26 ms·

As an Employee, You Are Disposable (2023)

267 points by nelsonfigueroa 2y ago

bluetomcat 2y ago
Context: big American tech, hiring tens of thousands of “engineers” through leetcode during a financial boom, and then firing a substantial part with an email during the bust.
- siquick 2y ago
  Thankfully most companies in the world aren’t American “at will” employers and don’t have tens of thousands of employees.
joejohnson 2y ago
Not at my company. We’re more like a family than a traditional startup.
- yesuk 2y ago
  That is even worse.
- colesantiago 2y ago
  Instant red flag.
- blitzar 2y ago
  > We’re more like a family Run.
  - aydyn 2y ago
    some of yall really need to get your sarcasm meter tuned up
    - nottorp 2y ago
      I missed the "startup". My bad :)
- lynx23 2y ago
  When I was younger, I also fell for this. Today, I shudder when I read this. In many cases, execs will abuse the family status to squeeze extra work out of you while you fail to even notice. Stay alert for sentences like "But, we are a family, so..."
- seqizz 2y ago
  I believe people missed the irony here.
- nottorp 2y ago
  Management mandated family with "living at work"? Run. Normal work schedule with grunt employees doing not mandated stuff together once in a while after work? Okay, that's nice, but you should still have a social group that's not (only) coworkers. Huge difference.
- dailykoder 2y ago
  Do you get free soy latte, too?
  - Lutzb 2y ago
    fruit basket.
- palata 2y ago
  Too bad this misses a "/s". I guess that's why it gets downvoted :-/.
- alliao 2y ago
  I was in such a company, do not pass go, do not collect $200, just go.
- cyclecount 2y ago
  haha I think people aren't getting the humour here
- Borrible 2y ago
  You should have put that in quotes. I would even openly admit that I voted your comment up to mitigate the punishment for your mistake, but then they would vote me down. So, I don't. Just so as not to be misunderstood.
blitzar 2y ago
> The recent tech layoffs have shown that employees are disposable in the eyes of executives. In reality they are. There may be only a handful of employees in the world who are truly irreplaceable. Without employee X the shelves will still get stacked, the reports written, the coffee made, the code written, the product sold. Naturally this also applies to the executives too ...
floating-io 2y ago
This is not news. If you are loyal to your employer and do not own a significant part of the organization, then you should take a good hard look at why you're loyal -- and whether or not your employer is loyal to you in return. Hint: in most companies, they aren't. It's exceedingly rare. Base your decisions accordingly. I will note, however, that there is also more to the story than simply "being disposable." An argument can be made that laying off however many employees also helps to preserve the ongoing livelihood of the employees who remain. The error is often not in the layoff. It's in over-hiring in the first place. And that changes the "how evil are these people?" equation rather drastically IMO. Of course, this is just the random off-the-cuff thoughts of someone who is currently far too alcoholated, so YMMV, and-- Look! A boulder of salt! And on that note, I'm going to bed. Tootles!
- JR1427 2y ago
  What annoys me, is when companies expect _you_ to be loyal, when they would get rid of you in a heartbeat. For the vast majority of employment situations, it is simply a transaction. There needn't be any talk of "loyalty", which in my mind is usually just manipulation.
  - suriya-ganesh 2y ago
    Employment are an adversarial relationship of convenience Given the chance, both parties would expect the other party be loyal while they optimize for something better than what they have.
    - Culonavirus 2y ago
      Yea doesn't sound dysfunctional at all... lol. Apply that for marriage for example: > Given the chance, both parties would expect the other party be loyal while they optimize for something better than what they have. Peachy.
      - rkachowski 2y ago
        The difference between employment relationships and marriage is rather large.
jstummbillig 2y ago
As an employer, you are disposable, too. The difference is the amount of time each side has, to develop an understanding of what that means.
rockbruno 2y ago
“There’s been a systematic change where employees feel the employer is extremely lucky to have them,” Mr Gurner said. “We need to remind people they work for the employer, not the other way around.” As much of a tool as this guy seems to be, it's hard to say he's wrong here. I've also been noticing a surge of tech people treating companies as some kind of social service / adult daycare where it's the company's responsibility to make sure the employee and their family are living a good life. It's really bizarre.
- 28304283409234 2y ago
  It's not that black and white. The relationship between employer and employee should be far more symbiotic than what Gurner states. Both should benefit equally from the system. That is no longer the case.
- ClumsyPilot 2y ago
  I think this guy is the kind of person that will fire an employee out of spite, even if it will damage the business. ‘the peasants should know their place’ I am not clear on this whole ‘employees want too much’ issue - we are still talking about companies like FANG that have giant profits and insane capitalisation? Why is having employees claim larger share of the pie a bad thing? The money they pay in salaries actually gets taxes and enters the real economy. The money they stash in tax heavens does not
- pjc50 2y ago
  > it's the company's responsibility to make sure the employee and their family are living a good life Ultimately that's why the person is going to work, no?
- anal_reactor 2y ago
  > It's really bizarre. Everything seems bizarre before it becomes the new standard.
- dgb23 2y ago
  > “There’s been a systematic change where employees feel the employer is extremely lucky to have them,” Aren’t they? I feel like that’s a healthy way of looking at it. Goes both ways though. > “We need to remind people they work for the employer, not the other way around.” What does this even mean? Remind how? And why isn’t mentioned that it’s supposed to be a mutually beneficial exchange?
rob74 2y ago
> “We need to remind people they work for the employer, not the other way around.” The part that I find most galling about managers with this attitude is that they still expect loyalty, unpaid overtime etc. from their employees.
greatpostman 2y ago
Even as a cofounder of a vc backed startup, both of us felt disposable and replaceable by the investors.
- drewcoo 2y ago
  There is projection and there is also reverse projection. This seems like the latter. I wonder how many slave owners said "look, I can't leave this plantation either"?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
disambiguation 2y ago
so.. more beatings until morale improves?
- spc476 2y ago
  In my experience, it's "The meetings will continue until moral improves."
Simon_ORourke 2y ago
If you believe your company has your best interests at heart then you're just a mark waiting to be given some unpleasant news some day soon. As a manager I've personally saved a few folks over the years from a very arbitrary sacking, and it often comes down to a few VPs scheming in some back room with little or no context on what they're planning, and pure luck that you can get to them before they make any announcements.
- blitzar 2y ago
  > If you believe your company has your best interests at heart then you're just a mark If employers believe you are not a mark - you are unemployable.
- pdimitar 2y ago
  What metrics were these VPs optimizing by doing random layoffs?
  - Rinzler89 2y ago
    Their optimizing for stock price growth which go up when random layoffs happen.
    - pdimitar 2y ago
      So they do insider trading then. Not surprised.
      - Rinzler89 2y ago
        No, they're pandering to please their bosses aka the shareholders.
  - Simon_ORourke 2y ago
    The only metric they worry about each day, looking good for their C-suite bosses. Genuinely, they'll go and say they've reduced costs and their orgs headcount by whatever, and absolutely NOBODY will ever ask the follow-up about what functions those folks managed or what institutional knowledge has just walked out the door never to return.
igleria 2y ago
I'm pretty tired of having to argue with leadership about adjusting salaries by inflation. Of course they will begrudgingly eat up increases in other costs due to inflation, but the buck stops with the employees. Keep people that are performing on par or more happy? Naaaah, let's lose internal knowledge and money onboarding a new employee. I'm tired...
- lll-o-lll 2y ago
