6 ms·

I was one of the people being let go in this round. I moved to Seattle and joined OCI as a Senior Engineer at the end of Jan 2019. Yesterday when I came to the

I was one of the people being let go in this round. I moved to Seattle and joined OCI as a Senior Engineer at the end of Jan 2019. Yesterday when I came to the office and was doing my work at 9:00 AM, the whole team about 20 people were called by VP to have a meeting at 10:00 AM. He said the whole team got terminated. We had to turn in the computer by 12:00 PM and leave the office by 3:00 PM. There was no buffer time at all. Me: "Do I have to pay back sign on bonus and relocation? I've been here for less than 2 months." VP: "You were supposed to, but I pushed it back to the management. Now you are forgiven. That's a very good question." Me: ......................&^#^(%#&)@! Today mark as my first out-of-employment day. I am on H-1B, which is an even worse situation. I'll need to find a new job ASAP :(

pololee 8y ago
The VP also mentioned they were thinking about the plan in Jan. So why the hell did you hire me then? I joined at the end of Jan.
- nradov 8y ago
  Mass layoff decisions like this are typically made at a higher level of the organization. The executives don't give much advance notice to the middle managers who make hiring decisions for most engineers in order to prevent leaks.
  - mgarfias 8y ago
    hiring at oracle is weird. when i worked there my offer had to be approved by larry.
    - whatshisface 8y ago
      If Larry is approving hires it's just as a rubber stamp. There's no way anyone at the head of a company that size could think about anything at the employee level.
      - nate_meurer 8y ago
        Don't underestimate Larry. Not in this regard anyway.
        heelix 8y ago
        No kidding. We were a 500 person shop that was gobbled up by Oracle. First meeting with Larry - we were all suited out. Walk in, he is in jeans and a teeshirt. He asked, 'why you all dressed up?' A very, very technical discussion on our company's software. He had been thoroughly briefed on our stuff and asked very insightful questions on how our J2SE app worked.
      - johan_larson 8y ago
        At Google, hires had to be approved by the founders as of 2013. This was when the company was hiring a few hundred people per week, so the founders got a spreadsheet with links or something like that. And apparently they did sometimes say no to some people. It seems like a bonkers practice to me. I understand that it is important to hire good people. But this could be delegated several levels down, at least for entry-level hires. I suppose the top dogs could worry about promotions and hirings starting at the level of the junior managers, if they wanted to.
        shalmanese 8y ago
        For the longest time, APMs had to have a phone screen with Marissa Mayer before they got hired. My main question when she asked me if I had any questions was whether this was the best use of her time. I don't know if that had any influence or not over their decision.
        jtreminio 8y ago
        Don't leave us hanging - did it have a negative or positive effect on the outcome?
        shalmanese 8y ago
- john_moscow 8y ago
  It is entirely plausible that they hired you so that they won't have to lay off someone they actually care about.
  - cannonedhamster 8y ago
    Well they laid off the entire team, so that's unlikely. These are typically product pivots, not financial downsizings when it's entire teams.
    - john_moscow 8y ago
      They could have done it on the division level. Pad your org with a relatively useless team just before the forced 10% layoff and you've dodged the bullet.
      - rcdmd 8y ago
        Are you trolling? You're accusing management of onboarding an H1-B, paying a sign-on bonus, paying relocation expenses and then paying them for 2 months to surreptitiously "pad the relatively useless team" so you can initiate a layoff instead individual firings. Nope. Generally, firings at big corp go like this: 1. Create an improvement plan for your under-performing worker. 2. Evaluate worker based on that plan in 1 month. 3. Fire worker.
