• Meta lays-off ``low performers''

    From Salvador Mirzo@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 11 20:15:01 2025
    Meta laid off 5% of its workforce, calling them ‘low performers.’ Those
    who were laid off see things differently—and they’re speaking out.

    Joe Berkowitz (4 minute read)

    Meta underwent another big round of layoffs on Monday, cutting 3,600
    jobs, or roughly 5%, of its total workforce. Between 2022 and 2023, the
    tech giant eliminated 21,000 positions, nearly a quarter of its
    workforce, and continued to reduce staff in 2024. But while those other
    recent reductions appeared driven by organizational restructuring and cost-cutting efforts, CEO Mark Zuckerberg seemed to tie this week’s
    layoffs to those he deemed “low performers.”

    “I’ve decided to raise the bar on performance management and move out
    low performers faster,” Zuckerberg wrote in an internal memo when
    announcing the cuts in January. “We typically manage out people who
    aren’t meeting expectations over the course of a year, but now we’re
    going to do more extensive performance-based cuts during this cycle.”

    Some of the employees who have just been let go object to this characterization, though, and they are fighting back.

    Layoffs are increasingly common in tech, but they’re often framed as a failure of the company and its leaders rather than a reflection of
    individual employees. (Although Amazon famously culls its workforce
    based on performance metrics, and Microsoft reportedly has plans to do
    the same.) Given Meta’s public trumpeting of the “low-performer”
    criteria for this recent initiative, however, being swept up in this
    batch of layoffs seems closer to just getting fired.

    When these newly unemployed workers apply for other jobs, the concern is
    that hiring managers who might ordinarily be impressed with seeing “Facebook” on a CV will know exactly why these applicants are suddenly
    on the market—and, as a result, may be less inclined to give them a
    chance to defend themselves in an interview.

    Instead of waiting to find out for sure, some laid-off workers have
    started preemptively defending themselves online—and they are bringing receipts.

    Kaila Curry, who, until Monday, worked in product content operations at
    Meta, posted on LinkedIn her surprise at being lumped in with supposed
    low performers after receiving an “exceeds expectations” in her mid-year review. “I frequently asked for feedback and was always told I was doing
    a good job,” she wrote in the post. “I was never placed on a
    [performance improvement plan], never given corrective feedback, and
    never properly mentored or provided clear expectations.

    Curry’s experience lines up with a new report from Business Insider,
    claiming Meta’s director of people experience allowed managers to add employees from higher-performance tiers to those marked for layoffs if
    they couldn’t reach their reduction goals just from lower-rated
    employees. A spokesperson for Meta tells Fast Company that these were “performance-based terminations,” adding, “Prior ratings were not downgraded. Simply because someone had a history of meeting or exceeding expectations does not mean they continue to consistently meet the bar.”

    In searching for other potential reasons for her inclusion in the
    layoffs, though, Curry cites one recent incident: “Perhaps I became too
    vocal when our shift to young adult (YA) content involved removing
    safeguards that protected LGBTQ+ users.”

    The past few months have been a time of transition for Meta. The company
    has recently made major changes to its content moderation and DEI
    policies that appear in line with Zuckerberg’s recent embrace of
    President Trump. (The CEO also donated to Trump’s inauguration fund,
    added UFC CEO and Trump ally Dana White to Meta’s board, and declared on
    Joe Rogan’s podcast in January that companies currently need more “masculine energy.“)

    Another former employee, data scientist Joshua Latshaw, was also taken
    aback by his inclusion in the layoffs. As he wrote on LinkedIn, his
    five-year history with the company included several “exceeds
    expectations” ratings and a promotion. (His post even includes
    screenshots of those reviews in the comments.) According to Latshaw’s
    post, a “meets most expectations” in 2024 followed months of turmoil
    within his team—with the managers who conducted his review having only
    worked with him for less than six weeks.

    “This is the first [Performance Summary Cycle] at [M]eta that I wasn’t exactly correct in predicting my rating,” he wrote.

    The lone “meets most expectations” rating in Latshaw’s tenure at Meta
    was also striking, he notes, because it followed his taking parental
    leave earlier in the year. Over on Reddit’s r/Layoffs sub, a
    pseudonymous poster, identifying as a senior-level Meta employee who was
    let go on Monday, wrote that she, too, had taken maternity leave in the
    lead-up to her layoff. Several posters elsewhere on Reddit describe
    rumors of other Meta employees being laid off after returning from a
    recent parental or medical leave. (Meta did not comment on this.)

    Regardless of what led each Meta employee to wind up in this round of
    layoffs, it’s clear that the “low performer” moniker struck a nerve
    among those affected. Meta’s stock has been on the rise, with shares
    gaining 65% in 2024. Yet, considering that Zuckerberg’s big bet on the metaverse continues to cost his company billions of dollars per quarter,
    the CEO should maybe consider himself fortunate to have evaded the “low performer” label himself.

    Source: <https://www.fastcompany.com/91276893/meta-laid-off-low-performers-defend-themselves-on-linkedin-and-reddit>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John McCue@21:1/5 to Salvador Mirzo on Wed Feb 12 01:17:53 2025
    Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> wrote:
    Meta laid off 5% of its workforce, calling them ?low performers.?
    <snip>

    As he wrote on LinkedIn, his five-year history with the
    company included several ?exceeds expectations? ratings and
    a promotion.
    <snip>

    Seems to me they are taking a page from the IBM playbook.
    I suspect the people being paid a lot and/or over 40. With
    the Trump Administration, we know there will be more of
    these firings because discrimination of all kinds is now
    fully legal. So, Companies can fire people all people over
    a certain age or race without worrying about consequences.


