Slashdot Mirror
More Massive Layoffs at AOL
dawnzer writes "It looks like AOL read the comments from Slashdotters saying that 950 employees do not constitute a 'massive' layoff. Several news sites are reporting that AOL is getting ready to cut 5,000 jobs, or roughly 26 percent of their global workforce. Now that's more like it."
Does this mean that AOL is going away, because I'm getting excited just thinking about it.
Philosophy.
AOL is a dinossaur now. Their market doesn't exist anymore and they stuck upon their past until it was too late.
Your ad could be here!
26%!!?? AOL is cutting their employees by AMD's marketshare. Intel's in bed with AOL! It makes perfect sense!
I'll bet you'd be a lot less glib about it (and way more pissed off) if it was your job on the line. Especially if you saw people making comments like that!
...one person just sent an email to everyone at the office that says "OMG I just got my pink slip" followed by thousands of replies that say "me too"?
Those people will now be employed doing something useful, instead of perpetuating the existance of AOL. Everybody wins!
Its never cool when any company does layoffs. If Microsoft did a layoff, I know people would be happy because "the tide is finally turning." That is very sad. You should never be happy when someone gets laid off... you don't know who they have to support with that income. It may be their family suffering now that someone got laid off, so be a little more of an adult and don't praise layoffs, from any company.
Pftt, only 5000? You can do better AOL.
It's just a shift to smaller companies or self-employment; we just don't hear about it. A company laying off 10,000 people is news. 1,000 different companies hiring those people the next day isn't.
I'm sorry but the article has misquoted John Miller AOL CEO. His actual statement went more like this:
Following last nights board meeting, the AOL directors would like to confirm the rumours that we have decided to move away from our core business, the manufacture and distribution of drink coasters and frizbees. We are now seeking to restructure the relevant departments and pursue a profitable business model of providing our internet services at no cost to non subscribers. [ Long Pauses ] As a result we belive that within 6 months anyone in our employ today with half a brain will no longer be with the company....*phone rings* ahhh, hello?. yes Satan... sorry I gotta take this
serenity now!
Here's AOL's most recent mailing to all of its customers:
Dear AOL Member,
I want to let you know about some exciting changes happening at AOL. Our service has always been an all-in-one solution for our members, consisting of:
1. Connectivity - a way of connecting to the Internet (through a dial-up or high-speed connection), and
2. Content and Services - bringing you useful tools and features like email, security and an entertaining online experience once you're connected.
Today we are announcing that AOL's software, email, and other compelling AOL features will be free to everyone who has an Internet connection -- including your Address Book, Screen Name, the Buddy List® feature and more. AOL will continue to provide a dial-up connection for you, and we will continue to offer several reliable and affordable options for getting online.
What Does This Mean for You?
Nothing about your service arrangement with us will change unless you want it to. Your current plan, which includes Internet connectivity, 24/7 customer support, unlimited email storage, your email addresses, and all the AOL content and services you rely on, will still be there for you.
If you do at some point choose another provider to connect you to the Internet:
* You can keep your AOL Screen Name and email address for as long as you want to use it, completely free;
* You can continue to use your AOL software, and you can still get all your favorite features and content, completely free;
* You will still get AOL's comprehensive safety and security tools, protecting you from online hackers, spammers and identity thieves, completely free.
All of this is free, no matter who provides your Internet connection.
Why Is AOL Doing This?
We're simply changing with the times. There are many options for Internet access, whether it's dial-up or broadband. At the same time, a lot of online content and services are now available on the Web free of charge because they are supported by advertising. So, while your Internet connectivity needs may change over time, what you love about the Web does not. We are now able to ensure that the familiar AOL experience, your Screen Name, your Address Book, your Buddy List, your Favorite Places, and other content and features you enjoy, will always be available to you for free.
In September, you will be hearing more about changes at AOL. Until then, you can visit AOL Keyword: New AOL for more information and to sign up for informative email alerts.
Sincerely,
Jon Miller
Chairman and CEO
AOL LLC
I manage a team of Retention Specialists in Reston (posting AC for obvious reasons). I'm not so sure about all this talk of layoffs. They need us more than they realize, and they would surely be willing to keep us around a little while longer for a slightly lower salary. I mean, if they really decide we aren't needed anymore, they can always reconsider and cancel our employment next month. I'm sure they'll find they really really really miss us after we're gone.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
It's one of the risks inherent in participating in a capitalist economy. The potential exists to do very well, but there is also the potential that things might slip in the opposite direction. Is it cool? Not really, because it does tend to disrupt peoples' lives. Do I feel sad for them? Not really, because it's all part of the game called "US of A". And let's not forget that there are other parts of the world where just getting a single meal is the biggest worry.
