4 ms·

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,

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
    It is not a win for the company to have low performers stay and high performers leave. > 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. Yeah, because they don't know they will be fired. They aren't angry employees. Laid off employees are angry. Let's talk about being obtuse.
- kyawzazaw 4y ago
  Voluntary layoffs has happened before in other companies.
  - ergocoder 4y ago
    I didn't say it never happened before. I say it is a bad idea.
- IanPBann 4y ago
  I have to disagree with your opinion on voluntary layoffs. Here in the UK an employer has to inform the government and go through a mandatory redundancy process when laying off more than a given number of employees (I think it's 100 off the top of my head). At my last role I was put at risk of redundancy and went through the process. One of the first steps of that process was offering voluntary redundancy which had a higher redundancy package than if you received compulsory redundancy. If someone was considering leaving, or was close to retirement leaving voluntarily gave them the opportunity to leave early and with a nice payout. Or if you had skills high in demand it gave you the opportunity to get a lump sum and walk into a new job. This significantly reduced the need for the company to make compulsory redundancies.
  - ergocoder 4y ago
    Your point doesn't contradict mine though. It is a bad idea for the company to do voluntary layoff. Your point focuses entirely on what is good for employees, which is unrealistic. Companies do what is good for themselves, not employees. Sometimes they overlap, but sometimes they don't.
sharkweek 4y ago
I have one friend at Stripe who, after the rumors started swirling that this was coming, was hoping they were going to get laid off today (they didn't), so now they're stuck in a job they don't want anymore, but don't have the headspace to effectively job hunt right now. Imagine a world where the company had offered them the opportunity to quit with a buy out package, probably quite a bit healthier of a situation for all involved given this person's abysmal morale in their current role. I see the "get paid to quit" trend from time to time and I think it's a great idea.
- pm90 4y ago
  Yeah layoffs impact not just the people that leave but also those that remain. The ones that leave at least have the opportunity to move on. The people left have to worry both about the layoffs and also need to work harder. Its a bad situation but at least the people laid off can move on.
baq 4y ago
This is a very good way to destroy a company: every top performer will jump ship in the week (or 15 minutes if it's still an employee's market) she catches wind of the purge.
FinalBriefing 4y ago
I've worked at a company that did this. Not fun. You basically have a bunch of employees who know their job is going to end...waiting for it to end. Mentally, you're checked out. You're not going to produce your best work for your company and it becomes a struggle to stay engaged. That's my experience, anyway. The better approach for everyone is to _maybe_ give 1-2 weeks warning so everyone can wrap up what they're working on, then give fair severance packages when the day comes.

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
  It is not a win for the company to have low performers stay and high performers leave. > 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. Yeah, because they don't know they will be fired. They aren't angry employees. Laid off employees are angry. Let's talk about being obtuse.
kyawzazaw 4y ago
Voluntary layoffs has happened before in other companies.
- ergocoder 4y ago
  I didn't say it never happened before. I say it is a bad idea.
IanPBann 4y ago
I have to disagree with your opinion on voluntary layoffs. Here in the UK an employer has to inform the government and go through a mandatory redundancy process when laying off more than a given number of employees (I think it's 100 off the top of my head). At my last role I was put at risk of redundancy and went through the process. One of the first steps of that process was offering voluntary redundancy which had a higher redundancy package than if you received compulsory redundancy. If someone was considering leaving, or was close to retirement leaving voluntarily gave them the opportunity to leave early and with a nice payout. Or if you had skills high in demand it gave you the opportunity to get a lump sum and walk into a new job. This significantly reduced the need for the company to make compulsory redundancies.
- ergocoder 4y ago
  Your point doesn't contradict mine though. It is a bad idea for the company to do voluntary layoff. Your point focuses entirely on what is good for employees, which is unrealistic. Companies do what is good for themselves, not employees. Sometimes they overlap, but sometimes they don't.

sharkweek 4y ago

I have one friend at Stripe who, after the rumors started swirling that this was coming, was hoping they were going to get laid off today (they didn't), so now they're stuck in a job they don't want anymore, but don't have the headspace to effectively job hunt right now. Imagine a world where the company had offered them the opportunity to quit with a buy out package, probably quite a bit healthier of a situation for all involved given this person's abysmal morale in their current role. I see the "get paid to quit" trend from time to time and I think it's a great idea.

pm90 4y ago
Yeah layoffs impact not just the people that leave but also those that remain. The ones that leave at least have the opportunity to move on. The people left have to worry both about the layoffs and also need to work harder. Its a bad situation but at least the people laid off can move on.

baq 4y ago

This is a very good way to destroy a company: every top performer will jump ship in the week (or 15 minutes if it's still an employee's market) she catches wind of the purge.

FinalBriefing 4y ago

I've worked at a company that did this. Not fun. You basically have a bunch of employees who know their job is going to end...waiting for it to end. Mentally, you're checked out. You're not going to produce your best work for your company and it becomes a struggle to stay engaged. That's my experience, anyway. The better approach for everyone is to _maybe_ give 1-2 weeks warning so everyone can wrap up what they're working on, then give fair severance packages when the day comes.