×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Yahoo Lays Off 600; Free Beers and Jobs Flow

kdawson posted more than 3 years ago | from the yodeling-all-the-way-to-the-bank dept.

Businesses 164

CWmike writes "Yahoo confirmed on Tuesday that it has laid off 600 people, following news reports often based on Twitter messages from employees who had been let go. The layoffs amount to about 4 percent of the company's global workforce, Yahoo said. The company said affected workers are receiving severance packages and outplacement services. Laid-off workers may find some comfort on Twitter, where they are receiving an outpouring of goodwill. One San Francisco brewery is offering a free beer to people from Yahoo who show their termination letters. People with companies including Aprendi Learning, Tucows.com, DirecTV, Combine Couture, OMGPOP.com, and Uptake.com all posted Twitter messages expressing interest in hiring former Yahoo employees. The site Quora is hosting a thread for companies in the San Francisco area interested in hiring laid-off Yahoo workers. So far, there are 14 posts about jobs with companies including Yammer, Mozilla, and Cloudera."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

164 comments

Yahoo currently (0, Troll)

devbox (1919724) | more than 3 years ago | (#34559526)

Is Yahoo even relevant with anything anymore? They shut down their own search, they shut down geocities, no one really uses portal sites anymore and they don't make any hardware or provide services. The only thing I can think of is email, which is also is far away from popularity of gmail and hotmail. What do they even do?

Re:Yahoo currently (1, Interesting)

entotre (1929174) | more than 3 years ago | (#34559594)

What do they even do?

Since they reject $45 billion takover bids, they must have a plan.

Re:Yahoo currently (3, Informative)

rpjs (126615) | more than 3 years ago | (#34559604)

They own Flickr. That's about the only product they own which is leader in its field though.

Re:Yahoo currently (1)

tayhimself (791184) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560510)

My thoughts exactly. To be honest, until the recent update flickr was at risk of losing the leadership as well. It hadn't been updated in 3 years, but now it has all ajaxy goodness. All the non-techie people I know that like photography still prefer flickr.

Re:Yahoo currently (1, Interesting)

angiasaa (758006) | more than 3 years ago | (#34559634)

Good question.. I think Yahoo! relies more on its IM services than on anything else. They once used to be the big heavy kid on the IT See-Saw. But today, they're mostly chat and a kind of convenient webhost to some small-businesses.

It's sad, but that's how digital lives are lived and that's how it's played out for them.

Re:Yahoo currently (5, Informative)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 3 years ago | (#34559692)

The world is big. From what I have seen, Yahoo is as used as Google in Japan and Korea. I suspect that as irrelevant as it may appear in US, it might still be strong in some places.

Re:Yahoo currently (2, Insightful)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#34559812)

Yahoo redirects searches to Google in the countries you mention. The company is a shell of its former self, after it was (I'm sure you'll agree, rather stupidly) reduced from a technology company into a web portal. Now the only way for them to keep showing their shareholders an increase in profits is by selling assets and dismissing employees, which is exactly what is happening. Its sad to see what's become of a once major internet company -- when their employees are kicked out and get picked up by Tucows (they still exist??), you know their glory days are long gone.

Re:Yahoo currently (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34559998)

Those are separate companies, by now only tangentially related to the American Yahoo!

Re:Yahoo currently (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34560204)

No, yahoo mail has 55% market share in the US. That's over 3x gmail (15%). Yahoo sports is the biggest sports site on the net (bigger then fox sports), yahoo owns flickr, yahoo answers is a solid product. In terms of user minutes, they are also #3 on the internet (37.5 million user minutes), after facebook (41 million) and google (40 million). So yeah, they are still very relevent ;)

Re:Yahoo currently (4, Interesting)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34559722)

Pipes is pretty cool. One of those things they bought up and sort of forgot about. Not earth shattering or worth 44billion, but pretty cool.

pipes.yahoo.com

Re:Yahoo currently (4, Interesting)

Exotabe (601787) | more than 3 years ago | (#34559880)

One of those things they bought up and sort of forgot about.

Pipes wasn't an acquired product, it was built in-house at the now-defunct Yahoo! Brickhouse.

Outsroucing.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34559764)

I have a AT&T/Bellsouth account and last year, IIRC, all of our email is now hosted on Yahoo!.SMTP/POP are all yahoo.com.