  This hits hard. I just got my “pay rise”, that is below inflation, with no real comment. “Was it my performance?” “No, your performance was great”. “Can I look at other advancement?” “We will look next year”. So yet again, I feel the pressure to look for a new company. I am so so tired.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
  This AND you get to read about the great financial position company is in, dividends and stock buyback planned and scheduled, rounds of bonuses for the hardworking executives, who toil in anonymity to ensure good returns for shareholders by culling dead weight. What? You want your salary to match inflation? On the list you go.
  - blitzar 2y ago
    > What? You want your salary to match inflation? We dont have the money for that; we just hired a junior for your team that interned at a FAANG and had to pay them 2x your salary.
- hnbad 2y ago
  I'm a contractor and one of my client has grown considerably and shifted their attitude towards me from "external expert who helps us in their field of expertise" to "employee with fewer protections" over the years and this is very much true. Previously I'd tell them I need to raise my rate for one reason or another but I'd also temporarily reduce it when they were struggling with the market during COVID or suspend raising it. When I finally told them I needed to raise it because of inflation and nothing else, they kept hiding behind their own bureaucracy and eventually insisted on finalizing the adjusted contract as part of a round of "pay raises" in the company. I wasn't "asking for a raise", I was informing them of a change in my rate. And it wouldn't have been a raise anyway as it literally barely covered the rise in inflation. When HR eventually sent me the updated contract it felt like they expected me to make a happy dance or something.
Pinkthinker 2y ago
It’s not good to keep fixating on how much the cruel executives make. They are employees just like you, and they have similar worries and concerns. Also, loyalty cuts both ways. Companies will invest more time and energy in employees they know they can count on. You have to decide whether to take that risk or remain suspicious and bitter. Even with all that, both sides have the right to cut ties at any time. Its not so much like a marriage as it is a long time living arrangement.
- pjc50 2y ago
  Executives are not like regular employees, they have a huge freedom to set their own pay at any level the shareholders will accept. The limit case of this is the Musk deal: https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jun/13/tesla-shareholders-approve-elon-musk-pay https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jun/13/tes...
  - hnbad 2y ago
    100% this. Even when executives aren't the owners, they still have a very different position of power than even upper management. The industrial era black-and-white model of worker vs capitalist may not be a good fit for the way large companies are structured but executives are very much the true labor aristocracy, acting more like the royal guard to keep the rabble in check than like a fellow worker who shares your fears and needs.
    - Pinkthinker 2y ago
      I didn’t mean that they were exactly the same as you. But they do tend to get fired all the time and in many cases they have to be compensated in order to induce them to leave their current job. I do agree that keeping the rabble in check is part of their job, but that role extends all the way down an organisation to the chief bottlewasher. Regarding the prior comment, Elon Musk is obviously a very special case since he is the owner and he DID get the stock up way beyond what anyone would have imagined! I don’t think we want to build a generalization around him :-)
alecco 2y ago
We put our savings on Wall Street firms aiming to "maximize shareholder value at any cost" and then complain when these companies end up treating employees like cattle.
- d1sxeyes 2y ago
  Tragedy of the commons. You're right though, saying 'take 10% of my pay check, invest it, and get as high a return as possible' is at odds with 'pay me more'.
jwmoz 2y ago
Don't base your identity on your job.
GuB-42 2y ago
The opposite is also true: as an employer, you are disposable. I think, according to the comments I see on HN, it is a bit too much, on both sides. Employees get laid off for no good reason, we already know that part, but many employees don't hesitate to quit when the company needs them the most. I think the system would benefit from a bit more loyalty, on both sides. You don't have to get married to your employer, but I have the feeling that with a bit more loyalty, both employees and employers could make more beneficial long term plans.
- ktosobcy 2y ago
  > The opposite is also true: as an employer, you are disposable. Noone claims otherwise, but the difference is power dynamics and economic output of the state - if the unemployment is super low (like 1-2%) then it's super easy to jump jobs. But in regular, healthy market (3-5% unemployment) employer always have upper hand...
- sabellito 2y ago
  How's the employer disposable? An insignificant portion of people can find a job in their field whenever they want.
- pydry 2y ago
  It's vanishingly rare for an employer to be more reliant on an employee than the employee is on their employer.
- ionwake 2y ago
  I have a feeling you havent worked long because in the last 20 years of my experience I cant remember of one example where "but many employees don't hesitate to quit when the company needs them the most." was correct. It was always employees being let go suddenly and on a whim.
  - jwr 2y ago
    I have worked long. And I can think of many, many examples of people quitting suddenly and leaving everything hanging, in companies of various sizes. These days I run a solo business. I do not want to have any employees. I've been burned too many times in the past — and my experience (generalizing horribly) is that most programmers think they are the cream of the crop, superstars that deserve salary, benefits, perks, bonuses, vacations, and fantastic treatment. But then it turns out that a) they don't perform as superstars, and b) the company deserves absolutely nothing in return, so people leave suddenly and without warning. In the businesses I've seen, the relationship was very asymmetric, heavily biased towards the comfort of employees.
paulio 2y ago
I was disposed of recently after 4 years. Looking back now I feel I put in too many hours, filled in for roles and responsibilities without financial compensation. I'm 40 and still making these types of mistakes. Just an overwhelming feeling of sadness and frustration. High five for all the other recently made redundant peeps.
z33k 2y ago
This is why we need labor unions. The power dynamics are almost universally stacked in favor of the employer. Unions can equalize this to an extent. You will still be disposable, but at least you will get better terms if you end up getting disposed of.
- DonsDiscountGas 2y ago
  It's why we need UBI and (in the US) universal healthcare, IMHO. there's a lot that's great about a dynamic and flexible economy, as long as it works for the people at large.
- taurath 2y ago
  Oh, but my employer is different and a union would only make business more complicated and less likely to give me raises and promotions! I’m a rising star, you know. - A literal supermajority of software developers
  - Aeolun 2y ago
    I make enough money, I’m happy in my position, I feel like my employer treats me fairly. Why should I want a union? I also have nationally strong’ish labor laws.
    - 9dev 2y ago
      So you’re sure it will stay that way, because you trust management to do the right thing? Even as you get older, life treats you harshly, or the economy goes down and suddenly you’re expected to work twenty extra hours?
      - Aeolun 2y ago
        > So you’re sure it will stay that way, because you trust management to do the right thing Because they’ve given me reason to believe they will? But mostly because the law makes it really hard to let go of employees when your company is doing well enough to keep them.
_spl 2y ago
In my early career, I used to believe in doing whatever it took to stay with a company, becoming emotionally invested in every line of code and system I developed. However, after a few negative experiences with bosses who didn't treat me well, I came to realize a few things: - My code is disposable, and I should not become overly attached to it - Loyalty should be mutual and based on a healthy relationship where both parties are willing to invest
darthrupert 2y ago
Ok, so why are you still employed.
- hnbad 2y ago