        john_moscow 8y ago
        When you have several layers of middle management trying to sabotage one another in pursuit of better chances at the next reorg, even weirder things could happen. Been there myself.
    - closeparen 8y ago
      Why would you lay off an entire team for a product pivot? Unless all of the company's other products are fully staffed... how often does that ever happen?
- patrickyeon 8y ago
  Hey friend, don't take it personally. A layoff indicates a failure (of planning, of budgeting, or whatever) at a much higher level of the organization than you Your position may have been opened before the layoff decision was made, so they decided to leave it open so as not to raise suspicions (managers will rightfully get upset if headcount is taken away from them with no explanation). They might've know the number of people they needed to cull in January, but not decided where it would happen. There's a lot of work in Seattle. If you're cunning maybe you can get a second hiring bonus in Q1 2019.
  - enraged_camel 8y ago
    >>Hey friend, don't take it personally. A layoff indicates a failure (of planning, of budgeting, or whatever) at a much higher level of the organization than you And yet it is always the low-level folks who get fucked, while the executives who make the lay-off decisions often are rewarded with promotions and bonuses at the end of the year.
- wyclif 8y ago
  Sounds to me like "the left hand knoweth not what the right hand doeth" at Oracle. At least with regard to your department. But I agree with the other guy in this thread who said not to take it personally. You shouldn't. It's more a commentary on the state of corporate flux than it is on your work, that's the healthiest way to view things.
- wyclif 8y ago
  Sounds to me like "the left hand knoweth not what the right hand doeth" at Oracle. At least with regard to your department. But I agree with the guy who said not to take it personally. You shouldn't. It's more a commentary on the state of corporate flux than it is on your work, that's the healthiest way to view things.
- sys_64738 8y ago
  This has happened to me. Two weeks in the door and a massive layoff of peers occurs but I survived the hatchet as I came via a recruitment agency charging 20% of base salary. Higher ups can’t disclose plans until they’re executing them as it’s a warning sign something is afoot if a sudden hiring freeze occurs mid-quarter. Could be seen as disposing financial info unfairly.
keyle 8y ago
Sorry to hear this sucks. Try to look at the silver lining, you don't want to work for such a company. I hope you find something very soon.
chillacy 8y ago
That's a bummer, reach out if you want a referral to another popular ex-OCI company in Seattle.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
pnloyd 8y ago
Was on pololee's team as well. We were all crushed because the team was only a few months old and were we just all getting to know each other well.
luckydata 8y ago
That's complete bullshit, hiring bonuses don't have to be repaid if they terminate you for any reason. They were trying to make you feel like the manager went to bat for you, which isn't the case.
- shemnon42 8y ago
  Check your employment paperwork. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. To make you pay it back after just hiring is a jerk move, but not all executives are kind.
  - john_moscow 8y ago
    Why would anyone sign a contract that makes them liable for the relocation expenses (that could be easily ~50K for intercontinental moves) based on a risk that is outside their control?
    - patrickyeon 8y ago
      - Because they didn't read that part so closely. - Because they read it closely but didn't interpret it correctly. - Because they brought it up and their counterpart said "don't worry, that's boilerplate and we've never actually used that clause". - Because the alternative was signing a contract that had no relocation/hiring bonus. - Because they needed a job, and that's what was there. - Because they really really needed a job to keep health insurance or their visa, and they had no leverage. - Because they had leverage, but were too inexperienced in negotiations to realize it. - Because they had leverage, but were not comfortable using it, and were taken advantage of. There's lots of reasons, of varying quality, that someone may do something that seems ridiculous to you. Why are you implying that the (hypothetical) losing party here is the one who's done something wrong?
