5 ms·

I get that layoffs seriously are terrible but a lot of these tech companies are providing some pretty seriously nice exit packages. I fail to understand the am

I get that layoffs seriously are terrible but a lot of these tech companies are providing some pretty seriously nice exit packages. I fail to understand the amount of acid in the comment thread? Layoffs suck, corporate speak is always cringey. What would people want as alternatives outside perfectly executed business plans that don't have layoffs? Handheld individual exit goodbye packages? Im seriously asking for legit solutions.

nine_zeros 4y ago
> Im seriously asking for legit solutions. A few months of director+ level pay cut before layoffs. A few C-level folks taking pay and stock cut to retain employees before layoffs. When layoffs come, fire the bad decision makers before rank and file.
- cortesoft 4y ago
  They are laying off 260 employees. Lets say they average $100k in salary. The rule is generally that the cost to a company is 1.4x the salary, so $140,000 per employee. That is $36.4 million dollars. At a place like Plaid, I am guessing even cutting C-level salaries to zero wouldn't put much of a dent in that amount... and you still need someone to lead the ship.
- stu2b50 4y ago
  That wouldn’t accomplish anything but symbolically (which some companies have done, eg Chesky reducing his salary to 0 during the AirBnB layoffs). In the end director+ level comp is a drop in the bucket to the bottom line. It buys no time. Always firing the CEO when they make bets that don’t turn out just causes corporate stagnation since executives will always take the safe option if those are the incentives.
time_to_smile 4y ago
> perfectly executed business plans that don't have layoffs? Plaid was actively recruiting 2 weeks ago. In spring I (and many other people) knew these types of layoffs where coming to tech this fall, the current economic situation was not some unforeseeable event. Nobody in their right mind thought the early pandemic rapid growth was healthy or sustainable. Growth for growth's sake has always been a ridiculous strategy. This isn't a case of "less than perfect" business plans, this is people ignoring every macro economic indicator and running the ship full steam a head when this is clearly reckless behavior. The frustration is because this reckless behavior always has consequences for someone else, which is why it continues.
- y-c-o-m-b 4y ago
  I think there's a shared responsibility here by both employer and employee to ensure long term employment. This is not to negate your points, because I think your points are definitely valid and the company going full-steam ahead is absolutely reckless. Having been laid off a couple of times during the great recession era, I never ever take a job without first analyzing the likelihood of a layoff to occur and how it would impact my role. I have a list of interview questions I ask potential employers and the bulk of it is around how they handled lay-offs in the past and how they will handle them in the future. I ask about cash reserves for such situations and I ask about how they handle growth. Asking these things will give you some idea of the shit show that will appear sooner or later. You're right; market conditions are unpredictable and there's so much speculation that it's difficult to gauge where things will go in 2-5 years, so you should always plan for an economic down-turn scenario regardless of how rosy things look at the time of employment. All of that being said, this is still a relatively solid lay-off plan and I think the bashing is a bit on the harsh side considering the outcome here. Nowhere is safe right now and if you think it is, you're going to have a bad time.
sct202 4y ago
I've been thru a lot of layoffs and these posts would honestly be the last thing I would worry about. The worst ones I've been thru are the secret layoffs where a handful of people just disappear one day and everyone left just whispers about it because if we were supposed to know details the overlords would have said something and no one wants to be next by speaking out.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Yeah, mass layoffs are bad and annoying, but at least they're (usually) one and done and over with and you move along with your life. The worst is when the company is struggling along and you're never quite sure if you should cut and run and people are disappearing every few weeks like some bad horror movie.
- bdavis__ 4y ago
  That's called a Tony Soprano layoff. HR comes to the employees cubicle at lunch, two silenced shots to the head, and they drag out the body. Nobody sees nothing. But everyone talks about it, and says "why isn't management honest with us?"
Mistletoe 4y ago
I think the vitriol is more tied to the founder model of get as big as you can, as fast as you can, by hiring as many as you can, so that the valuations keep getting bigger and bigger so you can cash out. Then you cut loose all the people you know you didn’t actually need.