You have to remember how large of user base AOL has. Sure its not as big as it was a couple years back but its still pretty huge. My girlfriends mom had AOL for a long time till she got broadband. However she kept AOL even when they didn't offer free (5 dollars a month). The reason for this wasn't because she loved AOL but, since she didn't want to go through and change her emails over to another provider. Now if 1/2 to 3/4 of people who have AOL keep their emails accounts that is a lot of people viewing their ads every time they check there email. I'm sure they have some deal worked out that they get a flat rate for just showing the ads to there customer base. Add that to the ammount they make when people actually buy stuff and they get a commision for it. I think that it probly be possible. Maybe not for a smaller based company but I think they can pull it off.
If after 45 days you are not completly satisfied with your Employment Service Provider, cancel at no charge!**
**You must call to cancel your employment status or will continued to be employed at the standard rate.
I want to be retired when I grow up.
If AOL has, what?, around 20 million subscribers, and each was paying on average $20/month, isn't that $400 million dollars a month that will be pumped back in to other areas of the economy? Given that 'only' 5000 are being laid off right now, I suspect that the increase in other spending on 'net related (or entertainment, or whatever) will, on the whole, be able to create jobs for those 5000 somewhere... I realize I'm talking somewhat in the abstract, but *damn*, that's a lot of hard cash that will be freed up on the consumer side.
creation science book
Which employees are these?
The people who work at the AOL booths giving away coasters(CDs)?
The Mexicans who work customer support in Spanish?
Coders and network admins?
Because the article doesn't give much details.
AOL is Web 3.0!!! Where do my eyeballs sign up for this pay-per-click multilevel marketing bonanza. Both of them missed the first two bubbles. They blame me; instead of blogging like I was supposed to I wasted (am currently wasting) my talents getting modded off topic on slashdig. We want some of that Web 3.0 cash. Now. Referrals. My eyeballs might like Roland Pickypail if he kicked down. We want referral fees for my teflon eyeballs. How many frogclick ringtones did my clickthroughs sell for you? APIs!! APO's!! IPI's! PAP's! Frog click. Frog click bad. Class action.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
It would seem that AOL is still in reorganization and are trying to find it's niche in the broadband market. And the AOL software will change as a result. AOL Explorer is probaly the beginning of that change.
\
I've been waiting for the symptoms of AOL's impending doom for years upon years. All I can say is: Good fucking riddance, you CD-spamming, English-torturing hellspawn of a company. You took my precious CServe forums from me, and now you will perish. I do, in fact, believe I've been saving some champagne for when AOL finally dies. I'll go dust it off in anticipation.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
I've survived layoffs and I've been laid off. I love business and I understand its part of our economy. I don't have a problem with layoffs. I have a problem with people being happy about layoffs just because they don't like the company.
Yeah, I remember seeing that sculpture of the fish mounted on a wall. To me the coolest thing was not that it was made out of AOL CDs, but that it didn't sing "Take Me to the River".
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
People forced to leave a job that they use to support their families is never a "good" thing. It may be a necessary thing, or it may be an inevitable thing, but it is nothing worth being happy about. I am disheartened, but unsurprised about the almost gleeful reaction of some posters in this thread and the other. It's the same sort of drivel you get when you take anyone who is more concerned about their idea for "improving humanity" than actually caring about humans.
Of course, if this happened to a relative of yours or a friend, I doubt that you'd be so cheery. Happily, in this case, you've got an axe to grind and you have no personal stake in the lives of the people affected. Congradulations, you have scaled the moral high ground and can now lob down spitballs on the people beneath you without worrying about friendly fire incidents. I bet from all the way up there, they just look like ants anyway.
Stay tuned for the posting of the layoff dates so that you can be ready to show up at your nearest AOL office and jeer the people being escorted out by security. I'm sure they deserve everything they get because they worked for AOL. Make sure and wear your "Don't be Evil" T-shirts for maximum effect.
If by "they" you mean the corporation and its shareholders, then I've got some bad news for you. They would not be doing this if it hurt their bottom line. Their management will be getting fat bonuses for "streamlining" the enterprise; and their shareholders won't be left holding the hat either. The price is being paid by the 5,000 folks who are getting canned. Besides, chances are that this announcement will be shortly followed by another - AOL hiring 5,000 workers in India.
At the risk of sounding like a libertarian (which I'm not), that's how capitalism works. A crappy company goes under, and in the process some people lose their jobs. Then some other company rises and those people get another job.
Note that there's no need to get doom and gloom about it. I know that for the average citizen unemployment and inflation are signs of the apocalypse, and politicians use them as such in campaigns... then proceed to forget that they promised solving both. That's because they're not. Read something about keynesian economics, which is how the economy works nowadays, and especially about the Phillips curve.
In a nutshell, there's a corelation between the two, and if you push one down, the other one goes up. And what governments can do is pick a point on the curve and try to keep the economy around that point.
What does this have to do with this? Well, it's darn simple: for the last 60-70 years (depending on the country) everyone had the unemployment basically where they wanted it. In spite of the constant "waah, another company lays off 5000 workers, our country is doomed" scares, that's never actually been a long term problem. So some other company or several smaller companies will figure out "hey, look at all the workers we could hire in city X" and proceed to do so.
