9 ms·

Dear Floofernistas, This is the hardest thing I have ever done. The market changed - I thought we would make more money, now I think we will make less money. T

• dougmwne 4y ago
  And BTW, I take full responsibility for everything, which means nothing.
  • hinkley 4y ago
    Narcissists think the worst punishment in the world is having to admit they were wrong about something. Not cleaning up their messes, of course. That’s still on everybody else. They’re too busy contending with this harsh reality of not being right all the time. Which means if anyone says they take full responsibility, they’re either saying “I’m a big fat narcissist” or that they imprinted on narcissists, so all of their mentors were.
    • bobmaxup 4y ago
      > Which means if anyone says they take full responsibility, they’re either saying “I’m a big fat narcissist” or that they imprinted on narcissists, so all of their mentors were. Kind of a stretch, no?
      • hinkley 4y ago
        Grandparent talks about how taking responsibility means nothing. That’s what I was referring to. When’s the last time you saw someone actually take responsibility? When it’s a teen pregnancy or injuring a pedestrian, we know what “taking responsibility” means. For layoffs there are no actions, no alteration of life paths. Even the money for severance really comes out of someone else’s pockets. It means nothing for the person saying it. Everyone else suffers the consequences, not the speaker. Claiming you’re to blame is the only penance. That only makes sense to people who won’t normally do that. Which is people who think in narcissistic personality traits are normal. IE narcissists and people they groomed.
        • deleted 4y ago
          [deleted]
          • hinkley 4y ago
            It’s not unheard of, but I wouldn’t say common. “Not uncommon” is not the same as common. In any case their actions speak louder than words. They don’t need to say they take responsibility. They’ve shown that they have. In many cases they either don’t say it at all, or it doesn’t stick with us because the actions spoke louder than words. If it’s just words then the words are what we remember. That said, once you’re gone it’s someone else’s problem to clean up your mess. Bailing is also antisocial behavior. Not necessarily narcissistic, but not healthy.
        • elmomle 4y ago
          To be clear, _saying_ that one takes full responsibility without further action means nothing. Responsibility for a bad thing means that you are ultimately to blame, so if you take responsibility, you should either step down or present a detailed action plan. Otherwise you're saying "I messed this up and I also don't know how to fix it but I don't intend to stop being the leader"--which is (ironically) a very irresponsible stance.
      • idontpost 4y ago
      • toss1 4y ago
        >>Kind of a stretch, no? Nope. Not unless there are actions to backup the words. Some kind of actual sacrifice that helps actually cleanup the mess. E.g., do the CEO & Execs give back all bonuses and substantial salary for the past X years these bad decision were made, and keep working for $1/year until they are fixed? Do the CEO & Execs personally make calls using their own personal & professional capital to find new jobs for those they are firing? If not, it is just performative bullshirt.
        • hinkley 4y ago
          Strangely Steve Jobs did in fact work for $1 a year. A couple others have as well. Might be why he’s one of the most highly regarded narcissists. He was smart enough to intellectually understand why was better off delaying his gratification to build morale, even if intuition and empathy didn’t tell him this instantly.
  • bluehatbrit 4y ago
    "I take full responsibility! But I'll still be keeping my job, pay, and maybe getting a bonus for making this difficult decision to maintain our stock value."
    • hinkley 4y ago
      Bo Burnham: We used to have all the money and land. We still do, but it’s not as fun now.
  • xivzgrev 4y ago
    To me it means something. To write to the world that you made a mistake and you were responsible takes courage. It may lead to change. It may not. But it’s important part of normal apologies. I suspect what you are missing is specific action - what is this person specifically going to do differently?
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • otikik 4y ago
      Responsibility implies consequences. “I take responsibility, so I’m returning my dividends from the last two years and making my salary 0 until things improve”
      • Leherenn 4y ago
        Plaid doesn't pay dividends and his salary is most likely peanuts compared to his shares in the company, whose valuation just tanked.
        • otikik 4y ago
          That’s not the point. The point is that “I take responsibility” is like “You all have my thoughts and prayers”. All talk, no substance. It’s better to say nothing than to say empty things, when people are losing their jobs.
      • subradios 4y ago
        Would this move the needle on layoffs or the business or merely satisfy a desire for moral dessert? One team of engineers costs between one and three million dollars a year.
        • otikik 4y ago
          Not a native English speaker here. I’m not familiar with the expression “moral dessert”, but it sounds bad. I will try to explain. Words are important. “I take full responsibility” means what, exactly? To me it sounds incomplete. Like the phrase “you are very important to me”. There’s something missing there. “You are very important to me, so I will make sure this doesn’t happen again”. Or, “I will try to flush the toilet after I pee on it”. Something. Ok, you take full responsibility, so what?
