Tech Industry job layoffs looking scary

JT-Money

Superstar
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
10,399
Reputation
3,216
Daps
45,458
Reppin
NULL

It’s a dark time to be a tech worker right now​


Nearly 300,00 tech employees laid off since last year.


For years, the tech industry seemed like the best place to grow a cushy, stable career. But as benefits disappear and companies lay off thousands, some are questioning whether they made the right choice.

In the first two months of the year alone, PayPal, Cisco, and Amazon, among others, have announced layoffs affecting thousands of workers, a continuation of the mass layoffs from last year. All in all, nearly 300,000 workers in the tech industry have lost their jobs in the past year, according to Layoffs.fyi.

While the wider macroeconomic environment is still good and job numbers have surpassed expectations, the good vibes have not rippled across all sectors. In tech, even those employees who were not laid off have seen employers scale back benefits while also demanding more of workers.

A job at Google was once seen as the epitome of a comfortable gig—complete with free meals, massages, and nap pods. Yet, gradually, those freebies have been pulled back. The pandemic was responsible for some cutbacks, such as changes to catering, a pause on free massages, and fitness-center closures. But even after the pandemic, some employees claim Google has also pared back its budget for food and team social events, as well as restricted employee travel to “business critical” trips, Business Insider reported.

At the same time, tech companies are asking their workers to show their commitment with return-to-office mandates or stricter performance reviews.

The pivot to demanding more from workers may be best exemplified by Meta. CEO Mark Zuckerberg labeled 2023 the “year of efficiency,” and since then has cut the company’s workforce by 22% while thinning out its middle management and asking some employees to reapply for jobs or be fired. Despite the massive scaling back on workers, Zuckerberg said earlier this month that the “year of efficiency changes” would be implemented permanently.

Some current and former tech workers have taken to social media and online forums to voice their uncertainty about the state of the sector, and the evaporation of the traditionally comfortable tech job.

One former Google employee, Canadian software developer Tim Bray, said in his personal blog last month that when he joined in 2010, Google was “was the coolest place in the world to work.” But he added that the entry of business-world “psychopaths” and the effects of late-stage capitalism have done away with the allure of Big Tech, and that now it is more associated with “hostile congressional hearings, mass layoffs, and messy antitrust litigation.”

On X, formerly Twitter, some former tech workers have detailed their struggles after being laid off. That includes 39-year-old Adrian C. Jackson, who said in a recent tweet that he had to move back in with his parents after he lost his tech job.

On Reddit, another laid-off employee by the username Catgut66, said they were fired after their employer outsourced quality assurance after 13 years. They wrote on Reddit that they are feeling the stress of having to find a new job to support their family.

“I am lying in bed thinking about family and freaking the F out! Wife makes shyt for money so everything is on my shoulders,” they wrote.

Even after hundreds of thousands of layoffs, Brent Thill, a Jefferies analyst specializing in the tech sector, told the Financial Times that the layoffs will continue, and could get worse. As companies see other organizations do more with a leaner workforce, Thill added, they could choose to lay off workers as well.

“It’s become contagious,” he said.
 

JT-Money

Superstar
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
10,399
Reputation
3,216
Daps
45,458
Reppin
NULL
biden_PNG47.png
 

BaggerofTea

Veteran
Bushed
Supporter
Joined
Sep 15, 2014
Messages
48,937
Reputation
-2,558
Daps
235,510

Serious

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
79,749
Reputation
14,180
Daps
189,460
Reppin
1st Round Playoff Exits

Sir ZDuke

All Star
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
910
Reputation
445
Daps
5,131
biden_PNG47.png
Yeah he did that. Definitely not the tech companies, who took advantage of low rates post pandemic to overhire, and are now taking advantage of the snowball effect of layoffs to clean up their balance sheets before they report earnings.
 

UpNext

Superstar
Joined
Aug 23, 2019
Messages
4,215
Reputation
895
Daps
15,236
Yeah he did that. Definitely not the tech companies, who took advantage of low rates post pandemic to overhire, and are now taking advantage of the snowball effect of layoffs to clean up their balance sheets before they report earnings.
H-1B visa: President Joe Biden’s proposed immigration bill could bring relief for Indian techies, IT firms



How Biden's new order can become a big booster for Indian students, H-1B visa holders

Joint Statement from the United States and India | The White House




He's definitely got a hand in this bs. Stop the cap. They overhire because of shyt like this.
 

Sir ZDuke

All Star
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
910
Reputation
445
Daps
5,131
Lol, it says "proposed". There are always proposed H1b bills, immigration bills in general, they all die quick deaths, since congress won't even look at them.

Biden sucks, but a lot of the BS we're seeing in the tech industry is of its own making
 

Gritsngravy

Superstar
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
7,994
Reputation
547
Daps
16,096

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
51,984
Reputation
7,936
Daps
149,393

AI hiring tools may be filtering out the best job applicants​


9 hours ago

By Charlotte Lytton
Features correspondent


Alamy Woman on an AI video interview

Alamy
AI screening technology, such as one-way video interviews, can leave some highly qualified candidates without the interviews they deserve (Credit: Alamy)

As firms increasingly rely on artificial intelligence-driven hiring platforms, many highly qualified candidates are finding themselves on the cutting room floor.

