this post was submitted on 04 May 2026
283 points (93.8% liked)

Technology

84413 readers
3407 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 20 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The inefficiencies come from the top.

Management comes up with unrealistic ideas, people run in circles trying to keep up, and then management decides the reason that their revenue goals or whatever aren’t being met is because of over staffing, not their harebrained ideas.

It’s not like 25-75% of employees are just playing video games all day (though there’s people who do that). They’re dealing with the corporate machine - the real “culture”, not the one that’s so carefully “cultivated” by management dictating office hours. Getting in meetings that should be emails, answering “just a quick question” that destroys their thought process, and dealing with AI being crammed down their throat.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 5 points 1 day ago

Are they overstaffed due to overhiring, or are they overstaffed due to the changing macro-economic picture which has derailed growth?

[–] boogiebored@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

The bloat always starts at C level

[–] apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world 126 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Those experts are whackadoo insane and/or on the payroll.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 points 20 hours ago

There are strong incentives to tell someone to downsize rather than staying the same size. Investors love the occasional human sacrifice, and you can always achieve a short-term productivity increase by reducing the denominator (headcount), at least until real metrics start showing the qualitative decline that almost inevitably follows. And then you can sneakily recruit some new suckers.

[–] CallMeAl@piefed.zip 65 points 2 days ago (1 children)

In this case it's Marc Andreessen. He's not on the payroll. He is the payroll.

[–] greyscale@lemmy.grey.ooo 33 points 2 days ago

The man with the most egg shaped head who doesn't understand introspection or thinking about.. things?

The man is actually a moron. Straight up someone who I don't think I could have a pleasant conversation with without making fun of the money man.

[–] realitista@lemmus.org 22 points 2 days ago (4 children)

I can name a ton of bullshit jobs at my company. Heck, I know whole departments that shouldn't exist. But they do because some management consultant said we needed it to improve our attractiveness to investors or if we IPO or something like that. But they will cut the people that actually do the work.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] e461h@sh.itjust.works 28 points 2 days ago

They make far too much money to be ‘over staffed’. They are overcommitted to billionaire shareholders. They always blame a blameless entity for shitty actions. See ‘the economy’ etc. Might as well blame the weather.

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 54 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Instead of always worrying about having a job, maybe we should be pissed that not having a job means homelessness and starvation.

Not having proper safety nets in a society that demonizes homelessness as a moral failing is the real problem.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 35 points 2 days ago

This.

It can get even worse

If I lose my job, I won't be able to stay here, I'll get deported, I might lose my marriage as well, I'll lose everything in life

And the company owner knows this and oh boy is he having fun with that knowledge. So they scream their lungs out at me, insulting me to my face. What am I going to do about it? Quit? Complain and get fired?

Fuck all this

[–] jtrek@startrek.website 70 points 2 days ago (5 children)

The place I work at I wouldn't say is "over staffed" but it is maybe "wrong-staffed".

They have a full time "scrum master" and from what I can tell all she does it share her screen so people can awkwardly tell her which tickets to click on, and she calls on people in order during the morning meeting. That's a whole-ass job. Meanwhile, devops is like crying blood because there's like 2 of them managing decades of systems, and no senior engineering roles have been backfilled after people left for years.

[–] mx_smith@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Do you work for the same company I do. We just laid off our senior dev ops manager and moved the team to our India office.

[–] monsieur_hackerman@programming.dev 27 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Very similar issue here... Scrum masters that invite themselves to every meeting to run them, but are not able to contribute meaningfully in any way. I guess it's not just my company that does agile wrong

[–] CluckN@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 points 20 hours ago

Scrum of the earth.

[–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm fortunate to have an effective scrum master. She knows the products will enough to properly interface with our different stage holders. The amount of shit that doesn't make it to us because she's essentially our firewall to the customers, is astounding.

That said, there are plenty of other business decisions being made that are rapidly leading to a team wide brain drain. The top brass is so out of touch with reality, and they make major decisions on that ignorance without consulting anyone that knows anything. It's also turned into a boys club at the top, so there's no individual accountability, just yes men.

[–] trem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 2 days ago

I mean, without knowing the details what your scrum master does, that feels more like a 'product owner' role to me.

But to be fair, I'm also not sure, what the 'scrum master' role is actually supposed to do. Some say, scrum masters really need to be deeply involved in the whole project to be able to question/assist the way of working.
And then there's the reality at my company, which is that scrum masters often have 10+ projects, where they just hop between meetings to host them, while hardly being able to contribute anything...

[–] dreamkeeper@literature.cafe 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

That's it? She's not involved in planning or anything? Even when I was a dev scrum leader, we'd plan out every sprint as well longer term planning. It was surprisingly time consuming and we had to budget less dev time for me so I could handle the scrum duties.

Glad I didn't have to do that shit anymore.

[–] jtrek@startrek.website 2 points 1 day ago

Not in any way I can discern! She's in the planning meetings but her entire role seems to be sharing her screen so people can tell her what to click on. (This is excruciating to witness. It is so slow.)

Sometimes she'll say "remember to check your capacity!", but two other people on the team say that too.

