4 ms·
I guess at least this is better than hanging on to people you don’t want in a team so they can be laid off when the demand comes in to avoid being forced to giv
by dan-robertson 3y ago
I guess at least this is better than hanging on to people you don’t want in a team so they can be laid off when the demand comes in to avoid being forced to give up the people you do want.
- datavirtue 3y agoSounds like a dystopian shit hole.
- black_13 3y ago[dead]
- jimbob45 3y agoWhy not just fire them? Severance isn’t guaranteed yet in the US and just cause isn’t that hard to document (I’m genuinely asking - HR fascinates me).
- ghaff 3y agoHe's saying that whether or not they fire this person the day may come when they have to get rid of someone. More broadly, managers like to hold onto headcount if they can unless someone is a real problem for their team. If they're just someone who isn't an ideal fit any longer they'll probably hold onto them.
- bombcar 3y agoExactly. They’re cards in a game that may require you to discard suddenly - you don’t want to discard early.
- al_borland 3y agoAs someone who has worked in an environment like this for a long time, those people still exist. Everyone on the team generally knows who’s at the bottom and would get let go. Ideally there are enough open positions to cover the layoffs, but that’s not always the case.