5 ms·

"we plan to part ways with up to 336 people from across the company. We are doing this with the utmost respect for each and every person." Bart might disagree:

• toyg 11y ago
  Holy &#$^%, that's harsh. I mean, usually you announce the layoffs but leave it for a few days as you talk to people, look for voluntaries etc. Cutting a remote worker out as you send the announcement email is unwarranted and cold, and burns bridges unnecessarily.
• adevine 11y ago
  Did you read his followup email? He said they called but he did not pick up. Whenever you have a large layoff, it is fairly standard to lock accounts immediately.
  • rudolf0 11y ago
    Exactly. For security reasons, you have no other option, even if it's rude.
    • kamaal 11y ago
      That's ok, But the opposite should also be true. Don't scream 'disloyalty' when a employee wants to leave on a short notice.
      • dredmorbius 11y ago
        There's likely a severance package, so pay will continue for a period (usually at least two weeks, often several weeks per year of seniority). Not that this blunts the message much. And FWIW, I tend to agree with your comment regarding loyalty -- that ship sailed long ago, 1980s, possibly 1970s.
        • developer1 11y ago
          For the employees affected, the "generous exit packages" is all that matters. Do you know what I consider to be generous? 6 months of pay, no less. What did they probably get? 4 weeks. It's disgusting to see this kind of language in an email, when the employees are obviously being screwed beyond belief.
    • kpil 11y ago
      That is very US-centric. In many places (in the world) you are expected to for months after you are laid off. In many european contries, layoffs must be announced a long time before they happen (a maximum number but not specific jobs). In any event, you are expected to be loyal to the employer.
      • fidget 11y ago
        It's also not uncommon to tell your employees they don't need to come in to work during that last month.
  • jsprogrammer 11y ago
    Did you check the screenshot? Access was removed at 5:24AM, but the voicemail wasn't until 7:22AM.
    • icebraining 11y ago
      Access was removed from Github. Not necessarily from his email.
      • jsprogrammer 11y ago
        Sure, I don't think anyone claimed otherwise. Pulling your repo access without notification isn't exactly what most people would view as, "parting ways with 'the utmost respect for each and every person'".
        • vecinu 11y ago
          This is like being escorted out of the office. You no longer have access to company resources. Why does this seem so foreign? Why would repo access still be needed?
          • jsprogrammer 11y ago
            Who said it seemed foreign? Why would repo access be terminated without prior notification? The only topic here is how this behavior deviates from how Twitter claimed it would handle itself.
            • apetresc 11y ago
              What is disrespectful about removing repo access? What, did he need to fix those last-minute bugs for his former employer?
              • zorpner 11y ago
                The disrespectful part is discovering that you've been laid off via a side effect of the layoff, rather than being told by a person. It's true that layoffs are (even more) difficult and complex in the case of a remote employee, but this doesn't mean that we should see something appalling and simply throw up our hands and say "what were they supposed to do". We solve complex, difficult problems every day -- when the solutions are valuable to us. This is a demonstration that treating their employees with respect is not valuable to Twitter.
  • dblock 11y ago
    It's standard, but it's shitty and unnecessary.
• ianmcgowan 11y ago
  That seems a little unfair to Twitter - he's a remote worker, so they couldn't have the Bobs meet with him in a conference room. He does report "a side effect of WFH. HR can't wait for you to come in. Granted they also called but that went to voice mail."
• developer1 11y ago
  This. It's the thing that stands apart from the rest of the email. "Up to 336". Huh? That is far too specific. Either that was an exact percentage of staff, or they have the list of 336 people, and may reverse on up to a couple of dozen if they fight for their positions with good explanations as to why they deserve to stay. "Up to 336". The fact that phrase made it into the email is unbelievable. Who, being at the head of a company so large, writes with that kind of language?