  • cjglo 4y ago
    In the words of Gavin Belson: “Make no mistake, though they are the ones leaving, it is I who must remain and endure the heavy burden of their failure.”
    • soco 4y ago
      "Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make." - Lord Farqaad.
    • satvikpendem 4y ago
      "Goodbyes are always hard, especially when I am the one saying goodbye. Today, effective immediately, I, Gavin Belson, founder and CEO of Hooli, am forced to officially say goodbye...to the entire Nucleus division. But make no mistake, though they are the ones leaving, it is I who must remain and bear the heavy burden of their failure. It is my fault, I trusted them to get the job done, but that is the price of leadership." Incredible writing by Mike Judge and co, it's satire that's literally too real sometimes.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• ahstilde 4y ago
  what else needs to be said?
• personjerry 4y ago
  The money isn't for the internet to be satisfied. It's to signal to the remaining employees that the company will take care of you.
  • hinkley 4y ago
    It’s not true though. I’ve been through a few boom bust cycles. In fact I’ve been caught twice in the same cycle. Now I tell people that it’s better off to be in the first round. First, no survivor’s guilt for you. Also the company still has money to match the guilt they feel for you. I’ve only ever felt “taken care of” in first round layoffs, and most of the people I talk to during those times feel the same. In fact my stance on this is borrowed from several peers who had a much more philosophical perspective on their being laid off than I did about them being laid off. How can you be so calm when I’m freaking out? A decent severance definitely helps, and the prospect of not being stuck fire fighting while short staffed certainly doesn’t hurt.
• ivraatiems 4y ago
  What's incredible is how much better these messages are than some of the earlier attempts we saw, which were cloaked in business-speak to the point where what was happening was totally unclear. There were also some companies that tried to just do it with no formal announcement. That generally went poorly.
  • bombcar 4y ago
    Companies have definitely improved, remember people being laid off via Zoom calls?
• aperson_hello 4y ago
  What's the better response here? (Other than not over-hiring in the first place).
  • 1234letshaveatw 4y ago
    Certainly not referring to the people that just lost their jobs as "Plaids". Yuck
    • stu2b50 4y ago
      Why? That seems entirely innocuous?
      • function_seven 4y ago
        I'll try to explain why I think it's gross. All of these tech companies come up with cutesy terms for employees. "Googlers", "Plaids", "Metamates", "Splunkers", "Pinployees". It seems like a cheap way of tying workers' identities to The Company. It's a cheap gesture used in an attempt to create a distinct "culture". So in the context of a mass-termination, it really rubs me the wrong way to refer to these people as "Plaids". They're clearly not that, because you're sending them packing! Lets get back to identifying our personnel with real terms. Employee, technician, associate, etc. EDIT: NYTimes does a good job with this: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/16/technology/metamates-googlers.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/16/technology/metamates-goog...
        • stu2b50 4y ago
          Having worked at tech companies with cutesy employee nicknames, I really think that's overthinking it. It is probably a way to try to have more corporate unity, but it does not do so to a noticeable extent. And IMO it's more about tech companies trying to capture the whimsy of early Google - it's trying to have the vibe of "hey, it's a casual place - we call ourselves a stupid, silly nickname in our stupid, silly named company, as opposed to [Name] and [Name] corp." It worked better with Google, because Googler, and Noogler are extra ridiculous, but that's pretty much it. I can guarantee you that the letter referred to Plaid employees as "Plaids" is quite literally the last thing on the minds of any current or ex Plaid employees. It's not that big of a deal. It's not particularly dehumanizing, nor brainwashing. It's mildly cringy, half by design, but that's about it.
• jacobmarble 4y ago
  Is it the company's responsibility to employ people until it runs out of money? Are you certain that "here is some money" is just to keep the internet anger at bay? Do companies exist to protect their employees, or to provide something useful for their customers?
  • notch656a 4y ago
    > Do companies exist to protect their employees, or to provide something useful for their customers? Neither. They exist to benefit their shareholders/owners. That's it.
    • disgruntledphd2 4y ago
      It's funny how organisations literally given legal status by states to accomplish things are no regarded as only responsible for their investors.
  • MajimasEyepatch 4y ago
    > Do companies exist to protect their employees, or to provide something useful for their customers? Investors will tell you companies exist to return value to shareholders. The customers and employees are just a means to that end.
    • jacobmarble 4y ago
      Yes, that's a good point.