I'm sure there are other infrastructure stuff thta Yahoo! is behind

Which is smart. Retail level stuff is usually the low margin business.

Re:Yahoo currently (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34559770)

Fantasy sports?

Re:Yahoo currently (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34559908)

Is Yahoo even relevant with anything anymore? They shut down their own search, they shut down geocities, no one really uses portal sites anymore and they don't make any hardware or provide services. The only thing I can think of is email, which is also is far away from popularity of gmail and hotmail. What do they even do?

Oh, they have a dying instant messenger (unless its already gone away?), a web based group system (can't be too hard to run) and at least used to have a decent photo sharing site.

I figure they have enough work to keep about 100 actual front line productive employees busy, and maybe 150 back office fluff, figure they should have about 250 full time seats. Depends how effective they are at outsourcing and contracting... Is the guy whom scrubs the toilets a yahoo employee or a contracted cleaning agency employee, etc. I have worked at multiple companies about that size that did things of similar complexity and scope.

The problem is if 4% of their workforce is 100 people, thats about 2500 employees.... So about 90% have to go.

Re:Yahoo currently (1)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560870)

The problem is if 4% of their workforce is 100 people, thats about 2500 employees.... So about 90% have to go.

Well, the article said 600, which would have given them 15,000 employees.

Re:Yahoo currently (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34559966)

Flickr. Nuff said.

Re:Yahoo currently (3, Funny)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560164)

I haven't used Yahoo! in this century. The only thing Yahoo! seems to do is clutter my google searches with "Yahoo! Answers" results, where the stupidest people humanity has to offer ask questions like (and these are actual questions from the site):

ok im kinda worryed here since my g/f got pregnant and all she isnt been havein her period do u think the baby is drinkin the blood??? she 6 month pregnant

and

I have been with my boyfriend for 6 months now,he's my absolute everything.But last week he got told he has bad 'Skin Cancer',When he told me i was heartbroken.Should i tell him that we should end it ? or should we stay together?:( x

They have news, using the same AP news wire that every newspaper and website on the planet has. They have webmail, which every other site offers. They have stupid flash games, like every other site on the planet. They have IM (which must have a whole ten or twelve users, at this point). And, mostly, they just have a super cluttered shitty design filled with constant ads. The only thing they are contributing to the world is making the internet seriously fucking stupider, by way of their search-poisoning "Yahoo! Answers" bullshit.

Re:Yahoo currently (1)

Viewsonic (584922) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560214)

I was expecting Yahoo to basically be a small team of server nerds and not much else. How is 800 people 4% of the company?

What does a search engine do with close to 20,000 people?

Re:Yahoo currently (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34561150)

Are they all in San Francisco? When I did the math, I decided that I would need about a $300K pre-tax salary to approximate my standard of living there. I have never understood how people make it on less.

Re:Yahoo currently (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560456)

yahoo chat used to be a great way to get some ass. Of course, that was before the spam bots took over. I guess it's a great way to talk to spam bots now.

Re:Yahoo currently (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34560926)

In the U.S.and religion aside, the "Christmas" holidays are the only break we American workers get - sort of like summer break for school kids. If you loose your job during this time, there's little you can do except stew in your misery until they are over because few places bother to try to fill professional positions during this time..Instead of a chance to relax and enjoy your family, you have to wonder how you will feed them in the coming months. That's why this especially sucks. I for one hope yahoo dies a gruesome death that vindicates the workers and leaves the executives as bankrupt as their morals must be to do something like this.

does 4% really balance the books (1)

nopainogain (1091795) | more than 3 years ago | (#34559548)

in a company the size of yahoo, i can't imagine that laying off 400 will really bring them to profitability.

Re:does 4% really balance the books (2)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 3 years ago | (#34559624)

in a company the size of yahoo, i can't imagine that laying off 400 will really bring them to profitability.

If you assume an all in cost (not just salary) of $100k/employee; that's an annual saving of $40mil. It may not balance the books but it is a start. Anybody know YAHOO's cash flow last year?

Re:does 4% really balance the books (3, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34559970)

in a company the size of yahoo, i can't imagine that laying off 400 will really bring them to profitability.

If you assume an all in cost (not just salary) of $100k/employee; that's an annual saving of $40mil. It may not balance the books but it is a start. Anybody know YAHOO's cash flow last year?

Hit finance.yahoo.com for YHOO and they list over thirteen thousand employees (can't possibly be correct? what could they all be doing?) and lists an annual revenue of $6B although I can't imagine where that came from... all from banner advertising? And miraculously they are currently profitable?

Compared to GOOG they have about half the employees yet only a quarter the revenue.

Re:does 4% really balance the books (1)

LizardKing (5245) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560262)

Hit finance.yahoo.com for YHOO and they list over thirteen thousand employees (can't possibly be correct? what could they all be doing?)

The figure was something like 14,300 employees before the layoff, so that sounds about right. The reason for the high head count is that there is no effective project management, a sprawling codebase and (amongst the US programmers) no awareness or understanding of coding for multiple locales.

Re:does 4% really balance the books (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560304)

Many companies lay off big slowly so the media never takes notice. HP is a classic example of 200 here 300 there and after 17 months you get 6k laid off. The employee morale never recovers nor does the productivity lost associated with it. The executives do not see this and care more about image.

My guess is the 400 is the start of a monthly lay off cycle that could last for a year or so. Unfortunately it hit the news so the cat is out of the bag.

Re:does 4% really balance the books (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34559630)

Are you one of these morons, like Michael Moore, who thinks that companies should file for bankruptcy before they cut the dead weight? Or do you pay money for services that you never use under the justification that it wouldn't save you that much money to make it worth bothering over?

Re:does 4% really balance the books (2)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 3 years ago | (#34559688)

Maybe he's one of those people that thinks people should be laid off individually for being dead weight, instead of cutting 4% across the board and hoping to get the dead weight. With such a sloppy cut, you're bound to lose quite a few really good people, too.

Re:does 4% really balance the books (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34559926)

Riiiight... because I'm sure that's exactly what they did. They just took a list of employees and decided that every 25th one had to go. I'm sure they didn't think about who they were cutting or how it would influence their talent pool at all...

I swear to god that Slashdotters get dumber by the moment.

Re:does 4% really balance the books (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34559950)

Alot of companies don't bother looking at individuals when cutting large numbers of employees sometimes they just dismiss entire departments or projects.

Re:does 4% really balance the books (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#34559800)

Maybe if that 4% If is the upper one, the one that took bad choices in the past

Re:does 4% really balance the books (2)

arkane1234 (457605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34559852)

Your right, thank god they laid off 600 instead...
After all, since they are laying off 600 people, and it's 4%, that would mean the workforce was 15,000. That being said,a s of Sept, 2010 they reported 13,900 employees.

Since the average individual is making 40-50K yearly (we'll leave benefits and other HR stuff out for simplicity), that's a savings of $24,000,000-$30,000,000 yearly. While it may not look like much on paper, since the company's net income available is $1,000,000,000 ($1B), that's about 3%.

It's not as if they are in the negative, they are just cooling the masses since Sept 30th was their Q3 data release.

Re:does 4% really balance the books (2)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560184)

It depends.
Smart Companies only lay off workers who are doing job that they really don't need anymore. So dropping a non-core or poor growth business unit, or where technology has replaced their usefulness.

Stupid Companies do blind layoffs being that it takes 150% more money to hire each employee. So if they are laying off people only to rehire those positions they are actually spending more then keeping the employee.

So for these people they may be part of a business unit or department that isn't needed as much anymore. So you remove the people as well close the buildings and the other resources as well.

Re:does 4% really balance the books (1)

nopainogain (1091795) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560278)

guess i overestimated yahoo's budget. that's why i'm not anyone's finance guy..lol hmm, i overestimated a budget.. maybe i should run for office!

Re:does 4% really balance the books (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34560532)

Maybe you should learn math and basic reading comprehension.

Exclamation point (3, Funny)

reset_button (903303) | more than 3 years ago | (#34559612)

Looks like Yahoo! also fired their exclamation point? If only...

What sorts of jobs were these? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34559618)

What sorts of jobs were lost?

Were these people programmers, graphics designers, server administrators, network administrators, network technicians and others who actually produce something of value?

Or were these people involved with "marketing", "project management" and other ill-defined positions that usually just suck resources away from those getting real work done?

Since the 1970s, there has been a disappointing trend in American corporate culture whereby those who actually do productive work get laid off, while those who fluff around in meetings coming up with "strategy" or putting together "action plans" end up remaining employed the longest. Eventually the company goes under, since it is not actually producing anything of value. I sure hope Yahoo! hasn't gotten sucked into this horrible situation.

