6 ms·

As a former GitLab employee from an expensive region, I’m a little concerned Sid didn’t layout the layoff process more transparently. Were high earners more lik

As a former GitLab employee from an expensive region, I’m a little concerned Sid didn’t layout the layoff process more transparently. Were high earners more likely to be laid off while lower CoL areas were kept? This was always a distant fear in working for a very global team where I knew teammates from other countries did the same job as me for much less.

postexitus 4y ago
The answer is yes, in all cases, he doesn't need to state in explicitly. So what? Layoffs are being done to save costs or to signal doing so to shareholders. It is not a "let's be meritocratic and only cut the lowest performers" exercise. The overarching question is, with our insistence on remote working etc, how will we ever justify hiring from high CoL areas again?
- pokstad 4y ago
  There’s a lot of value in those high CoL areas. A lot of concentrated knowledge and skill is in the Bay Area.
  - postexitus 4y ago
    If that value justifies the cost, there should not be a problem. Some of that value may move to low CoL areas and offer comparable value for much lower cost - then things will start to become complicated - this is totally based on the assumption that that value is only available in high CoL areas.
    - pokstad 4y ago
      The problem is when you hire those high CoL areas, extract value by training others, and then discard them. This will make high CoL workers more hesitant to join a globalized employer.
      - postexitus 4y ago
        And then what will happen?
      - foobiekr 4y ago
        You say that like the sequence described has not been common since the nineties. Assuming you knew that, why is now different? And if you didn’t know that, there’s your answer.
      - PoignardAzur 4y ago
        You say that like it's a bad thing. International corporations don't have a duty to subsidize poor Californian urbanism policies.
  - dewey 4y ago
    There's also a lot of "concentrated knowledge and skill" in other places of the world.
- SergeAx 4y ago
  > It is not a "let's be meritocratic and only cut the lowest performers" exercise. Why not do some extra homework and really cut the lowest performers, while we are here anyway?
  - blagie 4y ago
    Because low-performers are nearly impossible to identify, at least from a CEO level. There are two things one can be doing in a job: 1) Their job 2) Signalling to everyone around how much they're doing, and how hard it is Universally, as you shift from camp 1 to camp 2, your job security goes up. There is no such thing as perfect transparency, and especially in careers like programming, it's hard to estimate how hard something is (or is going to be). You can also do things like 360 reviews, which reward people who are good at making friends. You can look at lines of code, which rewards 1000 lines doing the job of 10. Etc.
    - SergeAx 4y ago
      Every IC has their direct manager: team lead or something like that. Every decent manager knows who is underperforming in their team and secretly dreams about firing the slacker and hiring someone better instead, but rarely has such freedom. Now, the layoff is suddenly breaking. It's a no-brainer to jump the train and finally make it for the sake of the entire team.
      - somsak2 4y ago
        I really doubt this. Unless I'm working pretty directly with someone (that is, on the same specific project), it's hard for me to know how much they're really contributing. On my team of 8, I really only know how hard 2 or 3 of my teammates work. I have doubts that a manager would be able to do this that much better.
        SergeAx 4y ago
        Knowing performance of their team members is a manager's primary responsibility. Without it manager cannot plan anything and execute anything on time.
firstfewshells 4y ago
Do you expect the CEO to tell his employees that they are more likely to be laid off if they are paid more compared to their peers?
- pokstad 4y ago
  Yes. There was transparency about hiring plans and how low CoL areas were targeted. I would expect transparency on the other end of employment.

postexitus 4y ago

The answer is yes, in all cases, he doesn't need to state in explicitly. So what? Layoffs are being done to save costs or to signal doing so to shareholders. It is not a "let's be meritocratic and only cut the lowest performers" exercise. The overarching question is, with our insistence on remote working etc, how will we ever justify hiring from high CoL areas again?

pokstad 4y ago
There’s a lot of value in those high CoL areas. A lot of concentrated knowledge and skill is in the Bay Area.
- postexitus 4y ago
  If that value justifies the cost, there should not be a problem. Some of that value may move to low CoL areas and offer comparable value for much lower cost - then things will start to become complicated - this is totally based on the assumption that that value is only available in high CoL areas.
  - pokstad 4y ago
    The problem is when you hire those high CoL areas, extract value by training others, and then discard them. This will make high CoL workers more hesitant to join a globalized employer.
    - postexitus 4y ago
      And then what will happen?
    - foobiekr 4y ago
      You say that like the sequence described has not been common since the nineties. Assuming you knew that, why is now different? And if you didn’t know that, there’s your answer.
    - PoignardAzur 4y ago
      You say that like it's a bad thing. International corporations don't have a duty to subsidize poor Californian urbanism policies.
- dewey 4y ago
  There's also a lot of "concentrated knowledge and skill" in other places of the world.
SergeAx 4y ago
> It is not a "let's be meritocratic and only cut the lowest performers" exercise. Why not do some extra homework and really cut the lowest performers, while we are here anyway?
- blagie 4y ago
  Because low-performers are nearly impossible to identify, at least from a CEO level. There are two things one can be doing in a job: 1) Their job 2) Signalling to everyone around how much they're doing, and how hard it is Universally, as you shift from camp 1 to camp 2, your job security goes up. There is no such thing as perfect transparency, and especially in careers like programming, it's hard to estimate how hard something is (or is going to be). You can also do things like 360 reviews, which reward people who are good at making friends. You can look at lines of code, which rewards 1000 lines doing the job of 10. Etc.
  - SergeAx 4y ago
    Every IC has their direct manager: team lead or something like that. Every decent manager knows who is underperforming in their team and secretly dreams about firing the slacker and hiring someone better instead, but rarely has such freedom. Now, the layoff is suddenly breaking. It's a no-brainer to jump the train and finally make it for the sake of the entire team.
    - somsak2 4y ago
      I really doubt this. Unless I'm working pretty directly with someone (that is, on the same specific project), it's hard for me to know how much they're really contributing. On my team of 8, I really only know how hard 2 or 3 of my teammates work. I have doubts that a manager would be able to do this that much better.
      - SergeAx 4y ago
        Knowing performance of their team members is a manager's primary responsibility. Without it manager cannot plan anything and execute anything on time.

firstfewshells 4y ago

Do you expect the CEO to tell his employees that they are more likely to be laid off if they are paid more compared to their peers?

pokstad 4y ago
Yes. There was transparency about hiring plans and how low CoL areas were targeted. I would expect transparency on the other end of employment.