Incidentally that kind of a correlation isn't even just an effect of the last century, but you can see effects as far back as, say, the 1300s and 1400s. The plagues and resulting utter lack of unemployment for, say, peasants, caused a massive inflation and were in the end the cause of the Renaissance.
And you can see the same economics at work on a smaller scale in the limited domain of IT in the dot-com bubble, where lack of enough workforce caused the salaries to spiral up out of hand, and the cost of any resulting program reflected it. There the impact was absorbed by the rest of the society, but imagine the same economy-wide. If for every job there wasn't a pool of unemployed workforce, and companies had to pay a premium even to get receptionist, you'd see the prices rising accordingly.
It may seem calous and lacking empathy to say that someone has to be unemployed for the economy to work, and it partially is, but that's how it works. Rebelling against it is like rebelling against gravity: not very productive. We have to work with what works, not with what would be an idealist utopia. All we can do to make it more palatable is to offer some unemployment benefits and some government demand for work and move on.
And at the risk of going off topic, that's another reality that we have to live with: that governments actually have to do that kind of thing. In spite of bullshit pseudo-economic theories idealizing lean governments and some idealized image of unrestricted 19'th century capitalism, it stopped working that way in the Great Depression. That's when the economy of scarcity ended. The countries that got out of the crisis fast were the ones whose government overspent: be it FDR's New Deal, or Germany's and Italy's spending on armament. The countries which didn't, got to enjoy a jolly good depression until WW2: e.g., Canada.
Funny what things you get to learn when you take your economic theories from real economists, instead of from novelists. (*cough* Ayn Rand *cough*) But that's another discussion for another time.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
US AOL==SOL && UK AOL !EOL
Nothing is inexplicable; only unexplained -Tom Baker, Doctor Who
AOL REPRESENTATIVE "JOHN": Hi this is John at AOL... how may I help you today?
...the ones in India? ...years.
AOL HUMAN RESOURCES: We wanted to terminate your employment.
John: Sorry to hear that. Let's pull my account up here real quick. Can I
have your name please?
HR: Vincent.
John: I've had this job for a long time.
HR: Yup.
John: I work here quite a bit. What was the cause of wanting to terminate my employment today?
HR: We just don't use you anymore.
John: Do you have outsourced or subcontracted employees elsewhere?
HR: Yup.
John: How long have you had those...
HR: Years...
John:
HR:
John: Well, actually I'm showing a lot of hours of this employee.
HR: Yeah, a long time, a long time ago, not recently...
John: Okay, I mean is there a problem with my performance?
HR: No. we just don't use you, we don't need you, we don't want you. We just don't need you anymore.
John: Okay. So when you use me... I mean, use my services, I'm saying, is that for business customers or for... for home users?
HR: Dude, what difference does it make. We don't want you working at AOL anymore. Can we please terminate your employment?
You get the idea...
-Steven
but will the severance packages be paid in AOL CDs?
You can't handle the truth.
It's a feature, not a terribly flawed cashflow model.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
It will simply make it more difficult for AOL users to cancel their account.
This is just business as usual. I've been working in IT for a large Fortune 100 bank for 8 years now, and I'm familiar with the long-term cycles of announcing some news (dropping sales, shifting markets, missed forecast, mergers announcements, whatever), then doing some layoffs. After seeing for a long time how the politics and the employee review process work, I strongly suspect layoffs often aren't as much about a company being economically unhealthy, as about periodic shedding of employee dead weight. In AOL's particular case it sounds rather more economic, but that's atypical.
Large corporations tend to be constantly hiring and growing, unless a hiring freeze is actively on--and even then they make strategic exceptions. All mid and upper-mid managers are ever hungry for a larger team because that boosts their power and profile over time within the company. The whole hiring process in a large corporation is usually a lot less self-aware then in a small business--they don't know who or what they really need for the long term good. So, it can only be so efficient--a lot of screw off and/or incompetent and/or unpleasant-personality people end up getting in to large corporations by putting on a reasonably good face during the interview process. After getting in, they're entrenched. They float around at a few projects underperforming and being disliked, going under a variety of different managers until nobody want to deal with them any more. I've seen some employees do this for years and years. It tends to be damned hard to get rid of them because no lower-level manager wants to have to personally deal with their firing. For HR legal reasons, unless they blatantly break a major company rule or kill someone, you have to painstakingly document exactly why they cannot do their job to fire them for cause. Not to say that everyone who gets laid off is bad, but a lot of times their section has more bad people then not so they get swept up departmentally.
After several years, the barnacle-class of people accumulates until they comprise about 10% to 20% of the mass population. Upper management then periodically recognizes that the company needs to shed some unneeded employees, but know it's perceived as unfair and politically unpalatable to demand personalized firings, so they come up with a neutral reason... a company-wide "slowdown". It serves as a good unchallengeable excuse to get rid of extras and undesirables. To try and do it without using trumped-up news and mass waves invites a constant bunker mentality and an excessive amount of infighting, paranoia, and company politics.