  When I started contracting, all the advice I saw was like "you need to have three months of income in savings and maintain this reserve or you will go bankrupt". I never had that much money in savings and to this day still don't but I still think it's good advice. I had of course other advantages that allowed me to overcome the hardships. But more directly, I think "if you think employees are disposable, why are you still an employee" is a very naive - if obvious - question. Even as a contractor I'm functionally treated like an employee by many companies and if anything I'm more disposable this way than I would be with a salaried position and career. The question is "what else" and if there is a dichotomy, the answer is "be the employer" but that is simply not an option for most and if you find yourself being an employee you likely aren't in the position to become an employer because you don't have the funds to start a business without a significant existential risk. The truth is not just that most business founders fail. The truth is also that most founders of the largest businesses that exist today either started when there was no competition nor regulation or they were already filthy (generationally) rich to begin with - or both. So what else is there? Not participate in the economy? You might as well insist people refuse to breathe.
  - darthrupert 2y ago
    No, the question is not this complicated. If you can be disposed of, why haven't you yet? The answer is that the employer is making money off of you. If that stops happening, you're out. This is job security: make money for your employer.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
laurentlb 2y ago
Of course, it also depends on the local laws. In some countries, there are stronger employee protection laws. My employer wanted to do layoffs. They had to come up with an offer that's so good that some employees accepted it (everyone who wanted to remain in the company did).
- tjpnz 2y ago
  I live in a country where US-style layoffs are illegal. Huge weight off my shoulders as a sole breadwinner with young children.
scaryclam 2y ago
And if you work at a place as an employee that has made a situation where you ARN'T disposable, you should either try and change that or leave. If there's a single point of failure like that, the company is being mismanaged. NOBODY leaving, getting sick, taking a holiday or even dying, should leave the rest of the company at risk. Companies should most certainly value employees and treat us with respect, but they should also be setup to allow for employees not being around forever.
nothrowaways 2y ago
Half a million
observer987 2y ago
“Shareholder value” reigns supreme in this late-stage capitalistic world. The executive class lives extraordinarily well off the fruits of the enterprise while the rest lives off the scraps.
- nxm 2y ago
  Coming likely from a highly paid software developer which earns more money than 85% of society.
palata 2y ago
Work for yourself, not for your employer. Your employer will fire you the second it is profitable for them, that's how it is. It doesn't mean that you have to hate your job. Just stop and reflect from time to time, and make sure you are being compensated for what you do. If not, you need to change something (ask for a raise, look for another job, work less, ...). As developers, IMHO you should always push for open sourcing as much as you can, ideally with a copyleft license and no CLA. Because it is beneficial for you personally: it means that you can reuse your code after you leave, and if you manage to make it copyleft and accept external contributions, it will force your employer to keep distributing the sources after you leave. I really don't get why developers sometimes go out of their way to help their employer keep their code proprietary, it should be the other way round.
- rat9988 2y ago
  >I really don't get why developers sometimes go out of their way to help their employer keep their code proprietary I don't do it because I am helpful, but because I'm paid to do so.
  - palata 2y ago
    You're paid to produce code, not to fight against open sourcing it.
    - tiborsaas 2y ago
      Not really, code is a means to an end, we are paid to solve problems and sometimes it translates to writing or deleting code.
      - palata 2y ago
        You're being pedantic here, but missing the point. The parent implies that they "go out of their way to keep their employer's code proprietary" because they are paid for it. I was merely noting that they are not paid for that. They are paid to [solve problems] (which I expressed as "write code").
bl4ckm0r3 2y ago
What I love about this is the narrative around loyalty like we are some kind of samurai. A company gets all the benefit to call itself "a family" and to push employees to be loyal to the company as there's a high cost in offboarding and onboarding people (knowledge, morale, the fact that new joiners aren't really contributing at their best capacity for the first 3/6 months at least depending on seniority etc). Even during resume screening there's always a lot of questions on why people "jump" from a place to another if they have changed jobs every two years. But a company makes mistakes (over hire, product line that don't work, market expansions that don't bring the expected results, overspending etc) and never talk about this openly (the responsibility is always on the market, the situation etc) and often they have obligations towards the investors or the market (if they are public). There's also a psychological burden in changing jobs (impostor syndrome, fear of something unknown, new domain etcetc) and companies use this to convince people to stay. Most of the job of a people manager is to convince people that they are in the best place they could be and focus them on new challenges so they don't have time to think. Don't be fooled by any company, if they think they have to fire you because some spreadsheet calculation told them it is the best thing to do, they will. tldr; Decide what's best for you (and your family if you have one) and never feel bad about it. Loyalty is not a thing in the workplace. ps i have personally witnessed and went through horrible situations where managers had to openly lie about people performance and fired a bunch because the company made bad predictions over their expected revenue and had to fire people to "prove they were doing something about it" and show some cost reduction to the investors. Once a ceo literally cried on hangouts while communicating the decision to fire a whole department, and the day after (while those people were still part of the company) did a whole motivational speech about how that was going to be the best year for the company and we had a lot to look forward to.
protoman3000 2y ago
I'm reading here and else comments suggesting things like "don't get overly attached" or "don't define yourself by the role you fill" or "don't base your identity on your job" But how do you "not" do these things? It seems like I am doing these things automatically and I don't even know how the alternative world where I'm not doing these things looks like.
- vladsiv 2y ago
  I think many suggest that we shouldn’t define our work and identity by our employer or specific job role. Instead, focus on building your expertise in the field and career in general. This approach allows you to avoid becoming overly dependent on a single company, unlike those who are focused solely on advancing their careers within one organization by relying on trust and loyalty. Those individuals often find themselves vulnerable, risking their positions over minor inconveniences or corporate decisions that are beyond their control. By building your identity as an expert in the field, you create a more stable foundation for your career, regardless of the dynamics within any specific company.
  - protoman3000 2y ago
    > we shouldn’t define our work and identity by our employer or specific job role. > By building your identity as an expert in the field I get your point that diversifying the points of external identity validation makes you less dependent and this is a better position. My question is about another strategy, to stop identifying/attaching etc. at all with what you do. And that is not illuminated to me.
- anal_reactor 2y ago
  I think it's about maintaining a healthy balance, and asking yourself once in a while "what would a rational person do?"
- mattgreenrocks 2y ago
  One thing that worked for me: think about what you’d do in retirement. Beyond video games/tv/your vice of choice. Then start doing that now. Probably can’t do it to the same extent. But you can usually approximate it some. You’ll be surprised at how life-giving it is, and that’s because it was a real desire buried under a mountain of “should.” And how hard it can be to even figure out what you want to do, and actually follow through on it.
