3 ms·

A few of those thoughts I completely agree on: results of overhiring, and technology enabling bigger impact by fewer people seem spot on to me. But a few I fin

by ptero 3y ago

A few of those thoughts I completely agree on: results of overhiring, and technology enabling bigger impact by fewer people seem spot on to me. But a few I find strange. For example, a semi-implicit assumption that hiring, profits and stock price are tightly coupled. That is not always the case. They are correlated, but often have significant time lags, so it is possible for a company to hire rapidly on a great novel idea, realize a first mover advantage, have it lead to profits, have that lead to a stock rise by which time there is no longer a need for aggressive hiring. The company does not even need to do layoffs, just a stop to aggressive hiring is enough to feel a frozen job market. Edited: apparently I totally misunderstood the meaning of the "non-regrettable attrition". Is the only difference with a layoff is firing employees one-at-a-time vs en masse?

csa 3y ago
> Is the only difference with a layoff is firing employees one-at-a-time vs en masse? Theoretically, layoffs are not performance-related, although sometimes they are. Getting laid off doesn’t necessarily reflect poorly on the person who was laid off. Firing is performance-related, and it’s usually a bad look. The former may get severance and will probably be eligible for unemployment, while the latter will likely get neither.
- ptero 3y ago
  Are you sure about the unemployment? Given that it is usually administered by the state (at least in the US) I am surprised that any non-criminal involuntarily termination would be rejected for the unemployment benefits. But IANAL and personally never needed one, so anything is possible.
  - csa 3y ago
    > Are you sure about the unemployment? Definitely not sure, and it probably varies based on location. In CA, where I am, one criterion is “unemployed through no fault of [their] own”. Getting fired is widely considered to be the individual’s fault (e.g., non-performance). I’ve heard something about the standard being “egregious misconduct”, but that’s just beyond the details that I know about. Getting laid off usually isn’t considered the employee’s fault (e.g., due to lack of work or change in direction). Iirc, companies might have increased payments into the state unemployment coffers when they do layoffs versus firings. I have only heard about this second-hand, so I don’t know the details. Anecdotally and perhaps only tangentially related, I have friends and family who have had to or chosen to fire people, and they have all said the same thing — layoffs are much easier than firings.
    - ptero 3y ago
      > Getting fired is widely considered to be the individual’s fault (e.g., non-performance). I’ve heard something about the standard being “egregious misconduct”, but that’s just beyond the details that I know about. I have no real information, this is just my handwaving, but I do not think this is the case. Most employment in the US is at will for both sides. That is, an employer can terminate an employee whenever it is beneficial for the business (and an employee can leave with no warning even if he is needed by the business). No "fault" is required on the part of the employee -- needs and priorities of the business could have shifted, for example. I think most employers would take this route of "no fault termination" if at all possible. Otherwise it would make sense for the employee to fight this, file complaints, etc. incurring potentially large costs for the company on time, effort and the PR fronts. So they tend to terminate employment with a bland corporate legalese instead of a red flag like "misconduct". Being terminated by a previous employer may cause some concern when job searching, but unless it actually comes with a paper trail of "gross misconduct" or some such it should not affect unemployment benefits. My 2c.

by ptero 3y ago

csa 3y ago

> Is the only difference with a layoff is firing employees one-at-a-time vs en masse? Theoretically, layoffs are not performance-related, although sometimes they are. Getting laid off doesn’t necessarily reflect poorly on the person who was laid off. Firing is performance-related, and it’s usually a bad look. The former may get severance and will probably be eligible for unemployment, while the latter will likely get neither.

ptero 3y ago
Are you sure about the unemployment? Given that it is usually administered by the state (at least in the US) I am surprised that any non-criminal involuntarily termination would be rejected for the unemployment benefits. But IANAL and personally never needed one, so anything is possible.
- csa 3y ago
  > Are you sure about the unemployment? Definitely not sure, and it probably varies based on location. In CA, where I am, one criterion is “unemployed through no fault of [their] own”. Getting fired is widely considered to be the individual’s fault (e.g., non-performance). I’ve heard something about the standard being “egregious misconduct”, but that’s just beyond the details that I know about. Getting laid off usually isn’t considered the employee’s fault (e.g., due to lack of work or change in direction). Iirc, companies might have increased payments into the state unemployment coffers when they do layoffs versus firings. I have only heard about this second-hand, so I don’t know the details. Anecdotally and perhaps only tangentially related, I have friends and family who have had to or chosen to fire people, and they have all said the same thing — layoffs are much easier than firings.
  - ptero 3y ago
    > Getting fired is widely considered to be the individual’s fault (e.g., non-performance). I’ve heard something about the standard being “egregious misconduct”, but that’s just beyond the details that I know about. I have no real information, this is just my handwaving, but I do not think this is the case. Most employment in the US is at will for both sides. That is, an employer can terminate an employee whenever it is beneficial for the business (and an employee can leave with no warning even if he is needed by the business). No "fault" is required on the part of the employee -- needs and priorities of the business could have shifted, for example. I think most employers would take this route of "no fault termination" if at all possible. Otherwise it would make sense for the employee to fight this, file complaints, etc. incurring potentially large costs for the company on time, effort and the PR fronts. So they tend to terminate employment with a bland corporate legalese instead of a red flag like "misconduct". Being terminated by a previous employer may cause some concern when job searching, but unless it actually comes with a paper trail of "gross misconduct" or some such it should not affect unemployment benefits. My 2c.