Re:What sorts of jobs were these? (5, Insightful)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#34559738)

What sorts of jobs were lost?

Were these people programmers, graphics designers, server administrators, network administrators, network technicians and others who actually produce something of value?

Or were these people involved with "marketing", "project management" and other ill-defined positions that usually just suck resources away from those getting real work done?

It's easy to dismiss those who don't have a direct impact in developing a project. You've obviously never worked with a good project manager. A good PM is vital to a development team when they do the right thing. And I wouldn't dismiss marketing people either. They might be loathed, but marketing works.

Re:What sorts of jobs were these? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34559830)

a good project manager does a few very important things

1 keeps managment to "tap on the glass" distance
2 provides FOOD when needed
3 prevents the cats from killing each other
4 makes sure the proper shinies are ready as needed

Re:What sorts of jobs were these? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34560160)

Bad project managers do a few things too:

  1. Make technical decisions on behalf of their team
  2. Unduly pressure the team instead of concentrating on completing the project
  3. Cultivate a culture of contempt and fire any respected and able team member who dare question their decrees

Re:What sorts of jobs were these? (1)

am 2k (217885) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560026)

You've obviously never worked with a good project manager.

GP's statement being so popular says a lot about what kind of person usually works in such a position. In the end, it's not about what a project manager should do, it's what he/she actually does.

Re:What sorts of jobs were these? (1)

drolli (522659) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560604)

The funny thing is: Project leader/Manager is a fucking hard Job, if done right.

a) balance the team internally: Stressful because balancing means stepping on somebodies toes.

b) meet the deadline: stressful because driving the team is stepping on sombodies toes. missing the deadline despite of that mean that management steps on the own toes.

c) Organize the transition between projects: either involves working twice as much for some time or being seen as a failure.

Lets be realistic. Nobody wants to do that Job, if not for money or power.

Re:What sorts of jobs were these? (1)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560948)

>The funny thing is: Project leader/Manager is a fucking hard Job, if done right.

It becomes even harder when there are hundreds of them, in layers, "managing projects" as though they are fiefdoms.

Re:What sorts of jobs were these? (0)

evanism (600676) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560248)

Perhaps this will be a troll, but, no marketing does not work. Marketing is an "effect" or an "overhang".

Marketing is the after work "beer time" of real work. Its the laughs, bimbos, bars and meaningless flings and casual sex of Real Work and Real IT. Its good to have, but it doesn't get the "work" done.

Example? Look at your marketing team. Cute Young Things. Bimbos and Airheads. Pretty and Gay. Even the guys. Perhaps the guys are honest about it.

Project management is the same. It is the "cant do's", the "list builders" and "managers" and "lets have a meeting" types. Are there any true devs here who are "project managers"?..... I did it once. For 5 years. I had "earned" a PMI/PMP. It was the flakiest bullshit I ever wasted my time on. I resigned by just walking out. As a solid IT nerd I have never been in such a rich environment of Wank Word Bingo.

So, yes, they are loathed, because on the ground, where the rubber meats the road, a Marketing Girl or PMI - on their own grit - starves, where a real dev gets paid, or on to the next project.

Sorry for my hostility, but I now after 18 years in the IT gig despise those who claim their jobs are a necessity just because they hang onto the coat tails of others.

Re:What sorts of jobs were these? (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560692)

When is the last decade anyone said "Old Spice" as anything but a punchline for a joke before marketing people came up with those new commercials? I'm not saying market always works (not by a longshot) or is even always neccessary. But the idea that market *never* works, or even helps, is just fucking stupid. It's the kind of self-aggrandizing shit that programmers mumble about amongst themselves when they're just CONVINCED that they're product is so good that it doesn't *need* promotion.

Go have a look sometime at the string of dead companies with superior products who got ran over by companies with better marketing. Ask THEM if marketing doesn't matter at all.

Re:What sorts of jobs were these? (1)

BVis (267028) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560918)

I don't think anyone is saying marketing doesn't matter at all. I think people are saying that those who work in Marketing need a dose of reality, as well as a 50% reduction in headcount. That way the people who do Real Work (tm) can have more resources, while the (still important) work of Marketing still gets done; they'll just have to "work smarter", like everyone else. Why should they get treated differently?

