←back to thread

Googler... ex-Googler

(nerdy.dev)
975 points namukang | 3 comments | 11 Apr 25 20:19 UTC | HN request time: 0.725s | source
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 #
Ferret7446 ◴[14 Apr 25 06:57 UTC] No.43678739[source]▶
What happens if your company supports billions of dollars in economic output, and a few employees decides to go rogue and sabotage some systems that then causes an international loss of billions of dollars, and possibly property damages and loss of life? If you were the CEO, would you take criminal/financial responsibility for that?
replies(7): >>43678776 #>>43678799 #>>43678836 #>>43678892 #>>43679016 #>>43679334 #>>43692362 #
1. fzeroracer ◴[14 Apr 25 07:05 UTC] No.43678776[source]▶
Does this question also equally apply to the opposite side? If an employee got so angry with how you laid them off and treated them afterwards that they decide to do what they can to damage your company?

Cutting access and having security walk them out is more or less security theater. If an employee really wanted to cause damage the odds are they either already have or will still find a way. In this scenario having generous severance and treating them with respect is likely to better defuse the situation than kicking them out the door.

replies(1): >>43678821 #
2. Ferret7446 ◴[14 Apr 25 07:12 UTC] No.43678821[source]▶
This hypothetical is about what the CEO/company decides to do, not what the employee decides to do. A lot of liability "theater" is not there to prevent issues, it's to cover your ass.

So no, this question doesn't apply equally to the opposite side. An employee does not take responsibility for what the company does. A lot of people wonder why CEOs are paid so much; part of that is simply to take responsibility.

Ironically, a lot of people complain about useless CEOs, but if you asked them to take that responsibility for the pay, they wouldn't take it (note that that responsibility includes things like sweet talking shareholders and giving public statements on short notice on things that could nuke millions of dollars in value and create very real legal liability).

replies(1): >>43679039 #
3. chasontherobot ◴[14 Apr 25 07:53 UTC] No.43679039[source]▶
Ah yes, because CEOs often face consequences for their poor decisions. They definitely don't get golden parachutes and move on to a new company when they run a company into the ground.