  • lovich 4y ago
    A lot of us who’ve done this long enough know what the reality is, but companies always like to pretend “we’re a family” to manipulate their employees into working harder. Especially in tech where there’s a long history of company’s saying their values are lofty goals like “don’t be evil” when it’s really “make me, the founder, fabulously wealthy”. You shouldn’t be surprised at people being legitimately angry everytime this type of hypocrisy comes up
  • 4y ago
• game_the0ry 4y ago
  In the chimpanzee world, this would be handled differently. In chimp world, when alpha chimp causes chaos that brings down the community, a group of beta chimps will tear apart alpha chimp limb-by-limb, then they elect a new alpha from the group of beta subversives. This also how the organized crime works - leaders get a lot of benefits, but they also get the downside accountability when they fuck up ("skin in the game"). In modern corporate america, this relationship is broken - when CEO fucks up, he just fires a bunch of people, and then collects the bonus at the end of year in the for of stock performance (layoffs are to maintain stock performance). This is why finds the half-hearted apologies to be hollow and unpalatable. Let us bring back accountability. Apes. Together. Strong.
  • __alexs 4y ago
    You have the analogy wrong though. The other apes in the corporate world are the shareholders, not the employees. The employees are the sticks the chimps use to dig up termites.
    • Waterluvian 4y ago
      But the employees are faaaaaaaamily … …until they’re inconvenient. Then we give them some supplies and dump them at the local fire station.
      • Giorgi 4y ago
        What is your solution? Burn trough money by paying some people that you don't need and then leave everyone unemployed? They are not inconvenient they are not needed anymore. At least they get some supplies. Most of the world don't get jack.
        • UncleMeat 4y ago
          What does "don't need" mean? The solution is to have employees at least have some seat at the table for this process. How are layoffs chosen? How are severance benefits chosen? We are currently seeing generous severance benefits at most of these companies, but absolutely nothing guarantees this. The solution is that when the CEO wants to lay off 15% of the company they go to the employees and say "okay, we need to lay off 15% of the company, let's work together to find the best way to do this."
• glonq 4y ago
  "Signed, rich guy who hopes that shareholders react positively to these layoffs"
  • jacobmarble 4y ago
    Signed, guy who - is trying to build a useful product - thought he might be rich by now - turns out to be worth nothing until profit turns black - is facing the downside of a free market economy - is having one of the worst days of his/her life - will be forgotten by the internet (again) in about 2 days
    • mynameisvlad 4y ago
      > is having one of the worst days of his/her life Oh no, how sad. <Insert Woody Harrelson wiping tears with money gif here> Pretty sure the people being laid off are having far worse days than the person who gasp had to write a letter.
      • jdnffjvnv 4y ago
        They all received very generous severance packages. Pretty sure most who were laid off in this economy have had far worse days.
        • hinkley 4y ago
          If half of us have less than five years of experience, you’re at least half wrong. I have a young friend who’s being forced out of her first real gig. She is not handling it well. She’s moving halfway across the country to work in an industry that I think is going to harm her emotionally. But you can offer advice and if they don’t take it there’s nothing to can for them except be supportive. Some lessons get learned the hard way. There are going to be a lot of young people and other folks without a nest egg freaking the fuck out even with the severance.
      • nunez 4y ago
        i mean sure, yeah, they're maybe cash-rich, but firing people still sucks unless you're inhuman. knowingly upending hundreds of lives and families who are less financially secure during a not-recession-recession and a slow hiring market must be emotionally difficult to deal with.
• adamrezich 4y ago
  aside from the funny proper noun, how should things be handled differently? why do people think that corporations' primary goal should be to maintain employment of everyone in their company, that there's some sort of moral imperative to do so? is this just because social media has been pretending that corporations are people for so long now that we've forgot that they actually aren't?
  • adamesque 4y ago
    I think people are increasingly uncomfortable seeing the price for strategic errors not being paid at all by the people responsible for those errors. It's tricky because I don't necessarily think the CEO should be fired, but it feels like the chain of accountability is broken.
  • bink 4y ago
    This is a pretty cynical take on the idea of retaining qualified employees during a downturn. When I hear people talk about doing what you can to not have mass layoffs I don't think what they mean is that the company has an obligation to the employees that overrides their obligations to their shareholders. The way I read it is that people are saying that retaining good employees is beneficial to the company and the shareholders compared to the morale hit of a mass layoff. If companies are using mass layoffs to get rid of the "chaff", so to speak, then they have a management problem. Maybe all these companies performing mass layoffs do really have a management problem and hired way more than they should have. But if that's the case maybe the first step is to rectify the management problem rather than to layoff 10-20% of the staff. There really isn't a way that can be done smartly so that you retain the best people and don't destroy morale, effectively harming the shareholders in the long term.