She seems to be entirely non-technical, too, so she doesn't have much input on any of the discussion. The inter-team stuff is handled by two other people. (A lady of importance whose title I don't know, and some sort of business analyst)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] blattrules@lemmy.world 57 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Unless their employees can take vacations whenever they want with no pushback about coverage and they’re not forcing them to work late nights and weekends, they’re not overstaffed. I don’t think there’s a tech company in this country that hasn’t squeezed every bit of their employees’ schedules that they can without major pushback. We should be working fewer hours, not overtime and until that happens, we’re absolutely not overstaffed.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

In our case, when you look at the skills needed to keep our services running, it's single failure points all the way down. At best, only nearly so.

There's always a mad dash to get leave requests in for Christmas as soon as possible, since the latecomers almost always get refused due to thin coverage.

[–] Flower@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, it usually means overstaffed with too expensive workers.

[–] blattrules@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago

Definitely from the company’s perspective, but I have a hard time believing that the workers are expensive from a perspective of what they should be making if wages kept pace with inflation and skills for the last six decades or so.

[–] Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml 32 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (7 children)

I can't speak for other fields, but I've worked in IT as a sysadmin for about a decade at a bunch of different companies, big and small.

I've never worked at a place that was close to "overstaffed" nearly every place I've worked we've needed at least 2-4 additional people.

Everybody was overworked, overwhelmed with tickets and projects, working 50+ hours a week constantly.

But upper management and executives love claiming that staffing is maxed out and needs to get more lean. Like, dude, our IT team is handling dozens of tickets a day, running 5-10 different infrastructure projects simultaneously, and keeping near-decade old equipment alive because we were denied our third budget request in a row.

[–] TipRing@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

My whole career was like this until I moved to the public sector. Now, I wouldn't say we are over staffed, but my team of 3 has about 2.5 people worth of work, such that if one person is out we can still handle everything, if two people are out it gets stressful.

By comparison it feels like I am exhaling for the first time in 25 years.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Add onto that, the fact that upper management is 4 or 5 people deep as well. Basically more management than workers.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 1 points 1 day ago

It's a pyramid - almost always is. If you average 5 direct reports, 5 deep, that's 1 at the top, 5 on level 2, 25 on level 3, 125 on level 4, and 625 worker bees. The bees still outnumber the managers, which is how the managers justify 20% raises while the bees have to suck it up with 2% (in an economy that inflated prices 4%) - too many bees to give all of them a real raise, much cheaper to "reward and retain our good people" at the top. /s

[–] apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

In 30 years of employment, I've never had a job where any department at any company I've been with seemed properly staffed to say nothing of overstaffed.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] uberfreeza@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I have only worked a handful of "traditional" jobs in which ai could do anything major, and even then it can't replace any job I had (in my opinion). But regardless, in none of my jobs have I had "too many" coworkers. The only time I'd say as much was when a company was hiring to preemptively fill roles they knew were going to be vacant. Although I did notice bigger companies had the perception they were overstaffed, because they also had no communication with lower rungs at all.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I worked for a company which "prepared for a growth spurt" by hiring +10% of the total workforce in sales specialized for an upcoming anticipated opportunity. Then the opportunity was delayed and the extra 10% literally were twiddling their thumbs with nothing to do. Then the opportunity went sour, very difficult sales compared to what was anticipated, but instead of backing down, they did a 10% RIF across the board. I left voluntarily after that, along with about 10% of the survivors of the RIF. Big talk of "back to work, business as usual, if you're still here we love you and will never let you go." Less than another year later, another 10% RIF.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

10% hire, then a 10% RIF means you end up 1% down from where you started.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 2 points 18 hours ago

Yep - and it's all arbitrary, horse traded, biased, and judgemental anyway.

Place I worked would hire by DEI incentivized ratios (in 2005), but during a RIF those let go were overwhelmingly brown skinned... Also worth noting: they did +10% they couldn't afford, then within a year ended up doing -10% RIF followed by -10% voluntary exit during hiring freeze followed by another -10% RIF. But, the CEO and CFO did get their multi-million $ parachutes on their way off the top floor anyhow. All feedback after I left voluntarily was overwhelmingly in the direction of: good decision - those who remained were not rewarded and did not have fun doing everybody else's jobs.

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 28 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, a lack of revenue can also be stated as "overstaffed", I suppose. "We have too many people for the business we no longer have."

[–] scytale@piefed.zip 19 points 2 days ago (1 children)

And it’s not even a lack of revenue. Profits are still coming in the billions, it’s just that they have to keep it going up every quarter to keep the shareholders happy.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Constant growth till death, like cancer.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 points 19 hours ago

Welcome to capitalism! It needs geometric growth but we life in a world of linear constraints.

[–] ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They've been saying they over hired during the pandemic for years, now. There's no way they hadn't already shed those "extra" employees by now.

[–] Eric@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The goal is zero employees and 100% profit.

[–] ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip 2 points 1 day ago

And without customers, 100% of 0 is still 0

[–] goatinspace@feddit.org 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Oracle terminated 30k employees.

[–] jaschen306@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I manage a web team for a pretty big company. It's just me and a Jr dev. Even with AI, we still can't keep up.

[–] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

Fuck Reddit and Fuck Spez.

[–] mesamunefire@piefed.social 3 points 2 days ago

Theres a couple people I saw recently that went though the process of getting another job.

One was network engineer, he was snatched up really quick (less than a week looking). Another was a software developer and had a harder time (something around a month from what they told me in the meetup).

Both were remote.

I know it kinda sucks...but there are still jobs out there. They are just not in the MAANGA world ATM. I personally think those companies are trying to get beyond having staff as much as possible (which is silly).

load more comments
view more: next ›