←back to thread

1071 points namukang | 8 comments | | HN request time: 1.742s | source | bottom
Show context
abdj8 ◴[] 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(20): >>43678291 #>>43678464 #>>43678562 #>>43678693 #>>43678739 #>>43678898 #>>43679191 #>>43679316 #>>43679496 #>>43680833 #>>43680865 #>>43680993 #>>43681111 #>>43681356 #>>43681653 #>>43681730 #>>43681941 #>>43682960 #>>43700522 #>>43705911 #
apexalpha ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
ryandrake ◴[] No.43678624[source]
Treating people with dignity is “business hostile”… welcome to Hacker News comment section.
replies(3): >>43678701 #>>43678842 #>>43680041 #
scarface_74 ◴[] No.43680041[source]
I work for a paycheck. I can’t exchange “dignity” for goods and services. The guy got paid nice compensation for his labor.
replies(1): >>43683262 #
ryandrake ◴[] No.43683262[source]
Therefore, let's throw everything non-monetary under the bus because work should be purely transactional?
replies(1): >>43683457 #
scarface_74 ◴[] No.43683457[source]
What else should it be? Do you believe that your company is like “your family”? Your coworkers or especially your manager are “your friends”?

Why else do you go to work?

replies(2): >>43684526 #>>43685410 #
grudg3 ◴[] No.43685410[source]
You're taking "Human resources" a bit too literally.
replies(1): >>43685484 #
scarface_74 ◴[] No.43685484[source]
We are resources. The one Big Tech company I have worked for has 1.556 million employees. What else was I besides a “resource”?
replies(1): >>43688264 #
int_19h ◴[] No.43688264[source]
It's not a binary between "we are family" and "we are resources", it's a spectrum.

In your case, yes, you were absolutely a resource. This is exactly why companies of that size simply shouldn't exist - because they cannot not treat their employees as resources, with all the inhumanity this implies.

replies(1): >>43688665 #
scarface_74 ◴[] No.43688665[source]
Yes because a small company could deliver a national same day shipping infrastructure and worldwide network of cloud servers including its own undersead cables.

And again, work is a transaction. I’m perfectly fine with being treated as a resource when I was getting a quarter million a year and working remotely…

replies(1): >>43688759 #
int_19h ◴[] No.43688759[source]
I'm okay with not having same day shipping if this means that companies don't have to treat their employees like dirt.

But, more importantly, a company that large is simply too much concentrated economic power (which then translates to political power). Even if it was all just robots, I'd still say no. Our political system is in shambles in large part because of these kinds of entities.

replies(1): >>43688861 #
1. scarface_74 ◴[] No.43688861[source]
So exactly what “power” does Amazon have over your life?

Our politics is in shambles because of religious nutcases, anti science, anti intellectuals, who are afraid of the country becoming majority-minority and straight out racism and bitterness.

Amazon has nothing to do with that.

replies(1): >>43698524 #
2. int_19h ◴[] No.43698524[source]
You can literally just punch "Amazon lobbying" into Google and get pages of results.
replies(1): >>43699390 #
3. scarface_74 ◴[] No.43699390[source]
Okay? Name one policy that the current administration has done that helps Amazon?
replies(1): >>43702866 #
4. int_19h ◴[] No.43702866{3}[source]
I didn't say anything about "current administration", so I don't know why you think that is relevant.
replies(1): >>43703555 #
5. scarface_74 ◴[] No.43703555{4}[source]
Okay, name one law that was passed during the pass 20 years as a result of Amazon’s lobbying that was favorable to Amazon?
replies(1): >>43706937 #
6. disgruntledphd2 ◴[] No.43706937{5}[source]
It's older than 20 years, but not needing to collect sales tax was definitely a big benefit for Amazon (and other ecommerce providers) and presumably involved lobbying to keep it for as long as possible.
replies(1): >>43707010 #
7. scarface_74 ◴[] No.43707010{6}[source]
That wasn’t based on lobbying, it was the law at first and Amazon took advantage of it.

Amazon didn’t have any significant lobbying 20 years ago and it definitely was the behemoth it is today. That being said, even today it isn’t as large as Walmart and was definitely not a large retailer back then.

It was seriously in doubt 20 years ago whether Amazon would ever survive and definitely wasn’t consistently profitable.

replies(1): >>43714865 #
8. disgruntledphd2 ◴[] No.43714865{7}[source]
Totally, I completely agree that they didn't lobby for the original exemption.

However, I would be very surprised if they weren't lobbying heavily to keep said exemption for as long as possible.