    • adamrezich 4y ago
      > the morale hit of a mass layoff. this is really hard to quantify, especially when it's increasingly becoming standard operating procedure across the industry.
    • palunon 4y ago
• lezojeda 4y ago
  I honestly think they are starting to use a template or a generated text via some kind of service like ChatGPT
• hindsightbias 4y ago
  Perhaps we should add a layoff role-playing game to school programs. Not sure which age group to start with, probably before or after junior high. It’s important for our future kinderflooferistas to be fully prepared for the stark hellscapes they face.
• mi_lk 4y ago
  You can certainly find a pattern from these tech layoff announcements, but also it touches almost everything? what would you do otherwise though
• mrjaeger 4y ago
  Reminds me of Connor Roy's funeral speech from Succession https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEdOB9OIh70 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEdOB9OIh70
  • hinkley 4y ago
    Oh my god. Haven’t watched the show, but that feels more like the wedding speech in Sherlock (“high functioning sociopath”).
• dimmke 4y ago
  I hate Plaid as a company and I chortled at this. The next tech boom may not include any sort of unionizing, but I feel like we should all agree that tech companies don't get to pick "fun" names to call their employees and make that the line we draw in the sand.
  • bink 4y ago
    Out of curiousity, why do you have Plaid? They were pretty aggressively recruiting over the past year and while I didn't respond I was tempted to at least look into them.
    • tacticalturtle 4y ago
      Not OP, but the idea of trusting Plaid to safely store the username and password to my bank account (ie, one of the most sensitive online accounts that I have) seems too risky to tolerate. I also suspect it’s a violation of my bank’s terms of service, and in event of a data breach I’d be out of luck
      • dimmke 4y ago
        Basically this, and the fact that so many other fintech companies try to act like the only possible option is to use Plaid (seriously, a lot of them will only let you connect accounts via Plaid.) It's already a service I don't trust, and the attempt of other companies to force me to use it has made me dislike it even more.
• ApolloFortyNine 4y ago
  I don't get this sentiment that's been picking up around here, the company literally does not have to provide you severance, and in this case it's 16 weeks pay. That's 4 months to find another job, and you're being paid to do it! Companies aren't these charitable job factories you make them out to be, they're trying to make money. And in this case, they messed up. Any ideas what they should have done better? I mean I guess personally 10 years pay would be nice, wouldn't it?
  • nytesky 4y ago
    I thought companies had to provide 60 days warning (the WARNS act?), so half would be the minimum required by law. Or they could notify people of layoffs 60 days ahead, giving people ample time to look for new jobs, plan accordingly, perhaps leave early AND give severance (which was the original intent of the law I expect).
• allsunny 4y ago
  This is the essence of it. It would be interesting if someone smarter than me put this through ChatGPT. I wonder how it might message it better.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• koliber 4y ago
  If you were the CEO of a company that needs to lay people off, how would you handle it differently.
  • Yhippa 4y ago
    Fall on the sword (i.e. resign, give money back) along with these folks being fired.
    • koliber 4y ago
      Have you ever guessed the future wrong in your personal life? Did falling on your sword help you and others in any way?
      • UncleMeat 4y ago
        CEOs resigning or otherwise experiencing a lot of pain does not help the people being laid off. But if it becomes a cultural norm then CEOs in the future may be less likely to take steps that lead to layoffs. Consider a more extreme example of the justice system. Putting somebody in prison doesn't undo the crime they committed. But deterrence is considered to be a reasonable argument for criminal punishment.
• jvolkman 4y ago
  I asked ChatGPT and it was close. > Write a letter from the CEO of a company called Floof where employees are called Floofernistas about the lay off of 5000 employees. <<< Dear Floofernistas, It is with great sadness that I must announce that Floof will be laying off 5000 of our beloved Floofernistas. This decision was not made lightly, and it is with a heavy heart that we must part ways with so many valued members of our team. Please know that this decision was not a reflection of your hard work and dedication to Floof. Each and every one of you has contributed to the success of our company, and we are grateful for your contributions. Unfortunately, external factors have forced us to make this difficult decision. Rest assured that we will be providing severance packages and job placement assistance to help you through this transition. We are committed to supporting you during this difficult time. Thank you for being a part of the Floof family. We will always be grateful for your hard work and dedication, and we wish you the very best in your future endeavors. Sincerely, [CEO of Floof]
• nsonha 4y ago
  well somebody has to say this or lame asses like you just keep thinking that your entitlement is actually reasonable, I've seen too many of you here on HN. Employment goes two way, you are free to leave the company and they are free to fire you, whenever they feel like. The fact that they shouldn't have hired you in the first place or that they are still making profit is irrelevant.