5 ms·

The problem with that is that in some cases there's really nothing else someone can do. If they are a recruiter, and the company is no longer hiring, keeping t

The problem with that is that in some cases there's really nothing else someone can do. If they are a recruiter, and the company is no longer hiring, keeping that person around doesn't help anyone, including that person. Honestly the way Stripe is handling this seems pretty good. They are telling you now that you have until March to find a new job. They are essentially doing what you suggest, without making them come to work, by essentially paying them until March. And some of them will probably get rehired as Stripe opens up new recs. Chances are the former employees will have a fast track into the new positions as they open up. What you suggest is basically to just drag out the inevitable to the detriment of both the company and the employee.

whimsicalism 4y ago
> keeping that person around doesn't help anyone, including that person. Seems to me it obviously helps that person, but I generally don't understand corporate-speak so I might be missing something.
- theptip 4y ago
  It’s better to get generous severance than to have to come in and do bullshit made-up work.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    At any time, you could choose not to do it and instead search for other jobs with basically the same result.
    - nyuszika7h 4y ago
      no, you'll be worse off if you do that because then you won't get severance. especially if you're not able to quickly land another job.
      - whimsicalism 4y ago
        They generally won't be able to fire you fast enough that it compares unfavorably with severance + you will get unemployment.
        nyuszika7h 4y ago
        ok yeah true i forgot about unemployment
  - jasmer 4y ago
    Yeah, no, this is a privileged position. Even if I might opt to take that posture myself, it's not a normal position. Most people have a need for an income and also, don't hugely differentiate between their work being BS or not. Also, many people who think they are not doing BS work, might very well be doing BS work. Most people have families, responsibilities, children, parents that need support, mortgage payments, car payments, healthcare needs etc. - and work for the money, not some notion of 'impact'. They generally want their jobs.
- jedberg 4y ago
  If you keep someone on board with the intention of letting them go later, you do them a disservice by making them think they have a steady job. It stops them from looking for something else and missing possible opportunities. If you tell them you will fire them, then you do them a disservice wasting their time if you don't expect them to work anyway. That's why a severance payment makes sense. Pay them what they would have been paid but don't make them work.
- BoorishBears 4y ago
  You'd rather stay at a dead-end position until a lack of money forces you to be laid off by a broke company that can't afford cushy terms? The alternative is being fired early, given several months of pay, months of free healthcare, early grants, help if you're an H1B holder, and help from your old company in getting a new job... There are bad layoffs and there are ok layoffs, I'd say this is an ok one.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    Seems like the option of continuing to "work" for your employer while finding another job is net better than that option. And good luck finding another job if you are a recruiter right now.
    - BoorishBears 4y ago
      > Seems like the option of continuing to "work" for your employer while finding another job is net better than that option. I guess it depends on the person. My mental health would be 100% better knowing I have guaranteed income for X months and can freely spend my time working on getting a job and decompressing. As opposed to knowing I'm on a sinking ship but still having to half-ass 8 hour days for appearances. Also recruiters who have been let go now are in a way better place than recruiters who are on ghost ships right now and will be let go deeper in the thick of the brewing storm...
  - jasmer 4y ago
    I loathe to hint to you that 90% of jobs are 'dead end jobs'. There is no 'promotion' waiting for you arbitrarily. It's a steep hierarchy and most people don't want to perform to compete. Moreover, in a downturn, it's rare that people are going to just jump off to a promotion, and rolling the dice is quite risky. Responsibilities, family, mortgages, etc.. I think a lot of the posture here is coming from young people in tech jobs who have a somewhat different situation than others, and, who might not realize how much risk is involved here. It's almost always better to have the option to keep a job than not. If people don't want to stay they can leave.
jesuscript 4y ago
This might sound wild, but maybe the decent thing to do is if the company warns the team months in advance that a purge is coming. Let those who need to leave, leave. Quietly tell those who you really want to remain that they should not fear.
- ergocoder 4y ago
  It does sound wild. Letting people who are likely angry having access to company resources and financials being able to make real damages to Stripe's customers. Companies want to keep high performers. Voluntary layoffs is a very dumb move.
  - vorador 4y ago
    This is such an adversarial read of things. Some companies do offer employees to quit in exchange for some compensation. It's win-win, the company reduces costs and the employee doesn't work at a place they don't want to be at. The whole "the employee can cause damage to the company" view is ridiculous – guess what, the employee can already do damage to the company while employed there, yet they don't.
    - jesuscript 4y ago
      Furthermore, imagine if someone unknowingly embarks on a major step in life like buying a home, getting married, pregnant, moving, etc, and boom this hammer drops. You live on your toes if this is how the companies behave.
      - ergocoder 4y ago
        Companies always behave this way. Companies do what is best for themselves, and sometimes it benefits both companies and employees. In the case of layoff, the company wouldn't be benefit at all if low performers stay and high performers leave. Actually the company might collapse.
    - ergocoder 4y ago
jasmer 4y ago
It's important to understand that growing companies are not laying off because they have 'nothing for staff to do'. This isn't likely a situation of 'Ford Motorcars had a bad 3 quarters, and sales forecasts are way down, we have to close two plants'. They are laying off to improve efficiencies on paper, capture some excess value created by those staffers (hey - you built that thing, great, bye, don't need you! For now ...), and likely to bulk up the balance sheet before a transaction, like an IPO etc. - and as an excuse to get rid of what they perceive to be lower performing staff (who may or may not be adding value). It's a supposed 'optimization' not a 'necessary' thing. I suggest that in these scenarios, that there could be better alternatives, if we put our heads together and thought about it a bit.
- austhrow743 4y ago
  The whole company is an optimisation thing not a necessary thing.
  - jasmer 4y ago
    Optimizing for what, and in who's interests? From the perspective of those who are not shareholders, corporations are just a means of providing some service - even those that are 'necessary'. It's odd that so many people fight so hard for the 'freedom and rights' of fairly powerful interests, systems which they will never be a part of or benefit from, and which regularly act against their own interests. There are multiple stakeholders at play, the arbitrary posture of 'optimization for capital' is worse than naive in 2022, we've been through these experiments by now. There are better ways; we're not even trying.

