7 ms·

Their honesty should be applauded. Imagine they hired you and then had to fire you in 6 months. Keep in touch with the PM if you liked them and see how they per

by bnt 4y ago

Their honesty should be applauded. Imagine they hired you and then had to fire you in 6 months. Keep in touch with the PM if you liked them and see how they perform in the next 12 months.

Mo3 4y ago
I agree 100%. I feel sorry for OP of course, but this is highly commendable, even if the threat of major recession turns out to be overestimated. This employer is acting in a fashion that shows high levels of social responsibility and moral value. Hats off.
mc32 4y ago
I agree. In a previous recession I had an offer rescinded over a weekend. I’m glad they did because most likely as they had to reduce headcount during the recession Id have been on the chopping block --my then employer having been conservative in hiring didn't have to cut as much. also sometimes in times of expansion some hires are "luxury hires", nice to haves, but not must haves and can be the first to go. Usually it’s recent hires and people who’ve been there a long stretch who get cut first, of course with lots of exceptions.
- mooreds 4y ago
  > Usually it’s recent hires and people who’ve been there a long stretch who get cut first, of course with lots of exceptions. This was a bit confusing to me. Are you saying in your experience that it is both the most senior and most junior employees (in terms of company tenure) that get laid off?
  - VGltZUNvbnN1 4y ago
    Some people just barely do their work but are kept on because they are good for the team/team spirit. I've seen a lot of those people getting axed in 2008.
  - daveslash 4y ago
    I entered the job market during the 2008 recession. I definitely experienced the "hired... and..now you're laid off" ~ as the saying goes "when times get tough, last to hire = first to fire". As for laying off senior folks -- I've seen this too; I've seen people who are senior by virtue of just having been there the longest (20+ years) and have had the most pay raises... but don't necessarily contribute as much value as someone who's been there 10 years and costs less. If you're senior and your boss knows* that you're contributing more value add than is reflected by your paycheck -- you won't be let go. * This is one reason why you should be sure to convey your wins to your boss; when you have 1-on-1 conversations, be sure to highlight obstacles that you've overcome. You don't have to brag, but it's okay to be realistic - humble, but proud.
    - HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
      > that you're contributing more value add than is reflected by your paycheck -- you won't be let go That's a very optimistic take. What usually happens is that there's an obvious bottom line improvement to laying off a few very senior people, but the impact isn't so obvious, so from the business's perspective it looks like a win. I remember the cognitive dissonance of being an employer's rep at a job fair in 2010 and telling everyone who came up to our booth that I could take resumes, but we weren't hiring! At least I got a free lunch out of it. Businesses don't always do what makes sense from the outside.
      - DLTADragonHawk 4y ago
        This exception wise might be the case but, the cost to performance is probably just less for some senior folks compared to up and coming new people. For instance if i have 10+ year employee who has received 3% cost of living raises + additional performance raises they likely have a cost/performance ratio worse than the A player with 5 years experience who wants to move up. I can promote them for a bump in salary and have someone who hasn't accumulated as much cost overtime with a similar performance. I reduced capacity, improved moral for an A player and cut cost in one decision. There would also be minimal impact moral wise to the remaining organization by hiring within. That's just my take though and I am no authority in the topic.
neoxone 4y ago
You are totally right, I really appreciated their honesty. As mc32 stated, if I was hired, in case of recession as a recent hire I would one of the first ones to go. The PM asked me if I would like to get contacted in the future to continue with the process in case things get better, to which I replied yes. I'll keep an eye on them.
FunnyBadger 4y ago
In 6 months?? I can remember situations in the past where people were hired and then fired 2 weeks later because a contract was lost. Mostly in aerospace/defense industry.
- wiredfool 4y ago
  The startup I was in in the first bust (2001) hired/relocated people 2 weeks before laying everyone off.
  - jedberg 4y ago
    In 2001 I had a friend get a job and then get fired with severance before his start date!
    - zebnyc 4y ago
      That sounds amazing. How do I get in on that ride? :)
      - jedberg 4y ago
        Find a company that thinks it's doing well, tell them you can start in three weeks, and then pray for failure?
        old_hat 4y ago
        Unfortunately whenever we test intercessory prayer we find that it doesn't work. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16569567/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16569567/
sl9dmk2 4y ago
- dougmsmith 4y ago
- version_five 4y ago
  What's with all the astroturfing for that website? https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=https%3A%2F%2Ftopstartups.io%2F&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
  - ZephyrBlu 4y ago
    Definitely looks very suspect.
bergenty 4y ago
Isn’t that pretty great? Get paid for 6 months of relatively light ramp up time and then a few months worth of severance for some time off once fired?
- thr0wawayf00 4y ago
  No thanks. Spending 6 months getting ramped up and finally productive only to be let go and have to start the search all over again sounds like my nightmare.
- no-dr-onboard 4y ago
  Sounds like an egoist perspective, which is fine if that's your ideology. I think most people would see this as a loss for the small firm (note that the firms size matters). The cost of an employee is pretty high for small shops and salary is just one of the line items that come with OP's employment. Additionally, severance is rarely offered in positions less than 1 yr, even then it's optional.
- PragmaticPulp 4y ago
  > Isn’t that pretty great? Get paid for 6 months of relatively light ramp up time and then a few months worth of severance for some time off once fired? Not great at all. For anyone reading your resume in the future, it's impossible to know if you were let go due to no fault of your own, or if you were let go for cause after a probationary period expired. I personally don't hold a single short job against people, but the reality is that having a 6-month job followed by a couple months off on your resume will have a negative impact when some hiring managers read your resume. It's also 6 months (+ time off) that you can't accomplish much of anything because you were ramping up and then had the rug pulled out from under you. Having a 6-12 month setback in your career isn't a huge deal when you've been working for 20 years, but it can be a huge setback for juniors.
  - jen20 4y ago
    > For anyone reading your resume in the future, it's impossible to know Just write why on your resume? The dates will check out or not.
GiorgioG 4y ago
Yep. A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away (when I was in college) I worked for a company that did a round of layoffs and they let one of their new AS400 engineers go on their first day of work. Totally unprofessional.
cryptica 4y ago
How is that a good thing? You can earn good money in 6 months. One time I took a 2-week web development job to stand in for someone who left for a holiday while a project was overdue. It was an interesting experience. I wish the economy was more like this; more unpredictable and more focused on deliverables than hours worked.
- kergonath 4y ago
  > I wish the economy was more like this; more unpredictable and more focused on deliverables than hours worked. That would be fine for single people or couples without children and enough savings to relocate or live on whilst job hunting, but absolutely devastating for everyone else. As if there weren’t enough uncertainty already…
  - cryptica 4y ago
    As someone who has a dependent spouse and child, I disagree. You can't cancel the laws of nature. Everyone must participate in the free market on equal terms. When the system makes it artificially easier for one set of people, it artificially makes it harder for a different set of people behind the scenes. If someone can't handle the risk of sustaining themselves and their family in the real world, they shouldn't have children. But of course we need a fair monetary system in order to make it feasible. I can speak from experience that in our pyramid scheme economy propped up by big government and big bank money printing it's extremely difficult to support a child if you're not part of the 'inside crowd' who has access to the easy money (cheap loans, investments and subsidies). It doesn't have to be that way though. But to expect total safety is immoral because it relies on some kind of financial scheme operating behind the scenes. You can't create any real value in this world without taking a risk. If you're not taking any risks, you're not creating any value. Nobody owes it to you to support your children; especially if it means that they themselves can't afford to support their own children by participating in the free market.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Most people would rather spend a little bit longer looking to avoid a job reset. First, the job market could be worse in 6 months. Secondly, any extra work that you put into onboard and ingratiate yourself with colleagues is wasted