- jamiequint 4y ago
  This is a strawman. Nobody operates this way. You don't raise more money by hiring more people. In some markets you raise more by making more revenue even if unprofitable, which is not great but is very different than raising as a function of number of employees.
  - ShamelessC 4y ago
    It’s not a straw man, you’re just debating the least charitable interpretation. It is true that VC-backed tech startups hire in large batches if they can ”afford to”. This “adds value” (for a potential acquisition or IPO) by attaining the intellectual property and time of said hired employees in writing. One or two of them are “good enough” to nail new record growth. Some survive by way of credentials, as their @stanford.edu email is good for leads/future hiring/brain drains. The rest are “scaled down” as they say.
    - jamiequint 4y ago
      "founder model of get as big as you can, as fast as you can, by hiring as many as you can, so that the valuations keep getting bigger and bigger so you can cash out" I'm pretty sure I just directly interpreted what they said.
      - ShamelessC 4y ago
        Okay, well you win (?) but you realize this modification is essentially the same, stupid idea of excessive hiring of incredibly expensive engineers, burning lots of good will between effected developers when (planned, frankly) layoffs occur.
misterbwong 4y ago
Agree. Having been on the other side and having to execute a few rounds as a manager, this announcement seems like they're doing the best they could in a bad situation. Layoff suck all around. Period. No business can forecast and execute perfectly and no amount of handholding and (realistic!) compensation will make layoffs not suck. It's just reality.
Shindi 4y ago
16 weeks pay on a $200k/yr salary (ie excluding equity acceleration) is $64k. That's a decent first check into a startup. I know people have families, visa issues, but if you're young and scrappy and already into startups, this is an amazing opportunity to build something new.
- playoff_burner 4y ago
  Could you elaborate? I'm considering this path.
  - makestuff 4y ago
    It is likely enough money to get an MVP working to pitch to investors. Obviously not if you have a family to take of as well.
    - playoff_burner 4y ago
      I see. Thanks. It's really 30-40k because the 4 months' severance includes the regular pay during the 60 day exit window. The potential is obvious: get something off the ground in 2 months. Do you know what someone mostly new to founding a startup should do to start? I've got ideas, I've got potential cofounders, and I can prototype MVPs, but I don't understand the landscape beyond what I remember from How To Start a Startup. So I'm just probing for any pointers you might have cause I think I'm going to actually do this.
      - cercatrova 4y ago
        Just fyi, you can also bootstrap with that cash, you don't have to raise (and indeed in this macroeconomic climate, raising is harder than it has been). Check out the IndieHackers podcast (also a website/forum like Reddit but I found the podcast more useful) [0], YC Startup School on Youtube [1], read the Mom Test, Lean Startup, and so on. [0] https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy50cmFuc2lzdG9yLmZtL3RoZS1pbmRpZS1oYWNrZXJzLXBvZGNhc3Q?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwim1Ka27uj7AhWrrnIEHfifDnIQ9sEGegQIARAG https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy50cmFuc2l... [1] https://www.youtube.com/@ycombinator/videos https://www.youtube.com/@ycombinator/videos If you have an email or other means of contact, I'm available to discuss further.
x0x0 4y ago
To have stopped recruiting as soon as the first layoff plan (which was developed at least 3 months ago, repeatedly workshopped, and run by the board) was built. Also, give people more lead. 4 months salary is fine, but if you're on a visa, you're still pretty fucked. December 7 to Jan 5 is dead for recruiting, so realistically, you have < 30 days in which to find a new gig.
playoff_burner 4y ago
I was affected by this layoff and also don't understand the acid. It's abrupt, for sure, but the writing's been on the wall for months (our internal Blind even called that these would happen before the December holidays). I'm sure I'll be a little sad tomorrow or next week when this really hits, but for now looking at it numbly and rationally I don't see what else I would expect, though I can see how this would be especially troubling for H-1B colleagues. As far as surprise layoffs go, without sharing internal details, this one still has a strong human touch. (Feel free to ask questions or provide suggestions- this is new for me. I might use this burner to Not Think About It for a while.) EDIT: Read the other replies. This sounds really bad for people on visas.

