something explicitly stating that it was not a contract of employment, and was also fully contingent on them passing a criminal background check - which the applicant failed. So they're losing in both at will, and by the terms of the contract. They still got sued, because people gonna people, but it's not related to a normal Microsoft employment contract.

[–] janalsncm 2 days ago

Maybe I should’ve been more clear. Your argument above relies on “I’d be shocked if…” which is not evidence in and of itself.

Most American employees are at-will, and the contract in the MSFT lawsuit above was an at-will contract which is why they could be terminated, as you said.

Unless you can provide some other evidence that MSFT employees at not at will, it seems reasonable to believe they are, in which case providing the generous severance they did was not legally required.

[–] somenameforme 2 days ago

A Microsoft employee chimed in elsewhere and mentioned that their contract had a clause that they could only be terminated for a set level of compensation, which is exactly what this buyout is offering. At-will, at least as I am using it, implies the ability to terminate a contract by other side without consequence. That is not the case for Microsoft even if they aren't constrained to only for-cause dismissal.

[–] OrangeDelonge 3 days ago

Is 2 weeks per year really that generous.

[–] tyingq 3 days ago

No, but it does also include cobra/health for the same period plus 6-12 months of options continuing to vest. Still not generous, but if you're longer tenure and can find another job within the timeframe, it's something.

[–] palata 3 days ago

The mistake is to believe anything coming from executives. They are not your friends.

I was in a startup during Covid. The CEO said: "unlike many startups, we just got a round of investment so we are in a really good situation and we won't have to let go anyone, you can be reassured". A week later, they fired a whole team and a few other employees.

Executives are not your friends, and they are not paid to tell you the truth.

[–] dbspin 3 days ago

Literally the exact thing the CEO of my old Berlin based startup said before our team was laid off / replaced with AI.

[–] Quibblingeek 3 days ago

Lying is in the job description. I'm convinced that to rise (or be groomed and practically anointed through nepotism and corruption) to that level in business, you have to trade a part of your humanity. There comes a point where wealth and power changes you and I'm convinced that the aspiration of it is really a form of concealed, socially acceptable sociopathy.

So yes. They are not only not your friends, they're outright hostile and you should trust nothing they say and approach every interaction with them as a game and try your best to at least break even.

They likely view you with deep contempt and derision, if they acknowledge that you have any measure of self worth at all. You should act accordingly.

[–] taylortrusty 3 days ago

What a sad, miserable take. This is not at all my experience.

[–] Quibblingeek 2 days ago

It is slightly dark. I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s a miserable take though. It’s more neutral and pragmatic and to be fair, this isn’t universally true, it’s just true most of the time.

I’m glad you’ve had a better experience. Sometimes the best among us do percolate to the top. I’ve seen it too, I’ve just seen the opposite too many times to trust anyone in an executive leadership role.

[–] WelkinFolk 3 days ago

Yet 100% my experience. Not really a sad and miserable take. It will do people a whole lot of good to know the kinds of people that thrive in this ecosystem.

[–] kakacik 2 days ago

Its like politics, highly functional sociopaths rise over time to the top, sane decent folks have rarely guts to have fighting chances against those.

Find life satisfaction from other sources is my advice, but not corporate world and career in such. Thats a sure sign of life wasted on many levels.

[–] palata 2 days ago

> This is not at all my experience.

Have you been in companies of more than a few people? Being "CEO, CTO, CPO and founder" of a startup of 5 does not count as "being an executive", right?

[–] LastTrain 3 days ago

Its about 50/50 in my experience. On a barely related note, while at a wedding I met someone whose son works for the Trump admin and swore up and down that Trump is just the nicest person and oh so generous. I'm sure he seems that way to some people if they don't look beyond twenty yards or so.

[–] kavalg 3 days ago

50/50 is bad enough

[–] ponector 3 days ago

You have managers and VPs around who are not lying? How hired such incompetent managers?

[–] Quibblingeek 3 days ago

I remember when Microsoft really started going downhill almost 4 years ago. I've done well personally, but the way that things have been going in that time I would have been happy to leave. I've always been in the 120-140 range every year for performance while I watch people who didn't deserve it either get laid off due to poor business decisions or fired for reasons beyond their control.

I did not get the choice to just leave with a buyout today and really wish I did. I'd be happy to go. I am not really sure I even want to work in this industry anymore which is unfortunate because I've been in it for pretty much my entire adult life. I have other interests though so I'm sure I'd find something to occupy my time.

This company follows trends and rarely sets them these days and the meme of Microsoft's corporate structure with each org pointing guns at each other isn't too far off from the truth. It doesn't always translate to good long-term strategy or even decent products in recent years.

[–] AndrewKemendo 2 days ago

Having been either CTO or CEO or Director/Principal a few times these are the kind of phrases that should always trigger you to immediately find new work:

“Like a family” “Sacrifices” “New platform” “Come together” “Critical delivery” “Recap”

I learned this from another senior when I was at Unity in 2022 that dipped immediately when they started talking like that.

[–] cianmm 2 days ago

I get most of them but why recap?

[–] AndrewKemendo 2 days ago

Means you’re out of money

[–] Pragmata 3 days ago

That's what the money is for.

[–] SeanAnderson 3 days ago

Do you feel that statement is in conflict with this action?

[–] apple4ever 3 days ago

Yes 100%