christkv 2y ago
I've always thought that if you were to plot your disposability it would be some function of the size of the company you work at. In a small company or startup you are more "valuable" than in a large organization.
- arp242 2y ago
  There is some truth to that. But often you're also much more subject to the whims and idiosyncrasies of a single person (i.e. the owner), including (but not limited to) getting fired over something silly.
tbarbugli 2y ago
TL;DR it is a job
herunan 2y ago
And your employer should also be as disposable for you.
richrichie 2y ago
Many employee perspectives here will change the day they start their own company with their own money and hire people to work for them.
yawpitch 2y ago
Hate to break this to you, folks, but as a human, you are disposable.
aaron695 2y ago
[dead]
podgorniy 2y ago
Choice of terms in "human resources" tell enough on those people's perspective
dzonga 2y ago
one thing I believe is in the near future - software will go towards small service firms i.e 1-3 people or at most 20 like law firms etc. given the prevalence of open source. second, being software is now a commodity with 0 price. you can use a generic crm, erp etc .. but most the valuable workflows are 1 of 1. hence need to be bespoke. case in point SAP implementation consultants. however, the huge obstacle is most "software" engineers don't think like engineers or businessmen but think like scientists and tend to be dogmatic. the huge affinity for "dick" swinging sorry ladies .... i.e showing how smart you're and coming up with the most complex contraption e.g kubernetes, react means we will never get to that level. as most engineers won't be able to deliver things solo or with a small team and hence will rely on employment. and please don't mention A.I -- humans can't make predictable userland software as is.
say_it_as_it_is 2y ago
I'm thinking majority owner CEO is the least disposable employee
Ekaros 2y ago
I wonder how often average employee leaves company voluntary when they are not needed or produce value? I see some rockstars pursuing their own goals, but how many of your average employees would do it? And not do it for other reasons like wanting a career change or more opportunities. Purely just for good of the employer?
- ozgrakkurt 2y ago
  In my experience people don’t change jobs because of comfort and the lack of resilience to stress that comes with being unemployed. And possibly having negative interactions with people they work with. Also there is the possible pain of guilt some employers try to impose like, we invested so much in you, bla bla, but you left us
presentation 2y ago
If anyone at a company isn’t disposable then the company isn’t resilient.
coldtea 2y ago
>“There’s been a systematic change where employees feel the employer is extremely lucky to have them,” Mr Gurner said. “We need to remind people they work for the employer, not the other way around.” At least in historical times there was the ocassional revolt against the feudal overlords, and types saying such things were stomped which kept them in some humility. Hell, even Louis XVI saw himself guillotined when he pushed his luck too far.
- Nasrudith 2y ago
  Read the rest of the French history book, please. So you know what happened afterwards and keep your pants zipped up.
  - harimau777 2y ago
    Over a long enough time period: France became a well functioning democracy with a strong social safety net, worker protections, and work life balance.
  - coldtea 2y ago
    The royals and the feudal system crumbled? More such types met their death in the guillotine, including some revolution leaders? Count me in! (Sorry, I'm European, we know the whole history in my parts, from Charlomagne to Robespierre, Saint-Just, all the way to De Gaulle and Macron)
softwaredoug 2y ago
Work to make your employer disposable too by always marketing yourself and networking.
SanderNL 2y ago
Capitalism is a brutal, fatally flawed system that just so happens to work pretty well depending on which side of the game you are on. Sometimes, everybody sort of gets by on it, but that requires sustained heavy-handed out-of-band correction also known as government intervention. We have set a game in motion that even sounds bad in theory leads to hideous results. That it quasi-works in practice is a goddamn miracle and a testament to our flexibility. I say quasi, because for it to work for the top of the pyramid it requires large swaths of our species to exist in bitter, soul-crushing poverty and, given that morality is not really an issue for us psychopaths, it remains to be seen if our recent penchant for planet-scale destruction has any long-lasting effects on our ability to survive as a species.
stavros 2y ago
People here are talking about loyalty, when they really shouldn't be. A company is not your family. Hell, a company isn't even something you can form a bond with. You can be loyal to the people in a company, but the relationship with the company is purely transactional, and it lasts exactly as long as it's mutually beneficial. Thinking that you should stay in a company even after it stops being beneficial for you will not lead to anything good.
- resource_waste 2y ago
  The relationship is key. I had a worker do some good work for low pay, because they believed in the idea. Situations changed and I need someone else for the position. I have so much guilt and I must do something for this worker.
  - ecjhdnc2025 2y ago
    You can't change the reasons for which you need a new person, and you've materially benefited from the person working for low pay. But it's not guilt, it's your morality and ethics identifying a gain you made that you feel you shouldn't be comfortable with. One suggestion, perhaps the most obvious: identify the likely pay/compensation of the person who will replace them, and then pay them the difference (or as much of it as you can) in severance over and above what you're required to offer. Second suggestion: help find this person a new job at the kind of pay they should actually have been earning for the quality of work they were doing. But don't feel guilt: it's more like a moral obligation. It's a good thing, not a negative emotion. It means you're thinking like a complete person in a world where it is common to pretend that isn't necessary.
    - jrs235 2y ago
      >it's your morality and ethics identifying a gain you made that you feel you shouldn't be comfortable with. What's your definition of guilt then? Just curious. Thanks.
      - 2y ago
iamnotsure 2y ago
Developing nonfree software is not worth it.
tleb_ 2y ago
I have trouble understanding how people work for such big companies. Of course if the scale is 1000 employees "the company" cannot care about you; it is an institution not a bunch of people anymore. There is no upper layer to blame, the structure and scale themselves are the culprit. I decided against that and work in a small company. Work-life balance is nice, we are friends and we all care (at least some bit) about the company itself. That is, because "the company" is us.
- resource_waste 2y ago
  The pay is absurdly good and the experience is literally worth $100/hr more than small businesses.
- throwaway7ahgb 2y ago
  Risk / Reward balance. The place I work at is cut-throat. The company says that we are NOT a family, we are a team (Like professional baseball). Some people are better at other teams (Aka not fit for this company and get traded). However they pay very well (Cash and benefits) and I can handle it. The people that cannot should work at places more like USPS or smaller shops.
  - kcb 2y ago
    This is worse than the typical family speal. I hope you realize it's just another tactic of the same manipulation. Trying to provide a sense of superiority to it's employees to justify working conditions. If you can't handle it, "go work at USPS" is especially telling.
npteljes 2y ago
Loyalty is lock-in, lock-in makes the one locked in more vulnerable, and more vulnerable means less power, and less power means less compensation.
Andrew_nenakhov 2y ago
> The recent tech layoffs have shown that employees are disposable in the eyes of executives Ah, yes. Employees, who would easily switch jobs for whatever reason when it's beneficial for them, complain that they can be let go when it's beneficial for the organization.
Nasrudith 2y ago
Really if you aren't disposable barring literal world class individuals, then management is utterly incompetent at their jobs. Even in a utopian happy relationship you could get hit by the proverbial bus or truck and then the company and everyone else in it is screwed.
OutOfHere 2y ago
