2 ms·

> Nobody likes getting laid off. Much better than being fired for poor performance, too - "laid off because the company wasn't doing well" doesn't look that te

> Nobody likes getting laid off. Much better than being fired for poor performance, too - "laid off because the company wasn't doing well" doesn't look that terrible on a resume.

BizarreByte 4y ago
Right now is the perfect time to get fired if you are having performance problems though. No one is going to think twice if you claim to be a victim of layoffs.
- dehrmann 4y ago
  It depends. When companies are only cutting 6%, I'd go 50/50 on circumstances vs. performance.
908B64B197 4y ago
Here's the thing: mass layoffs make it easier to get rid of people with performance or behavioral problems in a lot of jurisdictions. I had to let someone go at a company we had just acquired in Montreal a few years ago. The guy was underperforming and had a huge attitude problem (bursts of anger actually). One of the frequent arguments he had with everyone was that he insisted he didn't need to learn French to live in Montreal and was somehow hostile to the language. I honestly questioned why he immigrated there in the first place. Since this was an acquisition, it made it easy for us to do so. All we had to do was not to include him in the positions that would join the new company. Simple paperwork. He seemed to really want to come to the US but the performance and behavioral issues made it a big no. I don't think he would have passed the stricter requirements anyways. Some companies like Google will even have engineers at certain acquired companies re-interview to transfer. The North acquisition was a poster-child for that: almost nobody got a job at Google, not even the founders. All they kept were the patents originally purchased from Intel.
- 3vidence 4y ago
  I usually just casually lerk on HN for topics I'm interested in learning about or generally topics I don't have expertise in. This whole layoff discussion had been an eye opener for me as to how uninformed a lot of comments are and just made on speculation. I was there at the North acquisition, the vast majority of people kept there jobs and so did the founders. People keep talking about these layoffs like they were done from some critical lens that can evaluate individuals performance. They're not! The layoffs are organized exclusively at such a high level the people making the decisions have absolutely no idea how the people they are choosing perform. These layoffs are temporary moves to get the stock price to move up, that's it.
  - uxcolumbo 4y ago
    Thanks for chiming in, otherwise I would have thought the parent’s comment was correct.
  - 908B64B197 4y ago
    > I was there at the North acquisition, the vast majority of people kept there jobs and so did the founders. You worked there? I hired former North employees. Most of them were looking at a way out since their equity had negative value at the point [0]. Founders are "advisors" at Google. Basically a retainer when someone is under NDA after an acquisition. Regarding the layoffs, the company 1/3rd of it's workforce right before getting acquired [1][2] (So much so that some of the funding was pulled out! [3]). Internally, it was a patent play to keep the Intel Vaunt patents from getting auctioned to Apple or Microsoft [4]. > The layoffs are organized exclusively at such a high level the people making the decisions have absolutely no idea how the people they are choosing perform. Layoffs give leeway to engineering managers to trim as they see fit. CEO won't have a case for every underperforming employee or employee with an attitude problem. Mass layoffs are for purely economical reasons, but it's notorious that it's a pretty convenient way to get rid of "hard to fire employees" without having to put in place HR counselling, performance improvement plans and so on. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/kitchener/comments/hg11tl/a_vision_fades_alphabet_buying_canadian_smart/ https://www.reddit.com/r/kitchener/comments/hg11tl/a_vision_... [1] https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/22/18236253/north-focals-smart-glasses-150-employee-lay-offs https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/22/18236253/north-focals-sma... [2] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-a-vision-fades-alphabet-buying-canadian-smart-glasses-pioneer-north/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-a-vision-fa... [3] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/north-inc-thalmic-labs-lays-off-workers-drops-price-1.5037229 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/north-inc-... [4] https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/17/18144221/north-focals-intel-vaunt-patents-ar-glasses https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/17/18144221/north-focals-in...

> Nobody likes getting laid off. Much better than being fired for poor performance, too - "laid off because the company wasn't doing well" doesn't look that terrible on a resume.

BizarreByte 4y ago

Right now is the perfect time to get fired if you are having performance problems though. No one is going to think twice if you claim to be a victim of layoffs.

dehrmann 4y ago
It depends. When companies are only cutting 6%, I'd go 50/50 on circumstances vs. performance.

908B64B197 4y ago

Here's the thing: mass layoffs make it easier to get rid of people with performance or behavioral problems in a lot of jurisdictions. I had to let someone go at a company we had just acquired in Montreal a few years ago. The guy was underperforming and had a huge attitude problem (bursts of anger actually). One of the frequent arguments he had with everyone was that he insisted he didn't need to learn French to live in Montreal and was somehow hostile to the language. I honestly questioned why he immigrated there in the first place. Since this was an acquisition, it made it easy for us to do so. All we had to do was not to include him in the positions that would join the new company. Simple paperwork. He seemed to really want to come to the US but the performance and behavioral issues made it a big no. I don't think he would have passed the stricter requirements anyways. Some companies like Google will even have engineers at certain acquired companies re-interview to transfer. The North acquisition was a poster-child for that: almost nobody got a job at Google, not even the founders. All they kept were the patents originally purchased from Intel.

3vidence 4y ago
I usually just casually lerk on HN for topics I'm interested in learning about or generally topics I don't have expertise in. This whole layoff discussion had been an eye opener for me as to how uninformed a lot of comments are and just made on speculation. I was there at the North acquisition, the vast majority of people kept there jobs and so did the founders. People keep talking about these layoffs like they were done from some critical lens that can evaluate individuals performance. They're not! The layoffs are organized exclusively at such a high level the people making the decisions have absolutely no idea how the people they are choosing perform. These layoffs are temporary moves to get the stock price to move up, that's it.
- uxcolumbo 4y ago
  Thanks for chiming in, otherwise I would have thought the parent’s comment was correct.
- 908B64B197 4y ago
  > I was there at the North acquisition, the vast majority of people kept there jobs and so did the founders. You worked there? I hired former North employees. Most of them were looking at a way out since their equity had negative value at the point [0]. Founders are "advisors" at Google. Basically a retainer when someone is under NDA after an acquisition. Regarding the layoffs, the company 1/3rd of it's workforce right before getting acquired [1][2] (So much so that some of the funding was pulled out! [3]). Internally, it was a patent play to keep the Intel Vaunt patents from getting auctioned to Apple or Microsoft [4]. > The layoffs are organized exclusively at such a high level the people making the decisions have absolutely no idea how the people they are choosing perform. Layoffs give leeway to engineering managers to trim as they see fit. CEO won't have a case for every underperforming employee or employee with an attitude problem. Mass layoffs are for purely economical reasons, but it's notorious that it's a pretty convenient way to get rid of "hard to fire employees" without having to put in place HR counselling, performance improvement plans and so on. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/kitchener/comments/hg11tl/a_vision_fades_alphabet_buying_canadian_smart/ https://www.reddit.com/r/kitchener/comments/hg11tl/a_vision_... [1] https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/22/18236253/north-focals-smart-glasses-150-employee-lay-offs https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/22/18236253/north-focals-sma... [2] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-a-vision-fades-alphabet-buying-canadian-smart-glasses-pioneer-north/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-a-vision-fa... [3] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/north-inc-thalmic-labs-lays-off-workers-drops-price-1.5037229 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/north-inc-... [4] https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/17/18144221/north-focals-intel-vaunt-patents-ar-glasses https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/17/18144221/north-focals-in...