      - john_moscow 8y ago
        All I am saying is that in a relatively safe first world countries in 2019 there are not that many ways to screw up your life big time. But signing a contract that lets someone take take more than your net worth might be based on a risk that they control and you don't, is certainly one of them. I have actually been in a somewhat similar situation myself and I had spent hours googling all the legalese and running the "worst case" simulations in my head before signing it. And my understanding of possible paths and their consequences was very helpful later when the corporate politics unfolded the wrong way and it helped me exit the situation with a net plus.
joneholland 8y ago
I’m hiring Sr developers right across the street at Expedia. Shoot me a note: joholland at expedia.com
- longcommonname 8y ago
  Do companies like expedia look to hire people moving from the GDS? I'm not sure I want to stay in the travel industry, but I really like the challenging problems. Just not sure I want to stay with the current company I'm at.
  - joneholland 8y ago
    Yes! Shoot me an email.
donavanm 8y ago
Pololee and pnloyd feel free to reach out. There are plenty of related jobs in seattle.
BurningFrog 8y ago
The H-1B situation, at least back in my day, is that formally you need a new job within X days, but in reality no one cares as long as you don't leave the country. If you're unsure/nervous, talk to an immigration lawyer. A 1 hour consultation is quite affordable.
- kinkrtyavimoodh 8y ago
  It's not that simple. Whenever you report the exact dates of employment (which you can't easily fudge as they have to match with what the employer can / will attest to), such as for applying for a Green card, it will be clear that you have been in violation of status, in case you were out of work for >60 days. And then you are at the mercy of USCIS/DHS. You also have to attest that you have not been in violation of status when you apply for a visa. Most people don't want to commit perjury by lying on Visa forms. It should also be noted that this 60-day margin is a recent (2015 or so) relief by the Obama administration that for some reason managed to fly under the Trump radar of undoing Obama's immigration-related reprieves. Before that, you would technically be in violation of status literally the next day of the firing. Imagine living in the US legally for 10+ yrs, having a house and kids here who are American citizens, and suddenly be in violation of status and expected to pack your bags and leave the next day coz you got laid off. I see a lot of (well-justified) anger on HN against H-1B etc. but most citizens don't know what perversities our so called 'highly qualified' labor pool has to deal with. These are unique to the United States, btw. No other developed country has such a ridiculous work visa system.
  - thucydidesofusa 8y ago
    I think we're well aware. Most of the H1-B criticism is about the nature of the visas, not some personal animosity against the visa holders.
  - BurningFrog 8y ago
    What the lawyers will inform you, is that there is the letter of the law, and the practical reality, and especially so in immigration law, they differ quite a lot. > Before that, you would technically be in violation ... The word technically is my point. Nobody was actually treated that way in reality, and lawyers know what's real and what's just theory. My H1B info is second hand and 10+ year old, so don't take it at face value, but the same goes for what this kinkrtyavimoodh persona says :)
jasonallen 8y ago
If you or anyone affected is interested: I'm hiring in AWS both in Seattle and Vancouver, BC. Email me at alljay at amazon.com.
throwaway663 8y ago
What a win.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
kerng 8y ago
Isn't Seattle mostly OCI? Why the layoffs there?