whimsicalism 4y ago

> keeping that person around doesn't help anyone, including that person. Seems to me it obviously helps that person, but I generally don't understand corporate-speak so I might be missing something.

theptip 4y ago
It’s better to get generous severance than to have to come in and do bullshit made-up work.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  At any time, you could choose not to do it and instead search for other jobs with basically the same result.
  - nyuszika7h 4y ago
    no, you'll be worse off if you do that because then you won't get severance. especially if you're not able to quickly land another job.
    - whimsicalism 4y ago
      They generally won't be able to fire you fast enough that it compares unfavorably with severance + you will get unemployment.
      - nyuszika7h 4y ago
        ok yeah true i forgot about unemployment
- jasmer 4y ago
  Yeah, no, this is a privileged position. Even if I might opt to take that posture myself, it's not a normal position. Most people have a need for an income and also, don't hugely differentiate between their work being BS or not. Also, many people who think they are not doing BS work, might very well be doing BS work. Most people have families, responsibilities, children, parents that need support, mortgage payments, car payments, healthcare needs etc. - and work for the money, not some notion of 'impact'. They generally want their jobs.
jedberg 4y ago
If you keep someone on board with the intention of letting them go later, you do them a disservice by making them think they have a steady job. It stops them from looking for something else and missing possible opportunities. If you tell them you will fire them, then you do them a disservice wasting their time if you don't expect them to work anyway. That's why a severance payment makes sense. Pay them what they would have been paid but don't make them work.
BoorishBears 4y ago
You'd rather stay at a dead-end position until a lack of money forces you to be laid off by a broke company that can't afford cushy terms? The alternative is being fired early, given several months of pay, months of free healthcare, early grants, help if you're an H1B holder, and help from your old company in getting a new job... There are bad layoffs and there are ok layoffs, I'd say this is an ok one.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  Seems like the option of continuing to "work" for your employer while finding another job is net better than that option. And good luck finding another job if you are a recruiter right now.
  - BoorishBears 4y ago
    > Seems like the option of continuing to "work" for your employer while finding another job is net better than that option. I guess it depends on the person. My mental health would be 100% better knowing I have guaranteed income for X months and can freely spend my time working on getting a job and decompressing. As opposed to knowing I'm on a sinking ship but still having to half-ass 8 hour days for appearances. Also recruiters who have been let go now are in a way better place than recruiters who are on ghost ships right now and will be let go deeper in the thick of the brewing storm...
- jasmer 4y ago
  I loathe to hint to you that 90% of jobs are 'dead end jobs'. There is no 'promotion' waiting for you arbitrarily. It's a steep hierarchy and most people don't want to perform to compete. Moreover, in a downturn, it's rare that people are going to just jump off to a promotion, and rolling the dice is quite risky. Responsibilities, family, mortgages, etc.. I think a lot of the posture here is coming from young people in tech jobs who have a somewhat different situation than others, and, who might not realize how much risk is involved here. It's almost always better to have the option to keep a job than not. If people don't want to stay they can leave.

