Microsoft announced that 2,100 employees were dismissed today. This is part of a previously announced workforce reduction plan which will see approx. 18,000 employees or 14% of the total workforce shed.
Microsoft has a market cap of $385 billion. Annual revenues of approx. $86 billion and net profits of approx. $22 billion.
Should they just suck it up keep these employees on the payroll, especially during these still hard individual economic times?
Firing people is one of the least evil things a company can do. They didn’t raid the company’s pension fund. They fired people they didn’t feel they needed on staff any more. The original layoffs were announced in a really hamhanded way but that doesn’t make the actual layoffs a moral issue.
If a company needs to keep paying people just to avoid being evil, should they make them come into the office or could they just become mobster style no-show jobs? We know Microsoft has decided they’re not positions they want to fill. They should at least not have to give them expensive computers or cubicles. That’d be adding insult to injury.
I think a more nuanced argument could be made. Microsoft wants to dominate a market and aggressively dominates a market; thus monopolizing it. With that, there could be a logical conclusion that a certain social contract exists for a business on this level. Microsoft gets to be microsoft through the ability to work within the system of society that offers it patent protection; some might say that with that comes a certain responsibility. I am not not necessarily of that belief, I am just presenting a different view of the situation.
Another vote for not evil at all. At least these people got severance packages, unlike many who lose their jobs.
The fact that someone asks this question is concerning.
Such a bizarre question. Should a company be required to continue paying someone who’s services they no longer require? The answer is obviously no.
Does the OP continue to pay the plumber each day whether or not he comes to his house to fix a leak?
Microsoft has money. I want money. If Microsoft doesn’t give me money, Microsoft is evil.
Makes perfect sense. Why you no give me money?
No.
So what? Doesn’t mean they should keep people on the pay roll that they don’t need.
Certainly they are evil. I mean, they are a corporation, and they make a profit…of COURSE they are evil. Q.E.D. 
I’ll add my voice to the choir that it doesn’t make them evil.
But I will note that laying off employees and then turning around and lobbying for more H1B visas while claiming a shortage of Americans with relevant tech experience smacks of some cognitive dissonance.
No. Only companies that pollute are evil. Right?
Seriously, dude, make a case for wether you think they are evil or not. Do you think they should suck it up and keep people on the payroll if they think they don’t need them?
The plumber exists in perfect competition and is not using his market power to restrict competition, it’s not really an adequate comparison to me.
They’re not evil for laying off employees.
They’re evil because of this.
Those days are long gone for most of their business. I think a case can be made that Microsoft has been stupid in being late to markets and incompetent in moving into new areas, but that isn’t evil.
And they are doing it in a time of high demand for skilled programmers and the like. Much better now than during a crash. Some of the people laid off might find a home in a company with a brighter future.
Ok, NOW you are talking. Completely agree…evil bastards!
That is the ISIS of computer icons.
That wasn’t evil. That was just incredibly stupid.
And we know that Google can’t be evil, so let’s nip that one in the bud!
That, and Windows 8.
I love Windows 8 on my Surface III. Greatest OS since sliced bread, IMHO. YMMV of course. Now that paper clip thingy…THAT is truly the heart of evil.
The OP implies that since a corporation has money, it should keep employees on the payroll even if it has no need for them. IMHO, that is a terribly paternalistic attitude that puts corporations in control and in responsibility for their employees, no matter if the relationship is beneficial.
I think that such an attitude is worse for individual pride to give out charity that to simply allow the employee to move on to a company that actually VALUES his or her contribution.
