Most active commenters
  • asadalt(8)

←back to thread

Googler... ex-Googler

(nerdy.dev)
975 points namukang | 20 comments | 11 Apr 25 20:19 UTC | HN request time: 1.838s | source | bottom
Show context
abdj8 ◴[14 Apr 25 05:08 UTC] No.43678249[source]▶
Layoffs are a difficult thing for employees and their managers. I have seen people (one was a VP of Engineering) escorted out of the building, sent in a cab to home along with a security guard (this was in India), not allowed access to computer or talk with other employees. But, recently have had a very different experience. The current company I work for announced 30% layoffs. The list was made public within one hour of announcement. The CEO detailed the process of selecting people. The severance was very generous (3-6 months pay) along with health and other benefits. The impacted employees were allowed to keep the laptop and any other assets they took from the company. They even paid the same severance to contractors.

After the announcement, the laid off employees were given a few days in the company to allow them to say good byes. I love the CEOs comment on this ' I trusted them yesterday, I trust them today'. This was by far the kindest way of laying off employees imo. People were treated with dignity and respect.

replies(18): >>43678291 #>>43678464 #>>43678562 #>>43678693 #>>43678739 #>>43678898 #>>43679191 #>>43679316 #>>43679496 #>>43680833 #>>43680865 #>>43680993 #>>43681111 #>>43681356 #>>43681653 #>>43681730 #>>43681941 #>>43682960 #
apexalpha ◴[14 Apr 25 06:20 UTC] No.43678562[source]▶
Weird, as someone from Europe I've never experience anything else.

Layoffs here are always done in conjunction with the unions. People are moved to different jobs, helped with training etc...

Only in very critical jobs they'd walk you out immediately but then you still get the pay.

replies(16): >>43678588 #>>43678595 #>>43678619 #>>43678634 #>>43678662 #>>43678680 #>>43678811 #>>43678984 #>>43679117 #>>43679189 #>>43679718 #>>43679848 #>>43679924 #>>43681489 #>>43681924 #>>43692198 #
asadalt ◴[14 Apr 25 06:29 UTC] No.43678595[source]▶
that’s very business hostile tbh. I wouldn’t start a company there.
replies(7): >>43678601 #>>43678620 #>>43678624 #>>43679011 #>>43679087 #>>43679610 #>>43682229 #
1. BlobberSnobber ◴[14 Apr 25 06:34 UTC] No.43678620[source]▶
Always someone with a horrible opinion to give in this hellsite
replies(1): >>43678740 #
2. asadalt ◴[14 Apr 25 06:57 UTC] No.43678740[source]▶
i have had to avoid hiring excellent candidate(s) from EU, just because they would become unflushable if it comes to that.
replies(8): >>43678770 #>>43678798 #>>43678931 #>>43678957 #>>43679264 #>>43679519 #>>43681965 #>>43682175 #
3. noisy_boy ◴[14 Apr 25 07:04 UTC] No.43678770[source]▶
> just because they would become unflushable if it comes to that

Your choice of verb tells a lot about what you think of your employees.

replies(1): >>43683512 #
4. gavinflud ◴[14 Apr 25 07:09 UTC] No.43678798[source]▶
How exactly would they become "unflushable"?

Also, surely if they were excellent candidates then you'd be doing your absolute best to keep them around?

replies(1): >>43680236 #
5. qmmmur ◴[14 Apr 25 07:29 UTC] No.43678931[source]▶
If your business is contingent on the behaviour of one employee then you have failed to hire properly or build a resilient business...

In many cases problematic employees can and are removed from EU companies.

replies(1): >>43683592 #
6. nkrisc ◴[14 Apr 25 07:37 UTC] No.43678957[source]▶
The fact you refer to people as “unflushable” or “useless” is chilling.
7. perching_aix ◴[14 Apr 25 08:34 UTC] No.43679264[source]▶
"had to"
8. rwmj ◴[14 Apr 25 09:19 UTC] No.43679519[source]▶
Please post the name of your company so we can be sure to avoid it.
replies(1): >>43683598 #
9. weatherlite ◴[14 Apr 25 11:43 UTC] No.43680236{3}[source]▶
> Also, surely if they were excellent candidates then you'd be doing your absolute best to keep them around?

Well to be fair excellent candidates are excellent on paper. It sometimes happens (not often, but not once in a blue moon either) that the candidate turns out to be completely unsuitable for the job.

10. Sonnigeszeug ◴[14 Apr 25 14:53 UTC] No.43681965[source]▶
Thats just not true.

You don't sound like a big company ceo. If you have a good reason, even as a small company, and revenue / affordability is one, you can fire people.

You just need to be able to pay them for min. 3 month if thats your contract length and as a business owner you should know how to calculate.

replies(1): >>43683522 #
11. dani__german ◴[14 Apr 25 15:11 UTC] No.43682175[source]▶
people are getting quite snippy about this comment, but hating this mindset means you lock yourself away from so much actual wealth. It means you confine and condemn people to significantly worse economic conditions by limiting people's ability to freely associate and disassociate.

just to hammer this point home: Every mandatory employee benefit has a huge cost, and adding enough of them kills your economy. It makes it more expensive to have an employee than X many jobs can justify. That X grows every year, and that's X people who cant do that job and get paid money for it.

replies(1): >>43683570 #
12. asadalt ◴[14 Apr 25 17:09 UTC] No.43683512{3}[source]▶
sure i am being dramatic but my point stands. if my company can’t be fluid and can’t react fast to market due to bs unions and backward laws of some land, that place is what i avoid.
replies(2): >>43691953 #>>43692105 #
13. asadalt ◴[14 Apr 25 17:10 UTC] No.43683522{3}[source]▶
vs. i can hire in canada/ukraine/india/pakistan/china for a more skilled person with no such bs restrictions.
replies(1): >>43688275 #
14. asadalt ◴[14 Apr 25 17:13 UTC] No.43683570{3}[source]▶
exactly, as a startup founder i wouldn’t commit to a yearly reserved ec2 instance for a year let alone an employee.
15. asadalt ◴[14 Apr 25 17:14 UTC] No.43683592{3}[source]▶
many cases isn’t competitive when i can find equal talent with no such restrictions.
16. asadalt ◴[14 Apr 25 17:14 UTC] No.43683598{3}[source]▶
done
17. int_19h ◴[15 Apr 25 01:56 UTC] No.43688275{4}[source]▶
This doesn't make sense. If you hire them to work in local offices in those countries, they often have even more employee protections than Europe does. And if you bring them over to US, then it's the same law regardless of where they are originally from.
replies(1): >>43690060 #
18. asadalt ◴[15 Apr 25 07:45 UTC] No.43690060{5}[source]▶
why would i establish a local office in say paris if laws are so hostile towards startups.
19. piva00 ◴[15 Apr 25 12:49 UTC] No.43691953{4}[source]▶
And people in those places will thank you for avoiding hiring them, some folks prefer to not be treated miserably for your own greedy exploitation :)
20. noisy_boy ◴[15 Apr 25 13:05 UTC] No.43692105{4}[source]▶
This is a genuine question: do you make these views clear during hiring? Because if you believe in them and think that they make sense, there shouldn't be any harm in sharing them with the candidates upfront, right? Especially since these views directly affect their livelihood. And if you don't, why not?