Related: "Disposable Employers (2014)" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40932252 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40932252
akudha 2y ago
I have been a lousy employee, average employee, exceptional employee at various jobs in my life. The one thing that is 100% common in all these jobs? Nobody gave a shit. The only people who cared a tiny bit were my immediate team mates, that too because their deliverables were tied to my own. Anyone young reading this - the only thing that you will get for doing good work is more work. Of course there are exceptions (these exceptions are usually more at team level than organization level), but they are rare. If you don't agree, try asking for more than 2% raise and see how the conversation goes. Unless your employer is totally dependent on you or you have some rare skill, chances of you getting treated fairly are pretty low. I used to be idealistic and look down upon people who work two remote jobs effectively getting paid twice for the same time. I don't do it myself, but I have gotten off my high horse and no longer frown on such practices. If they can make it work, more power to them. Loyalty to an employer is like loyalty to Trump, it is just a one way street
- whatamidoingyo 2y ago
  > If you don't agree, try asking for more than 2% raise and see how the conversation goes. Yeah, I did, like 3 months ago. "We'll let you know when the boss gets back." Haven't heard a word about it since.
varispeed 2y ago
If you are not a shareholder of the company you work at, you are basically a cow that is being milked and once you no longer can be milked or business decides they need to pivot to pork, you'll get slaughtered. Always do bare minimum, just enough to not be fired but keep your managers upset. Never do more than what you are paid to do and adjust your performance based on how happy you are with the pay and how much money company makes off your work. Seen examples when employee on £80k found a way to optimise some queries in the product. That translated to substantially lowered bills and increased sales. Talking millions in extra revenue. Did they get a bonus? Bump in the salary? No. Soon after company found a new investor who brought in their own team and that developer was let go. Lesson - never go out of your way, never do more than you are asked to do. Save any brilliant ideas to yourself. Maybe when they let you go, you will use them at your own business and get competitive advantage.
neilv 2y ago
Lately, especially with the layoffs frenzies, I've been rethinking one of my engineering culture practices in particular: having a culture of everyone maintaining documentation for everything (using particular lightweight methods and conventions). It's a lot harder harder to tell people to do this (because it's professional, it's effective for your team and company, and you'll be valued as a great engineer)... when they can look around themselves, at our industry, and see all the sociopathic execs at companies having great years... getting rid of people to make numbers look even better. And making a liar out of me for telling people they should be thinking about our collective success, rather than hoarding information for job security, or declining to help out a colleague in what (in a sociopathic company) could be a zero-sum game. I still believe in great engineering teams, and I will heal or smite any toxic elements within my power... but I haven't yet figured out how to reconcile my best-practice culture theories with the current reality, when we see all these prominent techbro companies revealing more of their true nature in a way that employees can't ignore. One idea is to bootstrap a company that's better, and not get into a VC trap that eventually will probably make you be jerks even if you weren't already predisposed. (It's hard-mode, compared to just getting some VC money, hiring people, and just repeatedly trying to look like you have growth potential. Also, you have to share the equity more equitably, or you're telling people that the truth is that it's transactional, and most of the talk about focusing on the success of the whole is a swindle, to get them to do what you want to make you specifically rich.) Another idea is to find a good company, and work within that. (But that's hard, when even the ones that profess to be more values-oriented than most are usually just a veneer over the familiar sunny-sociopath culture.) Another idea is to hire a team with values compatible with the good culture theory, and if the company starts going bad, we idealistically or on principle still do things right. And it the company really stabs itself in the face, and we have to move on to other places, we'll have that network of a rare great team.
Rachma_AS 2y ago
Rachma
wanderingmind 2y ago
I think most advice here is bad for long term career. Yes, you should ask to be paid for what you are worth, you should walk away from toxic culture and avoid being exploited. Having said that, you need to care, care about your work, your team. You must give it all you have and have the pride of having produced great outcome. You will learn and grow and have a great network of people. Don't do this for others. Do it for yourselves and your mental health, because the joy of having done your best will be more rewarding in the long term.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
demondemidi 2y ago
Depends on your job and relevance to the company’s bottom land AND the ramp time for new talent. I’m in charge of delivering two products. If they canned me, their roadmap would be toast for the next five years. And we’re so short staffed there’s no one to fill my role or bring someone in and ramp them even if they could find someone.
josefritzishere 2y ago
I hope this is a lesson to workers to make career decisions with the same level of detachment that your employers do.
josefritzishere 2y ago
I feel like Marx wrote something poignant about this.
temporarely 2y ago
The nature of the relationship between the employer and employee is spelled out in the employment agreement (in the US). Sure it is legalize but the nature of the relationship is clear: Any company that claims to be a "family" should put an employment agreement in front of you that reflects that. I have yet to see anything even remotely resembling such a relationship. Rather, ime, the nature of the relationship spelled out is one of asymmetric power, rights, and remedies.
cnotv 2y ago
I don't think have seen any different since always. You have to always look for the next job, IT companies do not last, this is how it works. It's not just a legal matter, it's objectively the economy. Even if you would enforce it, a company would not be able to make money in some cases. Boards and top management care just about money anyway, so you'll get extra degrees of shit.
tamimio 2y ago
Why is an employer allowed and socially accepted to hire more than one person to do the same job, and even have someone shadowing you, but an employee might get fired if caught working another job? Why can an employer fire someone on the spot without notice, but an employee is expected to give a notice period? These are among many questions that highlight the power dynamics between employers and employees.
banku_brougham 2y ago
I lot of the discourse on here is flavored by an industry experiencing more than 20 years of boom times.
jalapenos 2y ago
If I could perhaps offer a middle of the road take. I think there's immaturity on both sides of this. Many employees are treating employment as a kind of child-parent relationship, where as long as they're at least moderately obedient, they're entitled to be taken care of. On the other hand, there's certain employers who feel a childish need to show how strong they are, by being ruthless, and making big dramatic "difficult" changes (not difficult for them) as a kind of theatrical performance of how action-taking they are. If approached maturely, employers would be reticent to do layoffs like this, because they show comically poor staffing management, and cause huge waste and losses. And employees would put more effort into career defence, rather than putting all effort into working hard for an employer, who they can't guarantee will or can reciprocate their loyalty. I.e. greater diligence is needed on both sides.
SergeAx 2y ago
> It’s okay to like your job and employer. Just understand that, as an employee, you are disposable. This is a) trivial and self-evident, and b) symmetrical in the sense that company is disposable too: any employee may fire the company at any time and get to another company with a two weeks notice. So, what's the point?
tennisflyi 2y ago
Why would you ever think you weren’t? Also, think of it as a sports team, not a family (ew)