    Source: <https://www.fastcompany.com/91276893/meta-laid-off-low-performers-defend-themselves-on-linkedin-and-reddit>

    --
    [t]csh(1) - "An elegant shell, for a more... civilized age."
    - Paraphrasing Star Wars

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Scott Dorsey@21:1/5 to jmclnx@SPAMisBADgmail.com on Thu Feb 13 14:26:50 2025
    John McCue <jmclnx@SPAMisBADgmail.com> wrote:
    Seems to me they are taking a page from the IBM playbook.
    I suspect the people being paid a lot and/or over 40. With
    the Trump Administration, we know there will be more of
    these firings because discrimination of all kinds is now
    fully legal. So, Companies can fire people all people over
    a certain age or race without worrying about consequences.

    And note that doing this was absolutely disastrous to IBM, as it
    has been every time it's been tried in private industry.

    A good friend of mine worked for a company where they fired all
    of the higher-paid technical workers, including the guy who owned
    the patents for their process. That didn't go well.
    --scott
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to Scott Dorsey on Thu Feb 13 22:17:41 2025
    On 13 Feb 2025 14:26:50 -0000, Scott Dorsey wrote:

    And note that doing this was absolutely disastrous to IBM, as it has
    been every time it's been tried in private industry.

    It’s a good way to get a short-term boost in the share price, though.

    Sometimes the CEO appointment is approved by the board with the express
    purpose of getting a boost in the share price.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eli the Bearded@21:1/5 to ldo@nz.invalid on Fri Feb 14 04:58:25 2025
    In comp.misc, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    On 13 Feb 2025 14:26:50 -0000, Scott Dorsey wrote:
    And note that doing this was absolutely disastrous to IBM, as it has
    been every time it's been tried in private industry.
    Sometimes the CEO appointment is approved by the board with the express purpose of getting a boost in the share price.

    That may be, but this is about Facebook/Meta/Zuck's baby. I don't think
    the board has the spine of soggy paperback book when dealing with the
    world's most famous stalker.

    Elijah
    ------
    "Mark Zuckerberg's voting power in Meta Platforms (Facebook) is 56.9%."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to Eli the Bearded on Fri Feb 14 06:07:18 2025
    On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 04:58:25 -0000 (UTC), Eli the Bearded wrote:

    In comp.misc, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

    On 13 Feb 2025 14:26:50 -0000, Scott Dorsey wrote:

    And note that doing this was absolutely disastrous to IBM, as it has
    been every time it's been tried in private industry.

    It’s a good way to get a short-term boost in the share price, though.

    That may be, but this is about Facebook/Meta/Zuck's baby.

    So what possible reason would he want for a short-term boost in the share price?

    Wanting to cash in some of his stock, perhaps?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eli the Bearded@21:1/5 to ldo@nz.invalid on Fri Feb 14 06:16:49 2025
    In comp.misc, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    So what possible reason would he want for a short-term boost in the share price?

    You are the one who said it was share price reasons. I think it is a
    measure distract (and maybe remove some) employees complaining about the content moderation overhaul last month.

    https://www.theverge.com/24339131/meta-content-moderation-fact-check-zuckerberg-texas

    Bonus if firing people makes Zuck look stronger with Trump who wasn't
    exactly friendly with the Zucker during his previous term.

    https://www.theverge.com/command-line-newsletter/603754/mark-zuckerberg-tells-employees-to-buckle-up-in-leaked-all-hands-meeting

    Employee-submitted questions for the CEO touched on a couple of big
    themes: concerns about his announcement that "low-performers" would
    be let go on February 10th, his MAGA-fueled changes to Meta's content
    moderation policies and DEI programs, and his comment to Joe Rogan
    about wanting more "masculine energy" in the workplace. "Are the
    changes we're seeing (in any way) influenced by the new U.S.
    president?" asked one employee ahead of the internal meeting. "If so,
    why are we making changes based on these factors?

    "We must try to put ourselves inside their skin and look at us through
    their eyes, just to understand the thoughts that lie behind their
    decisions and their actions." -- Robert McNamara

    Elijah
    ------
    just watched "The Fog of War"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anonymous@21:1/5 to John McCue on Sat Feb 15 01:23:05 2025
    John McCue wrote:
    Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> wrote:
    Meta laid off 5% of its workforce, calling them ?low performers.?
    <snip>

    As he wrote on LinkedIn, his five-year history with the
    company included several ?exceeds expectations? ratings and
    a promotion.
    <snip>

    Seems to me they are taking a page from the IBM playbook.
    I suspect the people being paid a lot and/or over 40. With
    the Trump Administration, we know there will be more of
    these firings because discrimination of all kinds is now
    fully legal. So, Companies can fire people all people over
    a certain age or race without worrying about consequences.

    I _wish_ that were the case, but you're lying.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Retrograde@21:1/5 to John McCue on Sun Feb 16 16:28:59 2025
    On 2025-02-12, John McCue <jmccue@qball.jmcunx.com> wrote:
    Seems to me they are taking a page from the IBM playbook.
    I suspect the people being paid a lot and/or over 40. With
    the Trump Administration, we know there will be more of

    I think he's just doing what Musk does to the Federal govt, trying to
    show he's on the side of the Trump admin. Pretty spineless/weasely, but
    it's zuckerdouche we're talking about. Remember they banned Trump at
    one point and are almost certainly on his shit list, only inches away
    from a total ban.

    Low performers - go fuck yourself, Zuck. Your website sucks.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)