It's hard for me to not notice that the new C-level marching orders this year are that "measurement" jobs is actually what AI is killing (managers, HR, data, etc), and that seems to be an about face from IC-work being dead after the data is pretty clearly showing the opposite.
Do we not need HR and managers, or are those just more popular roles to cut and the impact takes longer to show up?
Management is very prone to fads. The current fad is that middle management is useless. Tomorrow, they'll discover the idea that organizations can have employees "working hard" on things that no one cares about, and that someone actually needs to work on focusing that effort.
Of course, the truth is you can have too many middle managers or too few (it really was bad that in 2017, the biggest achievement was "growing headcount"). But fads have a tendency to overcorrect.
> The report also said that Human Resources employees at Uber, who had previously been cleared to work from home, are being asked to return to the office to comply with a three-day-a-week rule that took effect last June.
I feel this is direction much tech companies will take.
I love that we all know it’s just pointless suffering, to the point that they’re using it as a strategy to make people quit. If it had any positives they wouldn’t be doing this.
As we enter this era of far more qualified candidates than jobs, HR will die eventually the equivalent of index funds is for hiring. Just as most money managers didn't beat the market and lost out to Bogle's low-cost index funds, people will figure out that HR doesn't do any better than any other random criteria for hiring and firing employees, since most of the applicants for most jobs will be able to do the job sufficiently well. Probably the answer is some sort of AI, but I bet you could do just as well rolling dice.
If most of us are honestly with ourselves, we'd realize the marginal return on difficult hiring decisions is extremely small.
As for the CYA aspect of HR, an AI can definitely do that cheaper and more callously.
That’s a very simplified view of HR. Human Resources does a lot of things. During the cash rich days a tech company HR department might end up doing a bunch of nonsense[1] but the fundamental value of the department is there and will continue.
HR is rarely involved in hiring decisions, that’s the responsibility of the hiring manager which is typically the new hire’s manager. At a very big company you might have HR screening applicants but that’s to save time for hiring managers.
[1] just as engineering ends up doing a bunch of nonsense when the money is flowing.
The "good time" to discussion unionization would have been about 10 years ago when employees had much more leverage.
But I quite vividly remember any mention of that here on HN back then was responded to with "I'm paid great and can easily change jobs why would I want a union?" (with many engineers only thinking of factory worker unions as a model and forgetting that very highly paid and in demand actors also belong to a union).
You negotiate when you're in a position of strength, not while your value is rapidly falling through your fingers.
With AI and a growing population of ex-corporate workers desperate for work breaking up attempts to unionize would be easier than ever.
Similar are situations where employees of a labor union are themselves unionized - under a different union - because they feel ill-paid and ill-treated by the union which employs them.
> About 90% of Uber’s software engineers are using AI in their work, Khosrowshahi said, while about 30% are “power users” of AI tools, completely rethinking the architecture of the company. [1]
Sounds like a bad idea. Adopt the future or get out of the way. This is dock workers all over again. Massive amounts of automation could be had but instead we have dock unions that only serve to increase costs.
you mean like the dehumanization of the employees when they do all the HR type things that they do? it's quite bizarre that you think one way but don't see how it's just a reflection of the other way
Do we not need HR and managers, or are those just more popular roles to cut and the impact takes longer to show up?
Of course, the truth is you can have too many middle managers or too few (it really was bad that in 2017, the biggest achievement was "growing headcount"). But fads have a tendency to overcorrect.
I feel this is direction much tech companies will take.
If most of us are honestly with ourselves, we'd realize the marginal return on difficult hiring decisions is extremely small.
As for the CYA aspect of HR, an AI can definitely do that cheaper and more callously.
HR is rarely involved in hiring decisions, that’s the responsibility of the hiring manager which is typically the new hire’s manager. At a very big company you might have HR screening applicants but that’s to save time for hiring managers.
[1] just as engineering ends up doing a bunch of nonsense when the money is flowing.
This is expected. Expect more layoffs
But I quite vividly remember any mention of that here on HN back then was responded to with "I'm paid great and can easily change jobs why would I want a union?" (with many engineers only thinking of factory worker unions as a model and forgetting that very highly paid and in demand actors also belong to a union).
You negotiate when you're in a position of strength, not while your value is rapidly falling through your fingers.
With AI and a growing population of ex-corporate workers desperate for work breaking up attempts to unionize would be easier than ever.
I'm not buying it.
Similar are situations where employees of a labor union are themselves unionized - under a different union - because they feel ill-paid and ill-treated by the union which employs them.
Either you lose job or you make a union.
[1]