by bnt 4y ago

Their honesty should be applauded. Imagine they hired you and then had to fire you in 6 months. Keep in touch with the PM if you liked them and see how they perform in the next 12 months.

Mo3 4y ago

I agree 100%. I feel sorry for OP of course, but this is highly commendable, even if the threat of major recession turns out to be overestimated. This employer is acting in a fashion that shows high levels of social responsibility and moral value. Hats off.

mc32 4y ago

I agree. In a previous recession I had an offer rescinded over a weekend. I’m glad they did because most likely as they had to reduce headcount during the recession Id have been on the chopping block --my then employer having been conservative in hiring didn't have to cut as much. also sometimes in times of expansion some hires are "luxury hires", nice to haves, but not must haves and can be the first to go. Usually it’s recent hires and people who’ve been there a long stretch who get cut first, of course with lots of exceptions.

mooreds 4y ago
> Usually it’s recent hires and people who’ve been there a long stretch who get cut first, of course with lots of exceptions. This was a bit confusing to me. Are you saying in your experience that it is both the most senior and most junior employees (in terms of company tenure) that get laid off?
- VGltZUNvbnN1 4y ago
  Some people just barely do their work but are kept on because they are good for the team/team spirit. I've seen a lot of those people getting axed in 2008.
- daveslash 4y ago
  I entered the job market during the 2008 recession. I definitely experienced the "hired... and..now you're laid off" ~ as the saying goes "when times get tough, last to hire = first to fire". As for laying off senior folks -- I've seen this too; I've seen people who are senior by virtue of just having been there the longest (20+ years) and have had the most pay raises... but don't necessarily contribute as much value as someone who's been there 10 years and costs less. If you're senior and your boss knows* that you're contributing more value add than is reflected by your paycheck -- you won't be let go. * This is one reason why you should be sure to convey your wins to your boss; when you have 1-on-1 conversations, be sure to highlight obstacles that you've overcome. You don't have to brag, but it's okay to be realistic - humble, but proud.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
    > that you're contributing more value add than is reflected by your paycheck -- you won't be let go That's a very optimistic take. What usually happens is that there's an obvious bottom line improvement to laying off a few very senior people, but the impact isn't so obvious, so from the business's perspective it looks like a win. I remember the cognitive dissonance of being an employer's rep at a job fair in 2010 and telling everyone who came up to our booth that I could take resumes, but we weren't hiring! At least I got a free lunch out of it. Businesses don't always do what makes sense from the outside.
    - DLTADragonHawk 4y ago
      This exception wise might be the case but, the cost to performance is probably just less for some senior folks compared to up and coming new people. For instance if i have 10+ year employee who has received 3% cost of living raises + additional performance raises they likely have a cost/performance ratio worse than the A player with 5 years experience who wants to move up. I can promote them for a bump in salary and have someone who hasn't accumulated as much cost overtime with a similar performance. I reduced capacity, improved moral for an A player and cut cost in one decision. There would also be minimal impact moral wise to the remaining organization by hiring within. That's just my take though and I am no authority in the topic.