jesuscript 4y ago

This might sound wild, but maybe the decent thing to do is if the company warns the team months in advance that a purge is coming. Let those who need to leave, leave. Quietly tell those who you really want to remain that they should not fear.

ergocoder 4y ago
It does sound wild. Letting people who are likely angry having access to company resources and financials being able to make real damages to Stripe's customers. Companies want to keep high performers. Voluntary layoffs is a very dumb move.
- vorador 4y ago
  This is such an adversarial read of things. Some companies do offer employees to quit in exchange for some compensation. It's win-win, the company reduces costs and the employee doesn't work at a place they don't want to be at. The whole "the employee can cause damage to the company" view is ridiculous – guess what, the employee can already do damage to the company while employed there, yet they don't.
  - jesuscript 4y ago
    Furthermore, imagine if someone unknowingly embarks on a major step in life like buying a home, getting married, pregnant, moving, etc, and boom this hammer drops. You live on your toes if this is how the companies behave.
    - ergocoder 4y ago
      Companies always behave this way. Companies do what is best for themselves, and sometimes it benefits both companies and employees. In the case of layoff, the company wouldn't be benefit at all if low performers stay and high performers leave. Actually the company might collapse.
  - ergocoder 4y ago

jasmer 4y ago

It's important to understand that growing companies are not laying off because they have 'nothing for staff to do'. This isn't likely a situation of 'Ford Motorcars had a bad 3 quarters, and sales forecasts are way down, we have to close two plants'. They are laying off to improve efficiencies on paper, capture some excess value created by those staffers (hey - you built that thing, great, bye, don't need you! For now ...), and likely to bulk up the balance sheet before a transaction, like an IPO etc. - and as an excuse to get rid of what they perceive to be lower performing staff (who may or may not be adding value). It's a supposed 'optimization' not a 'necessary' thing. I suggest that in these scenarios, that there could be better alternatives, if we put our heads together and thought about it a bit.

austhrow743 4y ago
The whole company is an optimisation thing not a necessary thing.
- jasmer 4y ago
  Optimizing for what, and in who's interests? From the perspective of those who are not shareholders, corporations are just a means of providing some service - even those that are 'necessary'. It's odd that so many people fight so hard for the 'freedom and rights' of fairly powerful interests, systems which they will never be a part of or benefit from, and which regularly act against their own interests. There are multiple stakeholders at play, the arbitrary posture of 'optimization for capital' is worse than naive in 2022, we've been through these experiments by now. There are better ways; we're not even trying.