Context: big American tech, hiring tens of thousands of “engineers” through leetcode during a financial boom, and then firing a substantial part with an email during the bust.

siquick 2y ago
Thankfully most companies in the world aren’t American “at will” employers and don’t have tens of thousands of employees.

joejohnson 2y ago

Not at my company. We’re more like a family than a traditional startup.

yesuk 2y ago
That is even worse.
colesantiago 2y ago
Instant red flag.
blitzar 2y ago
> We’re more like a family Run.
- aydyn 2y ago
  some of yall really need to get your sarcasm meter tuned up
  - nottorp 2y ago
    I missed the "startup". My bad :)
lynx23 2y ago
When I was younger, I also fell for this. Today, I shudder when I read this. In many cases, execs will abuse the family status to squeeze extra work out of you while you fail to even notice. Stay alert for sentences like "But, we are a family, so..."
seqizz 2y ago
I believe people missed the irony here.
nottorp 2y ago
Management mandated family with "living at work"? Run. Normal work schedule with grunt employees doing not mandated stuff together once in a while after work? Okay, that's nice, but you should still have a social group that's not (only) coworkers. Huge difference.
dailykoder 2y ago
Do you get free soy latte, too?
- Lutzb 2y ago
  fruit basket.
palata 2y ago
Too bad this misses a "/s". I guess that's why it gets downvoted :-/.
alliao 2y ago
I was in such a company, do not pass go, do not collect $200, just go.
cyclecount 2y ago
haha I think people aren't getting the humour here
Borrible 2y ago
You should have put that in quotes. I would even openly admit that I voted your comment up to mitigate the punishment for your mistake, but then they would vote me down. So, I don't. Just so as not to be misunderstood.

blitzar 2y ago

> The recent tech layoffs have shown that employees are disposable in the eyes of executives. In reality they are. There may be only a handful of employees in the world who are truly irreplaceable. Without employee X the shelves will still get stacked, the reports written, the coffee made, the code written, the product sold. Naturally this also applies to the executives too ...

floating-io 2y ago

This is not news. If you are loyal to your employer and do not own a significant part of the organization, then you should take a good hard look at why you're loyal -- and whether or not your employer is loyal to you in return. Hint: in most companies, they aren't. It's exceedingly rare. Base your decisions accordingly. I will note, however, that there is also more to the story than simply "being disposable." An argument can be made that laying off however many employees also helps to preserve the ongoing livelihood of the employees who remain. The error is often not in the layoff. It's in over-hiring in the first place. And that changes the "how evil are these people?" equation rather drastically IMO. Of course, this is just the random off-the-cuff thoughts of someone who is currently far too alcoholated, so YMMV, and-- Look! A boulder of salt! And on that note, I'm going to bed. Tootles!

JR1427 2y ago
What annoys me, is when companies expect _you_ to be loyal, when they would get rid of you in a heartbeat. For the vast majority of employment situations, it is simply a transaction. There needn't be any talk of "loyalty", which in my mind is usually just manipulation.
- suriya-ganesh 2y ago
  Employment are an adversarial relationship of convenience Given the chance, both parties would expect the other party be loyal while they optimize for something better than what they have.
  - Culonavirus 2y ago
    Yea doesn't sound dysfunctional at all... lol. Apply that for marriage for example: > Given the chance, both parties would expect the other party be loyal while they optimize for something better than what they have. Peachy.
    - rkachowski 2y ago
      The difference between employment relationships and marriage is rather large.

jstummbillig 2y ago

As an employer, you are disposable, too. The difference is the amount of time each side has, to develop an understanding of what that means.

rockbruno 2y ago

“There’s been a systematic change where employees feel the employer is extremely lucky to have them,” Mr Gurner said. “We need to remind people they work for the employer, not the other way around.” As much of a tool as this guy seems to be, it's hard to say he's wrong here. I've also been noticing a surge of tech people treating companies as some kind of social service / adult daycare where it's the company's responsibility to make sure the employee and their family are living a good life. It's really bizarre.

28304283409234 2y ago
It's not that black and white. The relationship between employer and employee should be far more symbiotic than what Gurner states. Both should benefit equally from the system. That is no longer the case.
ClumsyPilot 2y ago
I think this guy is the kind of person that will fire an employee out of spite, even if it will damage the business. ‘the peasants should know their place’ I am not clear on this whole ‘employees want too much’ issue - we are still talking about companies like FANG that have giant profits and insane capitalisation? Why is having employees claim larger share of the pie a bad thing? The money they pay in salaries actually gets taxes and enters the real economy. The money they stash in tax heavens does not
pjc50 2y ago
> it's the company's responsibility to make sure the employee and their family are living a good life Ultimately that's why the person is going to work, no?
anal_reactor 2y ago
> It's really bizarre. Everything seems bizarre before it becomes the new standard.
dgb23 2y ago
> “There’s been a systematic change where employees feel the employer is extremely lucky to have them,” Aren’t they? I feel like that’s a healthy way of looking at it. Goes both ways though. > “We need to remind people they work for the employer, not the other way around.” What does this even mean? Remind how? And why isn’t mentioned that it’s supposed to be a mutually beneficial exchange?

rob74 2y ago

> “We need to remind people they work for the employer, not the other way around.” The part that I find most galling about managers with this attitude is that they still expect loyalty, unpaid overtime etc. from their employees.

greatpostman 2y ago

Even as a cofounder of a vc backed startup, both of us felt disposable and replaceable by the investors.

drewcoo 2y ago
There is projection and there is also reverse projection. This seems like the latter. I wonder how many slave owners said "look, I can't leave this plantation either"?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

disambiguation 2y ago

so.. more beatings until morale improves?

spc476 2y ago
In my experience, it's "The meetings will continue until moral improves."

Simon_ORourke 2y ago

If you believe your company has your best interests at heart then you're just a mark waiting to be given some unpleasant news some day soon. As a manager I've personally saved a few folks over the years from a very arbitrary sacking, and it often comes down to a few VPs scheming in some back room with little or no context on what they're planning, and pure luck that you can get to them before they make any announcements.

blitzar 2y ago
> If you believe your company has your best interests at heart then you're just a mark If employers believe you are not a mark - you are unemployable.
pdimitar 2y ago
What metrics were these VPs optimizing by doing random layoffs?
- Rinzler89 2y ago
  Their optimizing for stock price growth which go up when random layoffs happen.
  - pdimitar 2y ago
    So they do insider trading then. Not surprised.
    - Rinzler89 2y ago
      No, they're pandering to please their bosses aka the shareholders.
- Simon_ORourke 2y ago
  The only metric they worry about each day, looking good for their C-suite bosses. Genuinely, they'll go and say they've reduced costs and their orgs headcount by whatever, and absolutely NOBODY will ever ask the follow-up about what functions those folks managed or what institutional knowledge has just walked out the door never to return.

igleria 2y ago

I'm pretty tired of having to argue with leadership about adjusting salaries by inflation. Of course they will begrudgingly eat up increases in other costs due to inflation, but the buck stops with the employees. Keep people that are performing on par or more happy? Naaaah, let's lose internal knowledge and money onboarding a new employee. I'm tired...

