4 ms·
The logistics of laying off 6000 people makes it very difficult to hold one on ones. Assuming 30 minutes per person, 8 hours in a day to hold meetings and 5 day
by chomp 8y ago
The logistics of laying off 6000 people makes it very difficult to hold one on ones. Assuming 30 minutes per person, 8 hours in a day to hold meetings and 5 day work week, that's 75 person-weeks (!) just to hold one on ones.
On top of that, there are security concerns with hanging onto employees and letting them have access to company property during a time that they know they will be fired. Especially for a company that performs services for top secret government projects.
The easiest (though you won't catch me arguing that it's the best) way is to hold a staff meeting, and then let corp IT churn through the 6000 person list over the weekend and remove access.
- mulmen 8y agoThey're laying off 10% of 6,000 employees. Not everyone.
- cyberferret 8y agoFiring via SQL query or an email filter. Is this what we have come to? SELECT * FROM employees ORDER BY last_performance_review_score LIMIT 600;
- rightbyte 8y agoThis is acctually probably how they do it.
- mulmen 8y agoTypically higher scores are better. If SpaceX used this query they would fire their 600 best employees. Or they use bad column names. On top of the lame SQL reference this diminishes the true severity of firing 600 real people. We have no reason to think the firing was this nonchalant. This diminishes the work and humanity of everyone involved. It appears to be a weak reference to stack ranking. Do you have any reason to believe this is probdbly how they identified people to be let go?
- dwd 8y agoDefault ordering would be ascending order, smallest to largest. You would need to specify DESC to order the higher numbers first.