4 ms·

wow that is big lay off, but how they decided what 900 employees to lay off wtf? could they give them some opportunity to grow within the company for some diffe

by ceva 5y ago

wow that is big lay off, but how they decided what 900 employees to lay off wtf? could they give them some opportunity to grow within the company for some different role? I mean on the other side this is really shit news, but giving that 3 months of benefits and paycheck is kind of Ok i guess in this situation so people can start looking for another job.

baud147258 5y ago
From the article: >>Garg told Fortune that a month earlier, the company began to review employee productivity data, including missed telephone call rates, number of inbound and outbound calls, employees showing up late to meetings with a customer, and other metrics. >>“You guys know that at least 250 of the people terminated were working an average of 2 hours a day while clocking 8 hours+ a day in the payroll system? They were stealing from you and stealing from our customers who pay the bills that pay our bills. Get educated,” Garg told Fortune. >> “As we started to slow down our pace of hiring, we saw some alarming statistics and a number of our customers were not getting the service that they deserved from our teammates,” he said. So the people at better.com said they looked at the data they had on employee performance.
- tmp_anon_22 5y ago
  > So the people at better.com said they looked at the data they had on employee performance. Well worded. They looked at the data they had, whatever the heck that was. It sounds like a large part of this was in the sales and success org, given the reference to customer interactions and inbound/outbound monitoring. The charged language "stealing" seems really defensive to me. Even if they were stealing do you really want to publish how bad your managers were dealing with it proactively? From an economics perspective you can justify mass lay offs and you can say that there is no perfect way to do it, but there are a LOT of red flags for a CEO who already has a history of red flags. Maybe they shouldn't be in charge?

by ceva 5y ago

baud147258 5y ago

From the article: >>Garg told Fortune that a month earlier, the company began to review employee productivity data, including missed telephone call rates, number of inbound and outbound calls, employees showing up late to meetings with a customer, and other metrics. >>“You guys know that at least 250 of the people terminated were working an average of 2 hours a day while clocking 8 hours+ a day in the payroll system? They were stealing from you and stealing from our customers who pay the bills that pay our bills. Get educated,” Garg told Fortune. >> “As we started to slow down our pace of hiring, we saw some alarming statistics and a number of our customers were not getting the service that they deserved from our teammates,” he said. So the people at better.com said they looked at the data they had on employee performance.

tmp_anon_22 5y ago
> So the people at better.com said they looked at the data they had on employee performance. Well worded. They looked at the data they had, whatever the heck that was. It sounds like a large part of this was in the sales and success org, given the reference to customer interactions and inbound/outbound monitoring. The charged language "stealing" seems really defensive to me. Even if they were stealing do you really want to publish how bad your managers were dealing with it proactively? From an economics perspective you can justify mass lay offs and you can say that there is no perfect way to do it, but there are a LOT of red flags for a CEO who already has a history of red flags. Maybe they shouldn't be in charge?