I'm not sure the distinction here is all that useful. From the point-of-view of the UK government, employing people and paying taxes are important roles companies like Google need to play. It seems to me that the rules around redundancy have been put in place to discourage just the sort of layoffs Google is trying to put in place (i.e., lay off N% of everyone).

Google employees could have volunteered to share their outsized salaries with their laid-off colleagues.

Is that really true? I believe that this is exactly the sort of negotiation in which Google UK decided they wouldn't participate.

You don't need Google UK to give money to people you know. Get together with them, exchange contact details, set up a recurring payment from your account, done.

Can’t I just spend someone else’s money instead?

>From the point-of-view of the UK government, employing people and paying taxes are important roles companies like Google need to play.

That's only true in the vaguest sense, and not something that's inscribed in law. According to a link someone else shared[1], the only real requirement is for google to do a "consultation". There's no requirement or duty to keep people employed.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/redundancy-your-rights/consultation

This page outlines the rights of the person being laid off, there are a couple other pages out there that outline the responsibilities of the company[1]. Among other things there is a requirement to notify the UK government if they plan to let go of 20 or more employees. It's clearly stated[2] that this information goes directly to job assistance and training for the unemployed.

It's up for debate but I do think this indicates that the UK government is concerned about companies laying off a large number of people. In my opinion, this and the rules around the fair selection process are designed to make mass layoffs less attractive to companies.

In regards to how the activities of a company like Google appear to any regional government, I do think the two most important functions of that company are to employ people in the region and pay taxes to the regional government. They do not seem vague to me and, in this case, we have laws on both sides: some that deal with taxes and others that deal with employment and layoffs.

[1]: https://nhglobalpartners.com/employee-redundancy-in-the-uk/

[2]: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/redundancy-paymen...

The entitlement is off the charts. People have completely lost perspective on how money is made and where they fit into the money making machine.

Maybe? Or maybe you have lost perspective on what purpose money actually serves and whether a model that hyper prioritizes it over the well being of people might not be the best approach.

Counter-point: The money-making machine exists to serve people, not the other way around.

Yes; but the shareholders - not the employees.

Serve the shareholders. Not employees, and certainly not the government of the UK.

Corporation works to maximize benefit for shareholders at the expense of its employees: "What do you expect, this is capitalism working as intended."

Employee works to maximize benefit for themselves at the expense of their employer: "Ugh, what entitlement."

>The entitlement is off the charts.

People are just sick of corporations causing havoc in our lives.

> People are just sick of corporations causing havoc in our lives.

Corporations have brought most of us ridiculous amounts of prosperity.

That's what they'd like to believe! Corporations didn't build the interstate network, provide stable economic conditions, or create a literate, educated workforce.

They generated the wealth that people paid taxes from to fund those things. You think any of that stuff is free?

Are you under the impression that taxes and came after capitalism?

In some countries, corporations are seen to be in service of both their employees and their investors.

E.g. German employee reps on boards

Then they should be more careful opening offices in foreign jurisdictions

If the company was never going to hire again this might make sense, but laying off 12k people to just re-hire those roles in a year is counter productive.

The absolute cost to not laying them of is a small proportion of the cash in the bank, and the company would have maintained the pretty great culture it had, kept the loyalty that has otherwise been burnt, and saved on future hiring costs.

I agree, and it's worth remembering next time conservatives start calling oligarchs "job creators" or whatever slavish euphemism they come up with next.

Only to pay out severance and rehire the same number of people along with all the expenses associated with rehiring over the next few years. Also, the reputation of Google being one of the most stable companies to work for is sullied, likely never to return to its prior luster. All of these things hurt the long-term profits and reputation of the company as well.