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.
I'm not sure it's so much a fad rather than recognition that AI-assisted engineering calls for flatter orgs. Also "growing headcount" as management yardstick persisted way longer than 2017 - all the way into 2022 until the rates shot up.
Well from my perspective there are five different people above me, and all of the work in the project is done by me. I talk to the customer, I design and build, I manage the Jira. They don’t actually do anything. They just exist and cause drama.
They could sack all of those people and give me a payrise and be hundreds of thousands better off.
I wish I could say it’s just this project, but it’s a real theme at this point. There are so many layers of fake jobs in every organisation.
Management bloat is definitely a thing in many companies, but there's a right level. Some number of C-level execs seem to think AI magically means the optimal structure of any company is an unlimited number of thousands of individual contributors directly under a CEO.
The thought that AI doesn't mean mass layoffs is basically unimaginable.
> 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.
Expanding on just a snarky comment, Uber stated to have north of 7M monthly drivers ([1], OP mentions 10M, but with no qualification), so 32k/7M = 4.5 employees for every thousand drivers. Even with the cuts. That's a scrum team per 2000 drivers. Idk what this says but thought it to be interesting
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
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.
Nah, HR, Receptionists, Secretaries etc. and other fluff need to be fired or their division be optimized. Tech and engineering companies need to be lean and focused with less layers.
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.
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.
I'm not sure it's so much a fad rather than recognition that AI-assisted engineering calls for flatter orgs. Also "growing headcount" as management yardstick persisted way longer than 2017 - all the way into 2022 until the rates shot up.
Thinking that middle management is useless isn't a fad, it's an acknowledgement of reality.
Well from my perspective there are five different people above me, and all of the work in the project is done by me. I talk to the customer, I design and build, I manage the Jira. They don’t actually do anything. They just exist and cause drama.
They could sack all of those people and give me a payrise and be hundreds of thousands better off.
I wish I could say it’s just this project, but it’s a real theme at this point. There are so many layers of fake jobs in every organisation.
Management bloat is definitely a thing in many companies, but there's a right level. Some number of C-level execs seem to think AI magically means the optimal structure of any company is an unlimited number of thousands of individual contributors directly under a CEO.
The thought that AI doesn't mean mass layoffs is basically unimaginable.
> 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.
That is just soft firing, those choosing to not return to office will be among the 23%. That has been a normal tactic for years now.
Maybe. But, at my compare all new starters must be in the office 3 days a week.
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.
Wonder how many of them got hired as a response to all the Travis Kalanick-era notoriety
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.
I would have assumed hiring / screening resumes is a relatively small fraction of what an HR department does?
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.
"What would you say you do here?"
"A lot of things."
You still gave zero concrete information about why HR is necessary. Which is exactly the problem here.
What do they do then? Because that’s a hell of a lot of empty words. Very HR thing to say…
They're the people I talk to when I'm about to have a baby, I know that
Very “junior developer who’s actually definitely the smartest person in the building” thing to say in response.
If you don’t know, perhaps it’s best to approach with curiosity, and not smarmy, teenage condescension.
Uber has 32,000 employees? That’s wild!
Famously not including drivers.
Expanding on just a snarky comment, Uber stated to have north of 7M monthly drivers ([1], OP mentions 10M, but with no qualification), so 32k/7M = 4.5 employees for every thousand drivers. Even with the cuts. That's a scrum team per 2000 drivers. Idk what this says but thought it to be interesting
[1]: https://www.uber.com/us/en/newsroom/onlyonuber24/
What's the only thing worse than 1 HR Rep?
https://techcrunch.com/2026/02/24/uber-engineers-built-ai-ve...
This is expected. Expect more layoffs
[dead]
[flagged]
Do you think it's healthy for your soul to reduce humans down to numbers? Would you like to be reduced to a number too?
Wait, did I miss a meeting? Are you saying HR employees are humans? That has not been my experience
the casual dehumanization of people you don't like is bizarre
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
Hard to imagine a better HR department than non-humans...
Looks like it's a good time for Uber employees to start discussing unionization.
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.
> 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.
Nah, HR, Receptionists, Secretaries etc. and other fluff need to be fired or their division be optimized. Tech and engineering companies need to be lean and focused with less layers.
If every employee is part of a union, what happens then when companies over-hire?
Unionized companies can still do layoffs.
Ironically an HR department is detrimental to unionization efforts
I think GP means it is more vulnerable now.
What do you mean "Ironically"?
The department that wants to stop the creation of union would itself benefit from being in a union?
"One rule for thee, but another for me."
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.
Why?
> 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]
Either you lose job or you make a union.
[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.