pololee 8y ago

The VP also mentioned they were thinking about the plan in Jan. So why the hell did you hire me then? I joined at the end of Jan.

nradov 8y ago
Mass layoff decisions like this are typically made at a higher level of the organization. The executives don't give much advance notice to the middle managers who make hiring decisions for most engineers in order to prevent leaks.
- mgarfias 8y ago
  hiring at oracle is weird. when i worked there my offer had to be approved by larry.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    If Larry is approving hires it's just as a rubber stamp. There's no way anyone at the head of a company that size could think about anything at the employee level.
    - nate_meurer 8y ago
      Don't underestimate Larry. Not in this regard anyway.
      - heelix 8y ago
        No kidding. We were a 500 person shop that was gobbled up by Oracle. First meeting with Larry - we were all suited out. Walk in, he is in jeans and a teeshirt. He asked, 'why you all dressed up?' A very, very technical discussion on our company's software. He had been thoroughly briefed on our stuff and asked very insightful questions on how our J2SE app worked.
    - johan_larson 8y ago
      At Google, hires had to be approved by the founders as of 2013. This was when the company was hiring a few hundred people per week, so the founders got a spreadsheet with links or something like that. And apparently they did sometimes say no to some people. It seems like a bonkers practice to me. I understand that it is important to hire good people. But this could be delegated several levels down, at least for entry-level hires. I suppose the top dogs could worry about promotions and hirings starting at the level of the junior managers, if they wanted to.
      - shalmanese 8y ago
        For the longest time, APMs had to have a phone screen with Marissa Mayer before they got hired. My main question when she asked me if I had any questions was whether this was the best use of her time. I don't know if that had any influence or not over their decision.
        jtreminio 8y ago
        Don't leave us hanging - did it have a negative or positive effect on the outcome?
        shalmanese 8y ago
john_moscow 8y ago
It is entirely plausible that they hired you so that they won't have to lay off someone they actually care about.
- cannonedhamster 8y ago
  Well they laid off the entire team, so that's unlikely. These are typically product pivots, not financial downsizings when it's entire teams.
  - john_moscow 8y ago
    They could have done it on the division level. Pad your org with a relatively useless team just before the forced 10% layoff and you've dodged the bullet.
    - rcdmd 8y ago
      Are you trolling? You're accusing management of onboarding an H1-B, paying a sign-on bonus, paying relocation expenses and then paying them for 2 months to surreptitiously "pad the relatively useless team" so you can initiate a layoff instead individual firings. Nope. Generally, firings at big corp go like this: 1. Create an improvement plan for your under-performing worker. 2. Evaluate worker based on that plan in 1 month. 3. Fire worker.
      - john_moscow 8y ago
        When you have several layers of middle management trying to sabotage one another in pursuit of better chances at the next reorg, even weirder things could happen. Been there myself.
  - closeparen 8y ago
    Why would you lay off an entire team for a product pivot? Unless all of the company's other products are fully staffed... how often does that ever happen?
patrickyeon 8y ago
Hey friend, don't take it personally. A layoff indicates a failure (of planning, of budgeting, or whatever) at a much higher level of the organization than you Your position may have been opened before the layoff decision was made, so they decided to leave it open so as not to raise suspicions (managers will rightfully get upset if headcount is taken away from them with no explanation). They might've know the number of people they needed to cull in January, but not decided where it would happen. There's a lot of work in Seattle. If you're cunning maybe you can get a second hiring bonus in Q1 2019.
- enraged_camel 8y ago
  >>Hey friend, don't take it personally. A layoff indicates a failure (of planning, of budgeting, or whatever) at a much higher level of the organization than you And yet it is always the low-level folks who get fucked, while the executives who make the lay-off decisions often are rewarded with promotions and bonuses at the end of the year.
wyclif 8y ago
Sounds to me like "the left hand knoweth not what the right hand doeth" at Oracle. At least with regard to your department. But I agree with the other guy in this thread who said not to take it personally. You shouldn't. It's more a commentary on the state of corporate flux than it is on your work, that's the healthiest way to view things.
wyclif 8y ago
Sounds to me like "the left hand knoweth not what the right hand doeth" at Oracle. At least with regard to your department. But I agree with the guy who said not to take it personally. You shouldn't. It's more a commentary on the state of corporate flux than it is on your work, that's the healthiest way to view things.
sys_64738 8y ago
This has happened to me. Two weeks in the door and a massive layoff of peers occurs but I survived the hatchet as I came via a recruitment agency charging 20% of base salary. Higher ups can’t disclose plans until they’re executing them as it’s a warning sign something is afoot if a sudden hiring freeze occurs mid-quarter. Could be seen as disposing financial info unfairly.

keyle 8y ago

Sorry to hear this sucks. Try to look at the silver lining, you don't want to work for such a company. I hope you find something very soon.

chillacy 8y ago

That's a bummer, reach out if you want a referral to another popular ex-OCI company in Seattle.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

pnloyd 8y ago

Was on pololee's team as well. We were all crushed because the team was only a few months old and were we just all getting to know each other well.

luckydata 8y ago

That's complete bullshit, hiring bonuses don't have to be repaid if they terminate you for any reason. They were trying to make you feel like the manager went to bat for you, which isn't the case.