nine_zeros 4y ago

> Im seriously asking for legit solutions. A few months of director+ level pay cut before layoffs. A few C-level folks taking pay and stock cut to retain employees before layoffs. When layoffs come, fire the bad decision makers before rank and file.

cortesoft 4y ago
They are laying off 260 employees. Lets say they average $100k in salary. The rule is generally that the cost to a company is 1.4x the salary, so $140,000 per employee. That is $36.4 million dollars. At a place like Plaid, I am guessing even cutting C-level salaries to zero wouldn't put much of a dent in that amount... and you still need someone to lead the ship.
stu2b50 4y ago
That wouldn’t accomplish anything but symbolically (which some companies have done, eg Chesky reducing his salary to 0 during the AirBnB layoffs). In the end director+ level comp is a drop in the bucket to the bottom line. It buys no time. Always firing the CEO when they make bets that don’t turn out just causes corporate stagnation since executives will always take the safe option if those are the incentives.

time_to_smile 4y ago

> perfectly executed business plans that don't have layoffs? Plaid was actively recruiting 2 weeks ago. In spring I (and many other people) knew these types of layoffs where coming to tech this fall, the current economic situation was not some unforeseeable event. Nobody in their right mind thought the early pandemic rapid growth was healthy or sustainable. Growth for growth's sake has always been a ridiculous strategy. This isn't a case of "less than perfect" business plans, this is people ignoring every macro economic indicator and running the ship full steam a head when this is clearly reckless behavior. The frustration is because this reckless behavior always has consequences for someone else, which is why it continues.

y-c-o-m-b 4y ago
I think there's a shared responsibility here by both employer and employee to ensure long term employment. This is not to negate your points, because I think your points are definitely valid and the company going full-steam ahead is absolutely reckless. Having been laid off a couple of times during the great recession era, I never ever take a job without first analyzing the likelihood of a layoff to occur and how it would impact my role. I have a list of interview questions I ask potential employers and the bulk of it is around how they handled lay-offs in the past and how they will handle them in the future. I ask about cash reserves for such situations and I ask about how they handle growth. Asking these things will give you some idea of the shit show that will appear sooner or later. You're right; market conditions are unpredictable and there's so much speculation that it's difficult to gauge where things will go in 2-5 years, so you should always plan for an economic down-turn scenario regardless of how rosy things look at the time of employment. All of that being said, this is still a relatively solid lay-off plan and I think the bashing is a bit on the harsh side considering the outcome here. Nowhere is safe right now and if you think it is, you're going to have a bad time.

sct202 4y ago

I've been thru a lot of layoffs and these posts would honestly be the last thing I would worry about. The worst ones I've been thru are the secret layoffs where a handful of people just disappear one day and everyone left just whispers about it because if we were supposed to know details the overlords would have said something and no one wants to be next by speaking out.

bombcar 4y ago
Yeah, mass layoffs are bad and annoying, but at least they're (usually) one and done and over with and you move along with your life. The worst is when the company is struggling along and you're never quite sure if you should cut and run and people are disappearing every few weeks like some bad horror movie.
bdavis__ 4y ago
That's called a Tony Soprano layoff. HR comes to the employees cubicle at lunch, two silenced shots to the head, and they drag out the body. Nobody sees nothing. But everyone talks about it, and says "why isn't management honest with us?"