neoxone 4y ago

You are totally right, I really appreciated their honesty. As mc32 stated, if I was hired, in case of recession as a recent hire I would one of the first ones to go. The PM asked me if I would like to get contacted in the future to continue with the process in case things get better, to which I replied yes. I'll keep an eye on them.

FunnyBadger 4y ago

In 6 months?? I can remember situations in the past where people were hired and then fired 2 weeks later because a contract was lost. Mostly in aerospace/defense industry.

wiredfool 4y ago
The startup I was in in the first bust (2001) hired/relocated people 2 weeks before laying everyone off.
- jedberg 4y ago
  In 2001 I had a friend get a job and then get fired with severance before his start date!
  - zebnyc 4y ago
    That sounds amazing. How do I get in on that ride? :)
    - jedberg 4y ago
      Find a company that thinks it's doing well, tell them you can start in three weeks, and then pray for failure?
      - old_hat 4y ago
        Unfortunately whenever we test intercessory prayer we find that it doesn't work. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16569567/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16569567/

sl9dmk2 4y ago

dougmsmith 4y ago
version_five 4y ago
What's with all the astroturfing for that website? https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=https%3A%2F%2Ftopstartups.io%2F&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
- ZephyrBlu 4y ago
  Definitely looks very suspect.

bergenty 4y ago

Isn’t that pretty great? Get paid for 6 months of relatively light ramp up time and then a few months worth of severance for some time off once fired?

thr0wawayf00 4y ago
No thanks. Spending 6 months getting ramped up and finally productive only to be let go and have to start the search all over again sounds like my nightmare.
no-dr-onboard 4y ago
Sounds like an egoist perspective, which is fine if that's your ideology. I think most people would see this as a loss for the small firm (note that the firms size matters). The cost of an employee is pretty high for small shops and salary is just one of the line items that come with OP's employment. Additionally, severance is rarely offered in positions less than 1 yr, even then it's optional.
PragmaticPulp 4y ago
> Isn’t that pretty great? Get paid for 6 months of relatively light ramp up time and then a few months worth of severance for some time off once fired? Not great at all. For anyone reading your resume in the future, it's impossible to know if you were let go due to no fault of your own, or if you were let go for cause after a probationary period expired. I personally don't hold a single short job against people, but the reality is that having a 6-month job followed by a couple months off on your resume will have a negative impact when some hiring managers read your resume. It's also 6 months (+ time off) that you can't accomplish much of anything because you were ramping up and then had the rug pulled out from under you. Having a 6-12 month setback in your career isn't a huge deal when you've been working for 20 years, but it can be a huge setback for juniors.
- jen20 4y ago
  > For anyone reading your resume in the future, it's impossible to know Just write why on your resume? The dates will check out or not.

GiorgioG 4y ago

Yep. A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away (when I was in college) I worked for a company that did a round of layoffs and they let one of their new AS400 engineers go on their first day of work. Totally unprofessional.

cryptica 4y ago

How is that a good thing? You can earn good money in 6 months. One time I took a 2-week web development job to stand in for someone who left for a holiday while a project was overdue. It was an interesting experience. I wish the economy was more like this; more unpredictable and more focused on deliverables than hours worked.

kergonath 4y ago
> I wish the economy was more like this; more unpredictable and more focused on deliverables than hours worked. That would be fine for single people or couples without children and enough savings to relocate or live on whilst job hunting, but absolutely devastating for everyone else. As if there weren’t enough uncertainty already…
- cryptica 4y ago
  As someone who has a dependent spouse and child, I disagree. You can't cancel the laws of nature. Everyone must participate in the free market on equal terms. When the system makes it artificially easier for one set of people, it artificially makes it harder for a different set of people behind the scenes. If someone can't handle the risk of sustaining themselves and their family in the real world, they shouldn't have children. But of course we need a fair monetary system in order to make it feasible. I can speak from experience that in our pyramid scheme economy propped up by big government and big bank money printing it's extremely difficult to support a child if you're not part of the 'inside crowd' who has access to the easy money (cheap loans, investments and subsidies). It doesn't have to be that way though. But to expect total safety is immoral because it relies on some kind of financial scheme operating behind the scenes. You can't create any real value in this world without taking a risk. If you're not taking any risks, you're not creating any value. Nobody owes it to you to support your children; especially if it means that they themselves can't afford to support their own children by participating in the free market.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
Most people would rather spend a little bit longer looking to avoid a job reset. First, the job market could be worse in 6 months. Secondly, any extra work that you put into onboard and ingratiate yourself with colleagues is wasted