Re:What sorts of jobs were these? (1)

BVis (267028) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560862)

They might be loathed, but marketing works.

Then let them work with half as many employees as they need, like every other division in every company in America these days.

Corporate profits are way up, yet there's no jobs. People are being forced to do the work of two or three, lest they be fired into an (artificially) terrible job market.

Re:What sorts of jobs were these? (4, Insightful)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 3 years ago | (#34559930)

Were these people programmers, graphics designers, server administrators, network administrators, network technicians and others who actually produce something of value?

Or were these people involved with "marketing", "project management" and other ill-defined positions that usually just suck resources away from those getting real work done?

Spoken like a true naively arrogant 16 year old.

Next time you have to do an upgrade on a live service that is used by millions of people, tell us how it goes without a project manager to define the work breakdown structure, a business analyst to capture functional requirements and produce a traceability matrix, someone to hand hold your valuable clients (you know, the ones who pay the wages?) during the transition...all those other positions that "suck resources away", in your elegant words.

There are good project managers and poor PMs. There are good BAs and poor BAs. It's one thing to chuck up a small web site with a couple of developers; it's quite another to do this in the real world, where if things go wrong you lose millions of dollars, good will, reputation, and customers.

Re:What sorts of jobs were these? (1)

evanism (600676) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560494)

Poor Kiwimate. An MBA? Accountant/CPA? God forbid, a BA?

Curse those 16 YO's my friend, they will own you and be paying you within 10 years. I guarantee it.

Re:What sorts of jobs were these? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34560868)

#failfag. please kill yourself.

Re:What sorts of jobs were these? (2)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561132)

well its been my experience as time wares on that PMs, and BAs are getting farther and farther removed from the technical side. I have been in the industry about 10 years and when I started most of the BAs and PMs had at one time been programmers or admins themselves. They may have been doing the business side functions for awhile and might not have been educated in the latest technologies. They might have been COBOL programmers when we were using C++ and Java for instance, or former VAX guys while we were running Linux and Windows on x86, but they still understood how computers work, and how we work.

They performed the useful paper work functions and you know *managed* things pretty effectively. I agree with you that anyone who does not see the value of a GOOD project manager on a big project has not ever worked on one or has only experienced bad PMs. Lots of communication is needed on these collaborative efforts and that is where the best PMs spend most of the their time making sure the right people have the right information and expectations.

These former coders and admins turned PMs are great at this because they know how to talk to everyone they have learned the business side and they remember they types of questions developers and admins are going to need answered. They facilitate. Lately though there are more and more pure PMs, I will call them. They have never done the technical work and they think their role is entirely about setting schedules and arranging meetings. They don't understand the questions I am asking any better than business unit manager would unless I take the time to explain everything and deal with them the same was I would have to deal with the business unit manager. Sooner or later the pM decides hey I might as well just talk to the business myself and go to all the meetings, and they start setting that up, and at that point they are adding very little value.

Re:What sorts of jobs were these? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34560156)

Hopefully a bunch of arrogant programmers who think they are the only vital workers in a company.

Re:What sorts of jobs were these? (1)

BVis (267028) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560954)

Marketers without anything to market are useless. Programmers without marketing still produce important work, they'll just have to get the word out by reputation instead of glossy print. Is it harder to succeed without good marketing? Sure. It's just that it's *impossible* to succeed if you don't have something to sell.

Duh? (1)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560434)

Management isn't about to fire themselves...

Think of parasites slowing killing its host.

OK maybe I am just having a bad day.

Re:What sorts of jobs were these? (1)

pympdaddyc (586298) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560594)

Not that we should be arguing with an AC, but I've found a good PM or BA to be essential in productive dev teams, noticeably absent in bad dev environments, and it's hard to replace a good one.

Beer is good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34559632)

Losing a job can cause depression. We should do something nice to help them out. Lets offer them free alcohol, everyone knows alcohol and depression are like peanut butter and jelly. Best idea ever!

Re:Beer is good. (1)

arielCo (995647) | more than 3 years ago | (#34559700)

Well, it's not like they're going to jump under a bus after having one beer. It's more like a token of sympathy which, along with supportive messages can go a long way in the other direction.

Re:Beer is good. (-1, Offtopic)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#34559744)

Well, it's not like they're going to jump under a bus after having one beer. It's more like a token of sympathy which, along with supportive messages can go a long way in the other direction.