Body-language analysis. Vocal assessments. Gamified tests. CV scanners. These are some of the tools companies use to screen candidates with artificial intelligence recruiting software. Job applicants face these machine prompts – and AI decides whether they are a good match or fall short.

Businesses are increasingly relying on them. A late-2023 IBM survey of more than 8,500 global IT professionals showed 42% of companies were using AI screening "to improve recruiting and human resources". Another 40% of respondents were considering integrating the technology.

Many leaders across the corporate world hoped AI recruiting tech would end biases in the hiring process. Yet in some cases, the opposite is happening. Some experts say these tools are inaccurately screening some of the most qualified job applicants – and concerns are growing the software may be excising the best candidates.

"We haven't seen a whole lot of evidence that there's no bias here… or that the tool picks out the most qualified candidates," says Hilke Schellmann, US-based author of the Algorithm: How AI Can Hijack Your Career and Steal Your Future, and an assistant professor of journalism at New York University. She believes the biggest risk such software poses to jobs is not machines taking workers' positions, as is often feared – but rather preventing them from getting a role at all.



Untold harm​


Some qualified job candidates have already found themselves at odds with these hiring platforms.

In one high-profile case in 2020, UK-based make-up artist Anthea Mairoudhiou said her company told her to re-apply for her role after being furloughed during the pandemic. She was evaluated both based on past performance and via an AI-screening programme, HireVue. She says she ranked well in the skills evaluation – but after the AI tool scored her body language poorly, she was out of a job for good. ( HireVue, the firm in question, removed its facial analysis function in 202 1.) Other workers have filed complaints against similar platforms, says Schellmann.


Alamy Many selection algorithms are trained on one type of employee – which means candidates with different backgrounds or credentials may be filtered out (Credit: Alamy)

Many selection algorithms are trained on one type of employee – which means candidates with different backgrounds or credentials may be filtered out (Credit: Alamy)

She adds job candidates rarely ever know if these tools are the sole reason companies reject them – by and large, the software doesn't tell users how they've been evaluated. Yet she says there are many glaring examples of systemic flaws.

In one case, one user who'd been screened out submitted the same application but tweaked the birthdate to make themselves younger. With this change, they landed an interview. At another company, an AI resume screener had been trained on CVs of employees already at the firm, giving people extra marks if they listed "baseball" or "basketball" – hobbies that were linked to more successful staff, often men. Those who mentioned "softball" – typically women – were downgraded.

Marginalised groups often "fall through the cracks, because they have different hobbies, they went to different schools", says Schellmann.

In some cases, biased selection criteria is clear – like ageism or sexism – but in others, it is opaque. In her research, Schellmann applied to a call centre job, to be screened by AI. Then, she logged in from the employer's side. She'd received a high rating in the interview, despite speaking nonsense German when she was supposed to be speaking English, but received a poor rating for her actual relevant credentials on her LinkedIn profile.

She worries the negative effects will spread as the technology does. "One biased human hiring manager can harm a lot of people in a year, and that's not great," she says. "But an algorithm that is maybe used in all incoming applications at a large company… that could harm hundreds of thousands of applicants."



'No-one knows exactly where the harm is'​


"The problem [is] no-one knows exactly where the harm is," she explains. And, given that companies have saved money by replacing human HR staff with AI – which can process piles of resumes in a fraction of the time – she believes firms may have little motivation to interrogate kinks in the machine.

One biased human hiring manager can harm a lot of people in a year, and that's not great. But an algorithm that is maybe used in all incoming applications at a large company… that could harm hundreds of thousands of applicants – Hilke Schellman

From her research, Schellmann is also concerned screening-software companies are "rushing" underdeveloped, even flawed products to market to cash in on demand. "Vendors are not going to come out publicly and say our tool didn't work, or it was harmful to people", and companies who have used them remain "afraid that there's going to be a gigantic class action lawsuit against them".

It's important to get this tech right, says Sandra Wachter, professor of technology and regulation at the University of Oxford's Internet Institute.

"Having AI that is unbiased and fair is not only the ethical and legally necessary thing to do, it is also something that makes a company more profitable," she says. "There is a very clear opportunity to allow AI to be applied in a way so it makes fairer, and more equitable decisions that are based on merit and that also increase the bottom line of a company."

Wachter is working to help companies identify bias through the co-creation of the Conditional Demographic Disparity test, a publicly available tool which "acts as an alarm system that notifies you if your algorithm is biased. It then gives you the opportunity to figure out which [hiring] decision criteria cause this inequality and allows you to make adjustments to make your system fairer and more accurate", she says. Since its development in 2020, Amazon and IBM are among the businesses that have implemented it.

Schellmann, meanwhile, is calling for industry-wide "guardrails and regulation" from governments or non-profits to ensure current problems do not persist. If there is no intervention now, she fears AI could make the workplace of the future more unequal than before.
 
Top