3 ms·
> over a bureaucratic error Doesn't sound like an error to me. Getting rid of "legacy employees" is always a huge pain in the ass, sounds like his management
by otabdeveloper4 5y ago
> over a bureaucratic error
Doesn't sound like an error to me.
Getting rid of "legacy employees" is always a huge pain in the ass, sounds like his management found a solution. (Even though, frankly, a cowardly one.)
- katbyte 5y agoGuess that all depends on your view of legacy employees who took a company to where it is today
- higeorge13 5y agoAt this scale i think nobody cares, and eventually google will continue existing without them.
- renewiltord 5y agoHonestly, didn’t really consider this, but based on what I know, Google isn’t one to stop people from resting and vesting so it’s a bit strange to interpret this as an attempt from them to offload someone. They don’t usually care. I know a couple of people who do very little every day.
- finjo 5y ago"Legacy employees" sounds like code for "employees we could replace with cheaper new grads".
- otabdeveloper4 5y agoSometimes, yes. But really there's all kinds, from "we don't want this guy who insists on keeping the old C++ codebase alive" to straight-up people who engage in fraud because they think the company owes them. That said, my personal view is that you should keep "legacy employees" unless they explicitly refuse to work.
- Cthulhu_ 5y agoYup, even if they're no longer productive in terms of code output, it's worthwhile keeping them around for their knowledge of the systems - you cannot replace that, and if you try, you end up having to either 'archive' their work with a big "we don't know how this works, but it does so do not touch", or re-engineer it from scratch which is very expensive.