4 ms·

They prob just intentionally overhired because they could afford to, to deprive competition of talent and to see who did well. That's what I'd do if I had cash

They prob just intentionally overhired because they could afford to, to deprive competition of talent and to see who did well. That's what I'd do if I had cash to burn in a competitive industry

aaomidi 4y ago
Yeah I'm gonna empty out my assets and close my account. I HATE companies that fire people on the first bad quarter. People are relying on this salary to live. Literally have some basic fiscal responsibility and don't hire to the point where one bad quarter means you have to fire a tenth of your workforce. The fuck.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  That's the startup tech company way though. You get in and make stupid amounts of money on the understanding it could vanish at any moment but your skills are valuable so you can get a job somewhere else quickly. I feel much worse for the casual employees who can have their hours reduced to unlivable amounts silently with no press release.
  - aaomidi 4y ago
    The thing is, there isn't enough of an adverse consequence for companies to do this. For example, if companies got fined for large layoffs, or large number of employee cuts over a short amount of time (just to prevent loopholes of "slowly" laying off people), then this would be far less likely. Layoffs have an impact on far more than just the company. They have an impact on the state, they have an impact on the side service oriented businesses created because of that company, and they have a direct impact on the lives of the workers and their dependents. It shouldn't be "free" for a company to have a ripple effect of this magnitude. Regulations like this would force companies to grow in a sustainable fashion, since having a "break" like this would be extremely expensive to the execs and major shareholders of the company. FWIW I have barely thought this out and this might sound ridiculous.
    - johnny22 4y ago
      Well maybe your solution isn't good, but "It shouldn't be "free" for a company to have a ripple effect of this magnitude." is a valid point that i've not seen made explicitly.
- ars 4y ago
  Do they not have SIPC Insurance?
- lupire 4y ago
  You think those people would rather be unemployed last year?
  - aaomidi 4y ago
    This implies that they wouldn't have been able to get hired elsewhere. What are they going to do now?
    - unobatbayar 4y ago
      Hopefully greater things.
- conanbatt 4y ago
  RH is 80% down from IPO Price one year ago. Anyway it had way too many people and itwas grossly inefficient. It should probably cut staff 50% or more imo.
ltbarcly3 4y ago
Lol no they did not. They are desperate because nothing is working and they are losing money and they don't know what they are doing. Source: I quit 3 weeks ago.
- IMTDb 4y ago
  Funny, you could have phrased that "We were desperate because nothing was working and we were losing money and we didn't know what we were doing." It looks like you have all the answers and "they" have no idea, but I don't see anything else than pure "us vs them" mentality and finger pointing on a company that you chose to join and accept money from. Care to share what you would do if you were in charge ? At what level have you been able to implement some of the solution you have in mind ? What was the outcome ?
  - ltbarcly3 4y ago
    Yea you got me, it's my fault that I didn't fix their entire business model during my 6 months working there as a software engineer. I'm sorry!
    - IMTDb 4y ago
      I did not ask for you to fix the business, I just asked for one constructive idea, rather than a blanket "they don't know, their business is doomed lol". So far I got nothing.
  - accountofme 4y ago
    Well no, since he/she is not of that company anymore, it is perfectly OK to not say "we". Edit: repeated myself
    - IMTDb 4y ago
      I see two possible options: 1. Either he has one (or more) good and constructive idea on how to fix the problems faced by his former employer. In which case, please share those ideas and justify them as this is way more interesting than an empty and pointless "lol they have no idea". 2. Or he has no idea how to fix it. Which is perfectly OK (I am in that situation !). But then making fun of the people in charge of trying to do what he can't - and won't - do is probably something he should refrain from doing altogether. Leaving an employer because you don't see a future in a company is perfectly OK. Disagreeing with the vision / direction set by management is 100% normal as well. Publicly making fun of people who are in charge of steering a ship you have been a part of for only 6 month isn't. Especially when not associated with any actionable insight.

They prob just intentionally overhired because they could afford to, to deprive competition of talent and to see who did well. That's what I'd do if I had cash to burn in a competitive industry

aaomidi 4y ago

Yeah I'm gonna empty out my assets and close my account. I HATE companies that fire people on the first bad quarter. People are relying on this salary to live. Literally have some basic fiscal responsibility and don't hire to the point where one bad quarter means you have to fire a tenth of your workforce. The fuck.

Gigachad 4y ago
That's the startup tech company way though. You get in and make stupid amounts of money on the understanding it could vanish at any moment but your skills are valuable so you can get a job somewhere else quickly. I feel much worse for the casual employees who can have their hours reduced to unlivable amounts silently with no press release.
- aaomidi 4y ago
  The thing is, there isn't enough of an adverse consequence for companies to do this. For example, if companies got fined for large layoffs, or large number of employee cuts over a short amount of time (just to prevent loopholes of "slowly" laying off people), then this would be far less likely. Layoffs have an impact on far more than just the company. They have an impact on the state, they have an impact on the side service oriented businesses created because of that company, and they have a direct impact on the lives of the workers and their dependents. It shouldn't be "free" for a company to have a ripple effect of this magnitude. Regulations like this would force companies to grow in a sustainable fashion, since having a "break" like this would be extremely expensive to the execs and major shareholders of the company. FWIW I have barely thought this out and this might sound ridiculous.
  - johnny22 4y ago
    Well maybe your solution isn't good, but "It shouldn't be "free" for a company to have a ripple effect of this magnitude." is a valid point that i've not seen made explicitly.
ars 4y ago
Do they not have SIPC Insurance?
lupire 4y ago
You think those people would rather be unemployed last year?
- aaomidi 4y ago
  This implies that they wouldn't have been able to get hired elsewhere. What are they going to do now?
  - unobatbayar 4y ago
    Hopefully greater things.
conanbatt 4y ago
RH is 80% down from IPO Price one year ago. Anyway it had way too many people and itwas grossly inefficient. It should probably cut staff 50% or more imo.

ltbarcly3 4y ago

Lol no they did not. They are desperate because nothing is working and they are losing money and they don't know what they are doing. Source: I quit 3 weeks ago.

IMTDb 4y ago
Funny, you could have phrased that "We were desperate because nothing was working and we were losing money and we didn't know what we were doing." It looks like you have all the answers and "they" have no idea, but I don't see anything else than pure "us vs them" mentality and finger pointing on a company that you chose to join and accept money from. Care to share what you would do if you were in charge ? At what level have you been able to implement some of the solution you have in mind ? What was the outcome ?
- ltbarcly3 4y ago
  Yea you got me, it's my fault that I didn't fix their entire business model during my 6 months working there as a software engineer. I'm sorry!
  - IMTDb 4y ago
    I did not ask for you to fix the business, I just asked for one constructive idea, rather than a blanket "they don't know, their business is doomed lol". So far I got nothing.
- accountofme 4y ago
  Well no, since he/she is not of that company anymore, it is perfectly OK to not say "we". Edit: repeated myself
  - IMTDb 4y ago
    I see two possible options: 1. Either he has one (or more) good and constructive idea on how to fix the problems faced by his former employer. In which case, please share those ideas and justify them as this is way more interesting than an empty and pointless "lol they have no idea". 2. Or he has no idea how to fix it. Which is perfectly OK (I am in that situation !). But then making fun of the people in charge of trying to do what he can't - and won't - do is probably something he should refrain from doing altogether. Leaving an employer because you don't see a future in a company is perfectly OK. Disagreeing with the vision / direction set by management is 100% normal as well. Publicly making fun of people who are in charge of steering a ship you have been a part of for only 6 month isn't. Especially when not associated with any actionable insight.