shemnon42 8y ago
Check your employment paperwork. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. To make you pay it back after just hiring is a jerk move, but not all executives are kind.
- john_moscow 8y ago
  Why would anyone sign a contract that makes them liable for the relocation expenses (that could be easily ~50K for intercontinental moves) based on a risk that is outside their control?
  - patrickyeon 8y ago
    - Because they didn't read that part so closely. - Because they read it closely but didn't interpret it correctly. - Because they brought it up and their counterpart said "don't worry, that's boilerplate and we've never actually used that clause". - Because the alternative was signing a contract that had no relocation/hiring bonus. - Because they needed a job, and that's what was there. - Because they really really needed a job to keep health insurance or their visa, and they had no leverage. - Because they had leverage, but were too inexperienced in negotiations to realize it. - Because they had leverage, but were not comfortable using it, and were taken advantage of. There's lots of reasons, of varying quality, that someone may do something that seems ridiculous to you. Why are you implying that the (hypothetical) losing party here is the one who's done something wrong?
    - john_moscow 8y ago
      All I am saying is that in a relatively safe first world countries in 2019 there are not that many ways to screw up your life big time. But signing a contract that lets someone take take more than your net worth might be based on a risk that they control and you don't, is certainly one of them. I have actually been in a somewhat similar situation myself and I had spent hours googling all the legalese and running the "worst case" simulations in my head before signing it. And my understanding of possible paths and their consequences was very helpful later when the corporate politics unfolded the wrong way and it helped me exit the situation with a net plus.

joneholland 8y ago

I’m hiring Sr developers right across the street at Expedia. Shoot me a note: joholland at expedia.com

longcommonname 8y ago
Do companies like expedia look to hire people moving from the GDS? I'm not sure I want to stay in the travel industry, but I really like the challenging problems. Just not sure I want to stay with the current company I'm at.
- joneholland 8y ago
  Yes! Shoot me an email.

donavanm 8y ago

Pololee and pnloyd feel free to reach out. There are plenty of related jobs in seattle.

BurningFrog 8y ago

The H-1B situation, at least back in my day, is that formally you need a new job within X days, but in reality no one cares as long as you don't leave the country. If you're unsure/nervous, talk to an immigration lawyer. A 1 hour consultation is quite affordable.

kinkrtyavimoodh 8y ago
It's not that simple. Whenever you report the exact dates of employment (which you can't easily fudge as they have to match with what the employer can / will attest to), such as for applying for a Green card, it will be clear that you have been in violation of status, in case you were out of work for >60 days. And then you are at the mercy of USCIS/DHS. You also have to attest that you have not been in violation of status when you apply for a visa. Most people don't want to commit perjury by lying on Visa forms. It should also be noted that this 60-day margin is a recent (2015 or so) relief by the Obama administration that for some reason managed to fly under the Trump radar of undoing Obama's immigration-related reprieves. Before that, you would technically be in violation of status literally the next day of the firing. Imagine living in the US legally for 10+ yrs, having a house and kids here who are American citizens, and suddenly be in violation of status and expected to pack your bags and leave the next day coz you got laid off. I see a lot of (well-justified) anger on HN against H-1B etc. but most citizens don't know what perversities our so called 'highly qualified' labor pool has to deal with. These are unique to the United States, btw. No other developed country has such a ridiculous work visa system.
- thucydidesofusa 8y ago
  I think we're well aware. Most of the H1-B criticism is about the nature of the visas, not some personal animosity against the visa holders.
- BurningFrog 8y ago
  What the lawyers will inform you, is that there is the letter of the law, and the practical reality, and especially so in immigration law, they differ quite a lot. > Before that, you would technically be in violation ... The word technically is my point. Nobody was actually treated that way in reality, and lawyers know what's real and what's just theory. My H1B info is second hand and 10+ year old, so don't take it at face value, but the same goes for what this kinkrtyavimoodh persona says :)

jasonallen 8y ago

If you or anyone affected is interested: I'm hiring in AWS both in Seattle and Vancouver, BC. Email me at alljay at amazon.com.

throwaway663 8y ago

What a win.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

kerng 8y ago

Isn't Seattle mostly OCI? Why the layoffs there?