That's what I heard until I read that 90% of those sacked were Muslims, and the other 10% had connections with other terrorist groups.

Re:Beer is good. (1)

BVis (267028) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560980)

"Other terrorist groups"? Seriously?

People still need to be told that not every Muslim is a terrorist? Really? Even W got that one right.

Am I the only one who read... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34559676)

Free beers and blow jobs?

Re:Am I the only one who read... (1)

evanism (600676) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560342)

ahhh, Yahoo WAS a blowjob, it didn't give them out! (weeellllll, they DID do a LOT of "free")

Hiring? (2)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 3 years ago | (#34559774)

People with companies including Aprendi Learning, Tucows.com, DirecTV, Combine Couture, OMGPOP.com, and Uptake.com all posted Twitter messages expressing interest in hiring former Yahoo employees.

Great idea! I'm sure Yahoo laid-off all their best people first.

Re:Hiring? (3, Interesting)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#34559802)

People with companies including Aprendi Learning, Tucows.com, DirecTV, Combine Couture, OMGPOP.com, and Uptake.com all posted Twitter messages expressing interest in hiring former Yahoo employees.

Great idea! I'm sure Yahoo laid-off all their best people first.

And I'm sure Yahoo doesn't hire just anybody off the street. It takes someone skilled to get hired at a big tech company like Yahoo. Obviously these offers are indicative of others' confidence.

Re:Hiring? (1)

Jimmy King (828214) | more than 3 years ago | (#34559918)

I've also seen many good employees let go because the choice in who was laid off was based primarily on salary and cost savings to the company rather than skill. It also kind of makes you want to punch people in the throat when you're one of the people who was kept during those lay offs, although I guess knowing that you're the underpaid guy who management may or may not see as any good beats being the unpaid guy in the end.

Re:Hiring? (1)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#34559988)

If conditions were that bad, I wouldn't rule out leaving and working for one of the other companies. Sure, that doesn't help your character, but if the interest is already there...

Re:Hiring? (2)

bberens (965711) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560180)

Generally speaking the people who are left behind to pick up the pieces have a harder time than the people who were laid off. The unemployed mourn and then move on. The people left behind take years to get over the stress of extra work and the depression caused by wondering if you're next.

Re:Hiring? (1)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561064)

>And I'm sure Yahoo doesn't hire just anybody off the street.

I don't know about the actual hiring, but they sure did try to recruit the world pretty aggressively.

Re:Hiring? (2)

XLazarusX (534555) | more than 3 years ago | (#34559964)

Some companies do lay off their best people. A company gets too big, and the person cutting heads is completely disconnected from the people they're cutting, so they have no idea what the person contributes, just what their salary is.

At my former company, only the most junior people with very low salaries are still there. They no longer innovate, and can barely maintain existing systems. Apparently it looks good to shareholders in the short-term when they cut expenses.

Re:Hiring? (2)

bberens (965711) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560196)

In my experience it generally comes down as "Your department must lose X headcount or X salary." and then relatively lower level management makes the final decision. I'm sure there's exceptions but if the CEO/board is making low level personnel decisions then you've got bigger problems at your company.

Re:Hiring? (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560310)

I was going to ask this too, I don't want to sound overly harsh, but why prioritise recruitment of what are quite possibly the bottom 4% of people from a company that's plummeted to about half it's previous worth in just a few years?

Wouldn't you be just as likely to find good talent by recruiting in general and hence possibly tempting over the ones who didn't get laid off and are hence possibly more capable rather than specifically targetting these folk who did?

Is this a recruitment drive based on sentiment rather than logic, or is there some non-obvious logic behind trying to recruit these specific folks?

Re:Hiring? (1)

BVis (267028) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561040)

I think it's pretty obvious. The unemployed are at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to things like negotiating salary. If you're hiring someone that's employed, IN GENERAL (not always) you have to meet or beat their current salary. If you're hiring someone without a current job, anything looks better than unemployment benefits, so you can pay them less than you would have to otherwise. Makes business sense, even if it is soulless and cruel. (I find that a lot of things that make 'business sense' are that way.)

No free beer (1)

murcon (192204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34559792)

I've been laid off five times in my career; never got free beer for my troubles.

