3 ms·

> Just fucking stop with this already. Quit pretending like your employees are so aligned with the company that some kind of special terminology is needed, or e

> Just fucking stop with this already. Quit pretending like your employees are so aligned with the company that some kind of special terminology is needed, or even logical. I cannot judge how Zoom works internally but a lot of companies (ours included) has a term to refer to employees. They are usually not born out of some leader making up a ridiculous term, but out of some sort of chaotic process where the origin of that term is often not found.

bombcar 4y ago
Some of them are legitimate, but even then there should be a form of respect where the term isn't used (though I observe they avoided the "hard-r" Zoomer because of the connotations). And especially shouldn't be used in a case where you're laying off some of them.
- the_mitsuhiko 4y ago
  I would find it odd if the only time you don't use that term on emails then happens to be layoffs.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Which is why I wouldn't use the term in general, at least from the top-down. It's inherently a "we're all in this together" term which especially isn't applicable when you aren't.
    - the_mitsuhiko 4y ago
      TBH I did not think much of this practice ever. I see that it's weird seeing that in layoff emails but I don't bat an eye normally.
JohnFen 4y ago
I honestly think it's a red flag when companies do this.
- dymk 4y ago
  The bigger red flag is Stripe not allowing its employees to use the term "Stripper"
brk 4y ago
> a lot of companies (ours included) has a term to refer to employees Why? Employee is a perfectly suitable and applicable term. You're not "associates" or anything else that implies there is some kind relationship that is anything other than work for hire. Granted, if you have some kind of internal way to refer to yourselves or your teams, that's great. But like politics or religion, it should probably be a thing that is internal only and not referred to in the outside world/public comms. Terms like "Zoomies" are just childish. If some chain of events led you to be calling yourselves "The Ruby Death Squad", and you use that publicly, then I might change my perspective.
- lamontcg 4y ago
  Because Millennials eat up cheesy tribalistic terms to wrap their sense of identity around and corporations exploit that.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
    FWIW, we all do that to an extent. Pick a label and make it good or bad, but something you can use as a yard stick. You are on the money, but oddly fall into the same trap by using label 'millenials' in a tribalistic manner ( the term has been largely made up to describe a giant cohort, and as most giant population terms, it shares the same flaws ). I do not think you are wrong in general. I am not sure, however, if it applies to that particular group only or even in general.
    - lamontcg 4y ago
      Qualitatively I think there's something different about the way that people under-40 tend to think about identity, particularly the people working in tech that we're discussing here. We used to have thirtysomethings and yuppies and other groups like that. But it hadn't infested everything the same way that Zoomies and Googlers and Pythonistas/Rubyists/Rustaceans has.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago

bombcar 4y ago

Some of them are legitimate, but even then there should be a form of respect where the term isn't used (though I observe they avoided the "hard-r" Zoomer because of the connotations). And especially shouldn't be used in a case where you're laying off some of them.

the_mitsuhiko 4y ago
I would find it odd if the only time you don't use that term on emails then happens to be layoffs.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Which is why I wouldn't use the term in general, at least from the top-down. It's inherently a "we're all in this together" term which especially isn't applicable when you aren't.
  - the_mitsuhiko 4y ago
    TBH I did not think much of this practice ever. I see that it's weird seeing that in layoff emails but I don't bat an eye normally.

JohnFen 4y ago

I honestly think it's a red flag when companies do this.

dymk 4y ago
The bigger red flag is Stripe not allowing its employees to use the term "Stripper"

brk 4y ago

> a lot of companies (ours included) has a term to refer to employees Why? Employee is a perfectly suitable and applicable term. You're not "associates" or anything else that implies there is some kind relationship that is anything other than work for hire. Granted, if you have some kind of internal way to refer to yourselves or your teams, that's great. But like politics or religion, it should probably be a thing that is internal only and not referred to in the outside world/public comms. Terms like "Zoomies" are just childish. If some chain of events led you to be calling yourselves "The Ruby Death Squad", and you use that publicly, then I might change my perspective.

lamontcg 4y ago
Because Millennials eat up cheesy tribalistic terms to wrap their sense of identity around and corporations exploit that.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  FWIW, we all do that to an extent. Pick a label and make it good or bad, but something you can use as a yard stick. You are on the money, but oddly fall into the same trap by using label 'millenials' in a tribalistic manner ( the term has been largely made up to describe a giant cohort, and as most giant population terms, it shares the same flaws ). I do not think you are wrong in general. I am not sure, however, if it applies to that particular group only or even in general.
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    Qualitatively I think there's something different about the way that people under-40 tend to think about identity, particularly the people working in tech that we're discussing here. We used to have thirtysomethings and yuppies and other groups like that. But it hadn't infested everything the same way that Zoomies and Googlers and Pythonistas/Rubyists/Rustaceans has.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago