4 ms·

It has nothing to do with being "people-first" or not. Leaving terminated employees with access to sensitive systems is poor security practice.

progbits 3y ago
You trusted them with that access yesterday, and they are not being fired for cause (eg. stealing company secrets), so why don't you trust them today? This sort of thing only really happens in US companies (see lots of other comments in this thread on this), and maybe that should be a clue this isn't "security practice".
- morgante 3y ago
  Fired employees are much more likely to do something malicious, either by sabotaging systems or stealing proprietary data. The incentives are totally different.
- rad_gruchalski 3y ago
  > so why don't you trust them today Because they heard about being laid off this morning and who knows what goes through the mind of a laid off person.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    Exactly this. The company just subjected the individual to an enormous amount of stress that didn't exist yesterday coupled with the fact that the long-term payoff to them of "don't act like a jackass at work" has just changed a lot.
    - rad_gruchalski 3y ago
      Yes. That’s the unfortunate part of being laid off. So to protect the individual from himself and the company from the individual it might be actually better to just lock people out. Funnily, nobody has such empathy towards a company when the employee lays the company off. Then everyone is like „suck it up company, suck it up boss”.
      - groby_b 3y ago
        I'm fairly certain when an employee lays the company off, they do them the same courtesy and immediately lock them out from their life as well. Also, if you'd like more empathy, in both directions, there is nothing in the US _preventing_ you from extending an employment contract with a well-defined layoff & severance process. Most companies choose not to do so, to preserve options. Well, you made your at-will bed, you get to lie in it. If you're a manager caught in the middle: Yep. It sucks. It's also predictably part of your job, so make sure you're compensated accordingly. (You can't manage for an extended period without being forced to lay off somebody at some point. ZIRP stretched that period, a lot. It's still a thing that's part of the job)
- marcinzm 3y ago
  > only really happens in US companies (see lots of other comments in this thread on this) That's not what the comments say.
- nucleardog 3y ago
  > You trusted them with that access yesterday, and they are not being fired for cause (eg. stealing company secrets), so why don't you trust them today? Yesterday, behaving in a manner that would result in your continued employment had clear, short term incentives like receiving further income. The company had leverage in that if you were to behave inappropriately they could terminate your employment and take away that income. Today, the company has terminated your employment and taken away that income. The only reasons to not be malicious are long term consequences (future employment prospects, criminal charges, etc) and personal values. People in general are notoriously bad at aligning their actions with long term incentives or consequences (especially consequences). You're testing this out in this employee for the first time in a situation where they're under much higher anxiety and stress than normal and you no longer have any real leverage over them. I'd imagine the difference in the US has more to do with the short notice period and lack of social safety net making being terminated a much more impactful event for the employee.
- scott_w 3y ago
  In addition to what others said, there’s also a compliance aspect. Even if 99% of laid off staff will react fairly and reasonably, it only takes a few to do serious damage, potentially to your customers. Even on a small scale, those laid off can cause some harm: “losing” things, getting extremely enthusiastic with decommissioning equipment, or even filling the company cars with fuel right before giving them back to the hire company.
buro9 3y ago
That wasn't my point, my point was firing someone via email is heartless, and that employers should have the decency to speak to a person and let them know why. The system access can still be removed at the same time.
- doublerabbit 3y ago
  Welcome to job life. What are you expecting from a company when they want to shun you out the door, hugs and kisses? Companies never value you. Your just a ticket with a number associated to it. Harsh but prove me wrong.
- fuhrtf 3y ago
  I don’t think there’s a good way to lay people off in the remote work era. With emails at least you get a standardized message across. with all hands on deck Skype meetings you can come across as the devil by just mispronouncing 1 word. With Skype 1on1s you expose your remaining employees to embarrassment on TikTok like that one woman recently did.

progbits 3y ago

You trusted them with that access yesterday, and they are not being fired for cause (eg. stealing company secrets), so why don't you trust them today? This sort of thing only really happens in US companies (see lots of other comments in this thread on this), and maybe that should be a clue this isn't "security practice".

morgante 3y ago
Fired employees are much more likely to do something malicious, either by sabotaging systems or stealing proprietary data. The incentives are totally different.
rad_gruchalski 3y ago
> so why don't you trust them today Because they heard about being laid off this morning and who knows what goes through the mind of a laid off person.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  Exactly this. The company just subjected the individual to an enormous amount of stress that didn't exist yesterday coupled with the fact that the long-term payoff to them of "don't act like a jackass at work" has just changed a lot.
  - rad_gruchalski 3y ago
    Yes. That’s the unfortunate part of being laid off. So to protect the individual from himself and the company from the individual it might be actually better to just lock people out. Funnily, nobody has such empathy towards a company when the employee lays the company off. Then everyone is like „suck it up company, suck it up boss”.
    - groby_b 3y ago
      I'm fairly certain when an employee lays the company off, they do them the same courtesy and immediately lock them out from their life as well. Also, if you'd like more empathy, in both directions, there is nothing in the US _preventing_ you from extending an employment contract with a well-defined layoff & severance process. Most companies choose not to do so, to preserve options. Well, you made your at-will bed, you get to lie in it. If you're a manager caught in the middle: Yep. It sucks. It's also predictably part of your job, so make sure you're compensated accordingly. (You can't manage for an extended period without being forced to lay off somebody at some point. ZIRP stretched that period, a lot. It's still a thing that's part of the job)
marcinzm 3y ago
> only really happens in US companies (see lots of other comments in this thread on this) That's not what the comments say.
nucleardog 3y ago
> You trusted them with that access yesterday, and they are not being fired for cause (eg. stealing company secrets), so why don't you trust them today? Yesterday, behaving in a manner that would result in your continued employment had clear, short term incentives like receiving further income. The company had leverage in that if you were to behave inappropriately they could terminate your employment and take away that income. Today, the company has terminated your employment and taken away that income. The only reasons to not be malicious are long term consequences (future employment prospects, criminal charges, etc) and personal values. People in general are notoriously bad at aligning their actions with long term incentives or consequences (especially consequences). You're testing this out in this employee for the first time in a situation where they're under much higher anxiety and stress than normal and you no longer have any real leverage over them. I'd imagine the difference in the US has more to do with the short notice period and lack of social safety net making being terminated a much more impactful event for the employee.
scott_w 3y ago
In addition to what others said, there’s also a compliance aspect. Even if 99% of laid off staff will react fairly and reasonably, it only takes a few to do serious damage, potentially to your customers. Even on a small scale, those laid off can cause some harm: “losing” things, getting extremely enthusiastic with decommissioning equipment, or even filling the company cars with fuel right before giving them back to the hire company.

buro9 3y ago

That wasn't my point, my point was firing someone via email is heartless, and that employers should have the decency to speak to a person and let them know why. The system access can still be removed at the same time.

doublerabbit 3y ago
Welcome to job life. What are you expecting from a company when they want to shun you out the door, hugs and kisses? Companies never value you. Your just a ticket with a number associated to it. Harsh but prove me wrong.
fuhrtf 3y ago
I don’t think there’s a good way to lay people off in the remote work era. With emails at least you get a standardized message across. with all hands on deck Skype meetings you can come across as the devil by just mispronouncing 1 word. With Skype 1on1s you expose your remaining employees to embarrassment on TikTok like that one woman recently did.