Mistletoe 4y ago

I think the vitriol is more tied to the founder model of get as big as you can, as fast as you can, by hiring as many as you can, so that the valuations keep getting bigger and bigger so you can cash out. Then you cut loose all the people you know you didn’t actually need.

jamiequint 4y ago
This is a strawman. Nobody operates this way. You don't raise more money by hiring more people. In some markets you raise more by making more revenue even if unprofitable, which is not great but is very different than raising as a function of number of employees.
- ShamelessC 4y ago
  It’s not a straw man, you’re just debating the least charitable interpretation. It is true that VC-backed tech startups hire in large batches if they can ”afford to”. This “adds value” (for a potential acquisition or IPO) by attaining the intellectual property and time of said hired employees in writing. One or two of them are “good enough” to nail new record growth. Some survive by way of credentials, as their @stanford.edu email is good for leads/future hiring/brain drains. The rest are “scaled down” as they say.
  - jamiequint 4y ago
    "founder model of get as big as you can, as fast as you can, by hiring as many as you can, so that the valuations keep getting bigger and bigger so you can cash out" I'm pretty sure I just directly interpreted what they said.
    - ShamelessC 4y ago
      Okay, well you win (?) but you realize this modification is essentially the same, stupid idea of excessive hiring of incredibly expensive engineers, burning lots of good will between effected developers when (planned, frankly) layoffs occur.

misterbwong 4y ago

Agree. Having been on the other side and having to execute a few rounds as a manager, this announcement seems like they're doing the best they could in a bad situation. Layoff suck all around. Period. No business can forecast and execute perfectly and no amount of handholding and (realistic!) compensation will make layoffs not suck. It's just reality.

Shindi 4y ago

16 weeks pay on a $200k/yr salary (ie excluding equity acceleration) is $64k. That's a decent first check into a startup. I know people have families, visa issues, but if you're young and scrappy and already into startups, this is an amazing opportunity to build something new.

playoff_burner 4y ago
Could you elaborate? I'm considering this path.
- makestuff 4y ago
  It is likely enough money to get an MVP working to pitch to investors. Obviously not if you have a family to take of as well.
  - playoff_burner 4y ago
    I see. Thanks. It's really 30-40k because the 4 months' severance includes the regular pay during the 60 day exit window. The potential is obvious: get something off the ground in 2 months. Do you know what someone mostly new to founding a startup should do to start? I've got ideas, I've got potential cofounders, and I can prototype MVPs, but I don't understand the landscape beyond what I remember from How To Start a Startup. So I'm just probing for any pointers you might have cause I think I'm going to actually do this.
    - cercatrova 4y ago
      Just fyi, you can also bootstrap with that cash, you don't have to raise (and indeed in this macroeconomic climate, raising is harder than it has been). Check out the IndieHackers podcast (also a website/forum like Reddit but I found the podcast more useful) [0], YC Startup School on Youtube [1], read the Mom Test, Lean Startup, and so on. [0] https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy50cmFuc2lzdG9yLmZtL3RoZS1pbmRpZS1oYWNrZXJzLXBvZGNhc3Q?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwim1Ka27uj7AhWrrnIEHfifDnIQ9sEGegQIARAG https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy50cmFuc2l... [1] https://www.youtube.com/@ycombinator/videos https://www.youtube.com/@ycombinator/videos If you have an email or other means of contact, I'm available to discuss further.

x0x0 4y ago

To have stopped recruiting as soon as the first layoff plan (which was developed at least 3 months ago, repeatedly workshopped, and run by the board) was built. Also, give people more lead. 4 months salary is fine, but if you're on a visa, you're still pretty fucked. December 7 to Jan 5 is dead for recruiting, so realistically, you have < 30 days in which to find a new gig.

playoff_burner 4y ago

I was affected by this layoff and also don't understand the acid. It's abrupt, for sure, but the writing's been on the wall for months (our internal Blind even called that these would happen before the December holidays). I'm sure I'll be a little sad tomorrow or next week when this really hits, but for now looking at it numbly and rationally I don't see what else I would expect, though I can see how this would be especially troubling for H-1B colleagues. As far as surprise layoffs go, without sharing internal details, this one still has a strong human touch. (Feel free to ask questions or provide suggestions- this is new for me. I might use this burner to Not Think About It for a while.) EDIT: Read the other replies. This sounds really bad for people on visas.