Cisco mass layoff news

1 Like

The Intels and Ciscos are dinosaurs. They should die to make room for the new to come along.

How many of that 5500 are from the Bay Area?

1 Like

They are but this also has to do with reduced global demand. With many countries in recession, US companies will suffer from reduced sales and need to adjust workforces accordingly.

A 7% cut seems minor, especially since Cisco hasn’t been a BA growth driver for at least 15 years

1 Like

I just wish that these companies put in more effort to re-skill their workforce instead of mass layoff followed by mass hire (at least that’s what looks like what Cisco is saying). Ed-Tech is getting hot with a lot of startup focusing on these enterprise customers.

1 Like

Is the corporate way to reduce cost. Through time, many long-time employees become overpaid for a skill that no longer relevant. Many may not be able to re-skill well. Even if they are able to re-skill, the length of contribution is not as long as young graduates and how should we pay these re-skill?

For example, how many network engineers are able to be re-skilled as machine learning software engineers? Cost of re-skills? Years of contributions left? Are they cost competitive with young graduates/ PhDs? Their worth is in knowing the company, so some can stay, the bulk would have to be let go.

I used to work for Intel and it’s the same over there as well. Hire lots of people in boom time, and fire lots of them at the first sight of trouble. I think it’s something deeply ingrained in these orgs. They can’t help themselves. That’s why these old firms need to die out to make room for the new, young and more dynamic ones.

1 Like

You are right, not many can make that jump. But Cisco is not suddenly going to become an AI company in the shape of Google. It will still make and sell networking equipments. I doubt their so-called new direction will be vastly different from their old direction.

1 Like

Old engineers become worthless…I know I am one…The brutal truth in tech, nobody wants old overpaid engineers on staff

1 Like

Real Estate Investment for Old Engineers <- that could be successful bootcamp school… let’s raise some money!

I agree what you are saying if it is all about jumping that two extreme you mentioned. But I do believe that re-skilling Network engineers to say in Cloud / VM division could be more realistic and also come with benefits of knowing how Cisco networking equipments work inside out in their new Cloud data center. But you are right, it is easy to lay-off and get fresh grad will be more financially incentive for the company.

Intel and Cisco are both hiring in the Bay Area.

Young engineers are naive and think they know it all…Old engineers know it all and loose their nerve…can’t convince anyone that they know anything.

The upshot is that engineering is not a very secure career path. Many tech companies advertise this concept of dual career path: the technical path and the managerial path. In reality the managerial path is most likely the more secure and more lucrative path.

Engineering is a skill, a good background, tough for a long career…Most engineers have moved on by 40…Old engineers get cranky, like me…Thanks Manch for removing the troll…I was ready to get cranky…

Hi fellow engineers :slight_smile:

I think that’s true in most corporate roles. By a certain age you move up into management or you get moved out. Companies generally don’t want expensive individual contributors. They move then out to make way for younger and cheaper talent. The ironic thing is their retention of those younger people won’t be that great. Most of them want to climb the ladder, and unless there’s really high growth there aren’t enough spots for everyone to climb. So a few will get the promotions and the rest will leave seeking promotion elsewhere.

Perfectly ok. Turnover means rejuvenation so long is not dead wood stays behind. We don’t to lose those top performers. Companies are worried that their top performers are poached while lesser one stays.

Totally agree that engineering is not a very secure career path but can’t agree that managerial path is more secure.
It is usually mid-level managers(Sr.Managers or Directors) who struggle the most to find new a job after lay-offs.
In Valley, it is more important to have high mobility(being able to get hired by other companies any time) than to avoid lay-offs.
IMO, mid managers are in most vulnerable position due to lack of mobility.
I also found that tech companies with flat hierarchy could use workforce much more efficiently than the ones with vertical hierarchy.