4 ms·

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

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.

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.