lll-o-lll 2y ago
This hits hard. I just got my “pay rise”, that is below inflation, with no real comment. “Was it my performance?” “No, your performance was great”. “Can I look at other advancement?” “We will look next year”. So yet again, I feel the pressure to look for a new company. I am so so tired.
A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
This AND you get to read about the great financial position company is in, dividends and stock buyback planned and scheduled, rounds of bonuses for the hardworking executives, who toil in anonymity to ensure good returns for shareholders by culling dead weight. What? You want your salary to match inflation? On the list you go.
- blitzar 2y ago
  > What? You want your salary to match inflation? We dont have the money for that; we just hired a junior for your team that interned at a FAANG and had to pay them 2x your salary.
hnbad 2y ago
I'm a contractor and one of my client has grown considerably and shifted their attitude towards me from "external expert who helps us in their field of expertise" to "employee with fewer protections" over the years and this is very much true. Previously I'd tell them I need to raise my rate for one reason or another but I'd also temporarily reduce it when they were struggling with the market during COVID or suspend raising it. When I finally told them I needed to raise it because of inflation and nothing else, they kept hiding behind their own bureaucracy and eventually insisted on finalizing the adjusted contract as part of a round of "pay raises" in the company. I wasn't "asking for a raise", I was informing them of a change in my rate. And it wouldn't have been a raise anyway as it literally barely covered the rise in inflation. When HR eventually sent me the updated contract it felt like they expected me to make a happy dance or something.

Pinkthinker 2y ago

It’s not good to keep fixating on how much the cruel executives make. They are employees just like you, and they have similar worries and concerns. Also, loyalty cuts both ways. Companies will invest more time and energy in employees they know they can count on. You have to decide whether to take that risk or remain suspicious and bitter. Even with all that, both sides have the right to cut ties at any time. Its not so much like a marriage as it is a long time living arrangement.

pjc50 2y ago
Executives are not like regular employees, they have a huge freedom to set their own pay at any level the shareholders will accept. The limit case of this is the Musk deal: https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jun/13/tesla-shareholders-approve-elon-musk-pay https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jun/13/tes...
- hnbad 2y ago
  100% this. Even when executives aren't the owners, they still have a very different position of power than even upper management. The industrial era black-and-white model of worker vs capitalist may not be a good fit for the way large companies are structured but executives are very much the true labor aristocracy, acting more like the royal guard to keep the rabble in check than like a fellow worker who shares your fears and needs.
  - Pinkthinker 2y ago
    I didn’t mean that they were exactly the same as you. But they do tend to get fired all the time and in many cases they have to be compensated in order to induce them to leave their current job. I do agree that keeping the rabble in check is part of their job, but that role extends all the way down an organisation to the chief bottlewasher. Regarding the prior comment, Elon Musk is obviously a very special case since he is the owner and he DID get the stock up way beyond what anyone would have imagined! I don’t think we want to build a generalization around him :-)

alecco 2y ago

We put our savings on Wall Street firms aiming to "maximize shareholder value at any cost" and then complain when these companies end up treating employees like cattle.

d1sxeyes 2y ago
Tragedy of the commons. You're right though, saying 'take 10% of my pay check, invest it, and get as high a return as possible' is at odds with 'pay me more'.

jwmoz 2y ago

Don't base your identity on your job.

GuB-42 2y ago

The opposite is also true: as an employer, you are disposable. I think, according to the comments I see on HN, it is a bit too much, on both sides. Employees get laid off for no good reason, we already know that part, but many employees don't hesitate to quit when the company needs them the most. I think the system would benefit from a bit more loyalty, on both sides. You don't have to get married to your employer, but I have the feeling that with a bit more loyalty, both employees and employers could make more beneficial long term plans.

ktosobcy 2y ago
> The opposite is also true: as an employer, you are disposable. Noone claims otherwise, but the difference is power dynamics and economic output of the state - if the unemployment is super low (like 1-2%) then it's super easy to jump jobs. But in regular, healthy market (3-5% unemployment) employer always have upper hand...
sabellito 2y ago
How's the employer disposable? An insignificant portion of people can find a job in their field whenever they want.
pydry 2y ago
It's vanishingly rare for an employer to be more reliant on an employee than the employee is on their employer.
ionwake 2y ago
I have a feeling you havent worked long because in the last 20 years of my experience I cant remember of one example where "but many employees don't hesitate to quit when the company needs them the most." was correct. It was always employees being let go suddenly and on a whim.
- jwr 2y ago
  I have worked long. And I can think of many, many examples of people quitting suddenly and leaving everything hanging, in companies of various sizes. These days I run a solo business. I do not want to have any employees. I've been burned too many times in the past — and my experience (generalizing horribly) is that most programmers think they are the cream of the crop, superstars that deserve salary, benefits, perks, bonuses, vacations, and fantastic treatment. But then it turns out that a) they don't perform as superstars, and b) the company deserves absolutely nothing in return, so people leave suddenly and without warning. In the businesses I've seen, the relationship was very asymmetric, heavily biased towards the comfort of employees.

paulio 2y ago

I was disposed of recently after 4 years. Looking back now I feel I put in too many hours, filled in for roles and responsibilities without financial compensation. I'm 40 and still making these types of mistakes. Just an overwhelming feeling of sadness and frustration. High five for all the other recently made redundant peeps.

z33k 2y ago

This is why we need labor unions. The power dynamics are almost universally stacked in favor of the employer. Unions can equalize this to an extent. You will still be disposable, but at least you will get better terms if you end up getting disposed of.

DonsDiscountGas 2y ago
It's why we need UBI and (in the US) universal healthcare, IMHO. there's a lot that's great about a dynamic and flexible economy, as long as it works for the people at large.
taurath 2y ago
Oh, but my employer is different and a union would only make business more complicated and less likely to give me raises and promotions! I’m a rising star, you know. - A literal supermajority of software developers
- Aeolun 2y ago
  I make enough money, I’m happy in my position, I feel like my employer treats me fairly. Why should I want a union? I also have nationally strong’ish labor laws.
  - 9dev 2y ago
    So you’re sure it will stay that way, because you trust management to do the right thing? Even as you get older, life treats you harshly, or the economy goes down and suddenly you’re expected to work twenty extra hours?
    - Aeolun 2y ago
      > So you’re sure it will stay that way, because you trust management to do the right thing Because they’ve given me reason to believe they will? But mostly because the law makes it really hard to let go of employees when your company is doing well enough to keep them.

