The Problems with Google’s Layoffs That You Should Know About
(auto translated by chatGPT)
Google has carried out large-scale layoffs affecting approximately 12,000 people worldwide. Google Japan is no exception, with about 6% of the employees, around 200 people, persumed to be targeted. Sundar Pichai, Google’s CEO, has sent an email to the staff stating that the company will comply with the laws in each country. However, the organizational restructuring conducted in Japan has shown many flaws. Especially egregious is that employees on maternity or parental leave are also being targeted. This has led to voices from employees saying they cannot comfortably have children under these circumstances. We have categorized the major issues into three main points.
The Fear of Lack of Explanation and Pressure to Resign
The first issue is the lack of explanation provided to those targeted for resignation. The company claimed in collective bargaining with the union that it had sought understanding and provided thorough explanations to the affected individuals, but the reality was quite different. The notification from the company merely stated that the individual’s role (position in the team) was affected by the organizational restructuring. For employees hired on a job-based system, the idea of “losing their role but remaining in the company” was unimaginable, leading many to perceive it as a forced dismissal. Those targeted were only told, “If you sign within two weeks, you will receive a severance package,” with no explanation of what would happen if they refused to sign. As the deadline approached, the company sent additional emails outlining future possibilities, including a warning that refusal could result in a job change and restricted access to internal systems. This made the targets believe that what happened at the headquarters earlier—a lockout dismissal—was now happening in Japan. With insufficient explanations from the company, these individuals had to make decisions based on limited information within a short two-week timeframe.
Consultations were received from individuals who signed under the misconception that they would be dismissed without the severance package if they refused. According to the union’s knowledge, at least six individuals, including those on maternity or parental leave, were targeted, with four signing the agreement. None of these four, who all had children, wanted to resign at this time. This method of coercion not only harms workers and workplace morale but also erodes the company’s trust, being irrational for everyone involved. The union has a role in representing workers and preventing such counterproductive tragedies.
In reality, some scenarios feared by the targets are materializing. Employees who did not agree to the resignation suggestion have been assigned to temporary teams, composed only of those who refused, with uncertain dissolution dates. There are concerns that these individuals will receive unfairly low performance evaluations and reduced bonuses or stock options this spring. Such actions disrupt the careers of these individuals, and as a labor union, we find this unacceptable.
Unilateral Resignation Conditions
The second issue is that the negotiations for the resignation conditions were one-sided. Ideally, a resignation suggestion involves discussions between the company and the employee to mutually agree on a resignation date and severance pay. However, the company’s approach this time was to unilaterally impose conditions, with no willingness to adjust according to individual circumstances. The resignation date was uniformly set for May 31st, and even for those who planned to take extended leave due to maternity, parental, or sick leave, their resignation was pushed forward to this date. We requested in collective bargaining that those on maternity or parental leave be allowed to remain employed until the end of their leave, citing reasons such as the inability to use childcare facilities if they resigned, the impracticality of job hunting while caring for a child, and the increased difficulty of finding a job after losing company affiliation. It was a sincere plea tied to their lives with their children. However, the company consistently refused to alter its stance of enforcing dismissal as of May 31st.
The salaries for those on maternity or parental leave are provided by local governments, not paid by the company. Despite no financial burden on the company, they refused to compromise. If the reduction in workforce was truly necessary for management restructuring, there would be no rational reason to refuse. This choice only damages the company’s brand and erodes worker trust, offering no benefit. The union believes that Google Japan, following directives from its parent company without critical thinking, mechanically executed the layoffs, leading to this situation. Since the headquarters claims to abide by the laws of each country, the Japanese branch should have responsibly engaged with workers on equal terms and conducted proper discussions regarding their resignations.
Lack of Explanation of the necessity
The third issue is the insufficient explanation of the necessity for the layoffs. Although a town hall meeting was held and explanations were provided, they were abstract and did not include specific numbers or details about the company’s financial situation. It is a fundamental responsibility to explain the necessity of decisions that significantly impact people’s lives. Legally, the company is obligated to provide a sincere explanation when requested by the labor union. However, to date, the company has not provided any data showing its financial status or management forecasts.
According to the investor relations information publicly available to Alphabet’s shareholders, Google has been profitable for the past few years, and the figures do not justify the necessity of the layoffs. When conducting layoffs, it seems only reasonable to present financial numbers and forecasts, explain why they are necessary, and outline the desired management goals and the number of reductions required to achieve these goals, while sincerely explaining all of these to the workers.
We demand Google to restore the trust
At the end of 2022 and the beginning of 2023, many IT companies underwent layoffs, but in Japan, there are not many companies where a union has been formed and is actively opposing these actions. I believe the presence and functioning of a union is an opportunity for companies to regain their brand image and the trust of their workers. I hope that by explaining financial numbers, compensating for the damages caused by forceful resignation suggestions, and moving forward with sincere negotiations with the union to determine worker treatment, these companies can regain trust.