←back to thread

Googler... ex-Googler

(nerdy.dev)
975 points namukang | 5 comments | 11 Apr 25 20:19 UTC | HN request time: 6.411s | 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 #
hnfong ◴[14 Apr 25 07:15 UTC] No.43678836[source]▶
It's not like there aren't disgruntled employees before layoffs. If a single employee could cause billions of dollars in losses, then the company already has a big problem regardless of layoffs.

It's very interesting how so many people in upper management seem to think that they can trust employees not to sabotage and cause billions of dollars in losses by paying them like 100k a year.

replies(3): >>43678882 #>>43678887 #>>43678906 #
1. varenc ◴[14 Apr 25 07:26 UTC] No.43678906[source]▶
The big difference is liability exposure.

If a current employee causes damage, that's one thing. But if a recently laid-off employee who retained full system access causes billions in losses, the CEO and board would face severe consequences legally and reputationally, since it would be perceived as an obvious security lapse.

replies(2): >>43679535 #>>43679662 #
2. rwmj ◴[14 Apr 25 09:22 UTC] No.43679535[source]▶
An employee who is serving their notice period is still an employee. Unless you mean truly ex-employees who still have access, in which case the company has a big problem if it cannot revoke credentials.
3. mcherm ◴[14 Apr 25 09:56 UTC] No.43679662[source]▶
This is a strange sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. Effectively, your argument says that if there is any step, whether wise or foolish, kind or cruel, that some take, all must take it or risk being found negligent.

That's no way to run an (overly litigious) society.

replies(1): >>43682045 #
4. hnfong ◴[14 Apr 25 14:59 UTC] No.43682045[source]▶
I don't even agree with the self-proclaimed legal experts in the replies.

Employers generally assume liability for torts (civil liability arising from wrong-doings) vicariously. For example if an employee somehow puts rat poison into a customer's burger, the employer is automatically liable for that, because they are responsible for the employee's actions. (See eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability )

But if on the other hand a recently laid-off ex-employee sneaks back to the restaurant and then adds rat poison to the burgers, the liability of the employer isn't automatic (you can claim they should have done better with their security etc., but it is probably a defense to say they did all reasonable steps to secure the facilities).

So yeah, I call bullshit. More likely is that the C-suite just cargo-culted some "layoff best practices" and it just became a thing you did without questioning.

replies(1): >>43688327 #
5. varenc ◴[15 Apr 25 02:04 UTC] No.43688327{3}[source]▶
I generally agree with you and the parent on this. It definitely is self-fulfilling. Because some companies cut access to laid off employees immediately, it makes the others look negligent if they don't. I'm not trying to say I think this is correct or the best, just trying to speculate why some employers choose to take this action. Certainly all don't, but it does seem more common the larger a company gets.

I'd be curious if every laid off Google employee experiences this hard cut off, or if it's determined case by case.