Re:No free beer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34560284)

but they finally got 'free as in beer'

Expect more... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34559836)

I've used their services for like 10 years and the amount of inovation over that length of time is pretty slim or non-existent. I thought they'd build on Groups & Geocities but a lot of time passed and they eventually closed Geocities. Sure the email interface got a facelift, they bought Flickr and have the popular Y!Answers but I still think this is a web company with no imagination and it has a serious lack of leadership... this boat is bound to sink.

yahoo = radioshack (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#34559972)

Yahoo is like RadioShack, they've been in business forever, dumped everything that was cool about their service years ago and it's a marvel how they stay open despite having nothing that anyone really wants anymore.

Re:yahoo = radioshack (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560642)

Yahoo still has a services contract with AT&T (formerly SBC, formerly Pacific Telesis, formerly Pacific Bell *sigh*), presumably, which is probably responsible for 90% of its income these days.

Besides the big name appeal what's the attraction? (2)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 3 years ago | (#34559984)

Been seeing these ads myself on Craigslist and really don't understand it. The place is a cube farm, and while I know there's some knowledgeable people there, I highly doubt the braintrust in this layoff has any real appeal. Also, I know for a fact that they OVER HIRED from 2004 - 2007 because I was getting up to 5 calls a day from on-site and 3rd party recruiters for Yahoo, to the point that I wrote them a letter asking them to place me on whatever list they had for non-interested parties. That request actually did seem to work since the calls ceased. But it was common knowledge that they were hiring pretty much any warm body they could get their hands on.

If anything, I'd probably steer clear of these laid-off workers since I'm pretty sure it's a separation of the wheat from the chaff. With the sort of hiring practices they engage in, picking up a bunch of sub-par workers is all but assured and it's only wise to jettison them when you no longer have a need for extra warm bodies or need to make room for new candidates to take their place

Re:Besides the big name appeal what's the attracti (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560202)

That is a big generalization.

The fact of the matter is people like myself used Yahoo exclusively a decade ago before switching to Google. Yahoo lost revenue for internet ads to Google as well and is no longer profitable in most operations in the US. Laying off employees in the non profitable areas only makes sense. It does not make them bad employees. If anything it shows management to be the bad decision makers where the productivity employees are let go to pay for their directors and executives mistakes.

Also Yahoo planned on entering new markets and hired like crazy before Icahn came in with a hostile takeover and decided to raid and sell its assets. These employers were probably hired to help Yahoo enter these new areas before the buyout and then the sellout of its assets to satisfy Wall Street. They were no longer needed.

People being laid off is sad whether they were talented or not. Just because someone hires does not make them incompetent in the hiring process.

Sorry, whats Yahoo? I havent used them in 10 years (1)

evanism (600676) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560070)

Yahoo? they still exist? I remember them in 1996 and they were big, but I assume they went broke/bust/irrelevant/trivial/unneeded in 1990.

Seriously, these guys should have dies 5 years ago.

Re:Sorry, whats Yahoo? I havent used them in 10 ye (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560272)

*My wife uses Yahoo news and YahooIM still. It is what she is used to. The search engine was crap which was how Google came in and killed it with a lite no nense search while Yahoo spiced it up making it a portal and internet destination for all users.

Yahoo exists for its news, mail, and answers, and it generates revenue by directing its uses to MSN Bing and ads to its pages. That part is still popular but it is a shadow of itself since Google and then Icahn came in and gutted the company.

In related news (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560162)

Pabst Blue Ribbon is offering free beer to anyone still working at AltaVista.

Re:In related news (1)

TheL0ser (1955440) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560714)

Pabst Blue Ribbon is offering free beer to anyone still working at AltaVista.

Isn't there something in the constitution about cruel and unusual punishment? I think this would hit the "piling it on" clause.

Thanks Jerry Yang! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34560220)

For not selling to MS when they had a lot of money on the table. What a tard.

Just ONE? (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 3 years ago | (#34560544)

One San Francisco brewery is offering a free beer to people from Yahoo who show their termination letters.

Just ONE free beer? What happens when that initial buzz wears off and his wallet is still empty? Poor bastard.

christmas layoffs again? (3, Insightful)

e3m4n (947977) | more than 3 years ago | (#34561122)

what's with these corporate assholes that always choose the one time of the year that everyone has the highest financial burden to start downsizing/firing/laying people off? Why can't they make these decisions in April? or August?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...