_spl 2y ago

In my early career, I used to believe in doing whatever it took to stay with a company, becoming emotionally invested in every line of code and system I developed. However, after a few negative experiences with bosses who didn't treat me well, I came to realize a few things: - My code is disposable, and I should not become overly attached to it - Loyalty should be mutual and based on a healthy relationship where both parties are willing to invest

darthrupert 2y ago

Ok, so why are you still employed.

hnbad 2y ago
When I started contracting, all the advice I saw was like "you need to have three months of income in savings and maintain this reserve or you will go bankrupt". I never had that much money in savings and to this day still don't but I still think it's good advice. I had of course other advantages that allowed me to overcome the hardships. But more directly, I think "if you think employees are disposable, why are you still an employee" is a very naive - if obvious - question. Even as a contractor I'm functionally treated like an employee by many companies and if anything I'm more disposable this way than I would be with a salaried position and career. The question is "what else" and if there is a dichotomy, the answer is "be the employer" but that is simply not an option for most and if you find yourself being an employee you likely aren't in the position to become an employer because you don't have the funds to start a business without a significant existential risk. The truth is not just that most business founders fail. The truth is also that most founders of the largest businesses that exist today either started when there was no competition nor regulation or they were already filthy (generationally) rich to begin with - or both. So what else is there? Not participate in the economy? You might as well insist people refuse to breathe.
- darthrupert 2y ago
  No, the question is not this complicated. If you can be disposed of, why haven't you yet? The answer is that the employer is making money off of you. If that stops happening, you're out. This is job security: make money for your employer.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

laurentlb 2y ago

Of course, it also depends on the local laws. In some countries, there are stronger employee protection laws. My employer wanted to do layoffs. They had to come up with an offer that's so good that some employees accepted it (everyone who wanted to remain in the company did).

tjpnz 2y ago
I live in a country where US-style layoffs are illegal. Huge weight off my shoulders as a sole breadwinner with young children.

scaryclam 2y ago

And if you work at a place as an employee that has made a situation where you ARN'T disposable, you should either try and change that or leave. If there's a single point of failure like that, the company is being mismanaged. NOBODY leaving, getting sick, taking a holiday or even dying, should leave the rest of the company at risk. Companies should most certainly value employees and treat us with respect, but they should also be setup to allow for employees not being around forever.

nothrowaways 2y ago

Half a million

observer987 2y ago

“Shareholder value” reigns supreme in this late-stage capitalistic world. The executive class lives extraordinarily well off the fruits of the enterprise while the rest lives off the scraps.

nxm 2y ago
Coming likely from a highly paid software developer which earns more money than 85% of society.

palata 2y ago

Work for yourself, not for your employer. Your employer will fire you the second it is profitable for them, that's how it is. It doesn't mean that you have to hate your job. Just stop and reflect from time to time, and make sure you are being compensated for what you do. If not, you need to change something (ask for a raise, look for another job, work less, ...). As developers, IMHO you should always push for open sourcing as much as you can, ideally with a copyleft license and no CLA. Because it is beneficial for you personally: it means that you can reuse your code after you leave, and if you manage to make it copyleft and accept external contributions, it will force your employer to keep distributing the sources after you leave. I really don't get why developers sometimes go out of their way to help their employer keep their code proprietary, it should be the other way round.

rat9988 2y ago
>I really don't get why developers sometimes go out of their way to help their employer keep their code proprietary I don't do it because I am helpful, but because I'm paid to do so.
- palata 2y ago
  You're paid to produce code, not to fight against open sourcing it.
  - tiborsaas 2y ago
    Not really, code is a means to an end, we are paid to solve problems and sometimes it translates to writing or deleting code.
    - palata 2y ago
      You're being pedantic here, but missing the point. The parent implies that they "go out of their way to keep their employer's code proprietary" because they are paid for it. I was merely noting that they are not paid for that. They are paid to [solve problems] (which I expressed as "write code").

bl4ckm0r3 2y ago

What I love about this is the narrative around loyalty like we are some kind of samurai. A company gets all the benefit to call itself "a family" and to push employees to be loyal to the company as there's a high cost in offboarding and onboarding people (knowledge, morale, the fact that new joiners aren't really contributing at their best capacity for the first 3/6 months at least depending on seniority etc). Even during resume screening there's always a lot of questions on why people "jump" from a place to another if they have changed jobs every two years. But a company makes mistakes (over hire, product line that don't work, market expansions that don't bring the expected results, overspending etc) and never talk about this openly (the responsibility is always on the market, the situation etc) and often they have obligations towards the investors or the market (if they are public). There's also a psychological burden in changing jobs (impostor syndrome, fear of something unknown, new domain etcetc) and companies use this to convince people to stay. Most of the job of a people manager is to convince people that they are in the best place they could be and focus them on new challenges so they don't have time to think. Don't be fooled by any company, if they think they have to fire you because some spreadsheet calculation told them it is the best thing to do, they will. tldr; Decide what's best for you (and your family if you have one) and never feel bad about it. Loyalty is not a thing in the workplace. ps i have personally witnessed and went through horrible situations where managers had to openly lie about people performance and fired a bunch because the company made bad predictions over their expected revenue and had to fire people to "prove they were doing something about it" and show some cost reduction to the investors. Once a ceo literally cried on hangouts while communicating the decision to fire a whole department, and the day after (while those people were still part of the company) did a whole motivational speech about how that was going to be the best year for the company and we had a lot to look forward to.

protoman3000 2y ago

I'm reading here and else comments suggesting things like "don't get overly attached" or "don't define yourself by the role you fill" or "don't base your identity on your job" But how do you "not" do these things? It seems like I am doing these things automatically and I don't even know how the alternative world where I'm not doing these things looks like.

vladsiv 2y ago
I think many suggest that we shouldn’t define our work and identity by our employer or specific job role. Instead, focus on building your expertise in the field and career in general. This approach allows you to avoid becoming overly dependent on a single company, unlike those who are focused solely on advancing their careers within one organization by relying on trust and loyalty. Those individuals often find themselves vulnerable, risking their positions over minor inconveniences or corporate decisions that are beyond their control. By building your identity as an expert in the field, you create a more stable foundation for your career, regardless of the dynamics within any specific company.
- protoman3000 2y ago
  > we shouldn’t define our work and identity by our employer or specific job role. > By building your identity as an expert in the field I get your point that diversifying the points of external identity validation makes you less dependent and this is a better position. My question is about another strategy, to stop identifying/attaching etc. at all with what you do. And that is not illuminated to me.
anal_reactor 2y ago
I think it's about maintaining a healthy balance, and asking yourself once in a while "what would a rational person do?"
mattgreenrocks 2y ago
One thing that worked for me: think about what you’d do in retirement. Beyond video games/tv/your vice of choice. Then start doing that now. Probably can’t do it to the same extent. But you can usually approximate it some. You’ll be surprised at how life-giving it is, and that’s because it was a real desire buried under a mountain of “should.” And how hard it can be to even figure out what you want to do, and actually follow through on it.

christkv 2y ago

I've always thought that if you were to plot your disposability it would be some function of the size of the company you work at. In a small company or startup you are more "valuable" than in a large organization.

arp242 2y ago
There is some truth to that. But often you're also much more subject to the whims and idiosyncrasies of a single person (i.e. the owner), including (but not limited to) getting fired over something silly.

tbarbugli 2y ago

TL;DR it is a job

herunan 2y ago

And your employer should also be as disposable for you.

richrichie 2y ago

Many employee perspectives here will change the day they start their own company with their own money and hire people to work for them.

yawpitch 2y ago

Hate to break this to you, folks, but as a human, you are disposable.

aaron695 2y ago

[dead]

podgorniy 2y ago

Choice of terms in "human resources" tell enough on those people's perspective

dzonga 2y ago

one thing I believe is in the near future - software will go towards small service firms i.e 1-3 people or at most 20 like law firms etc. given the prevalence of open source. second, being software is now a commodity with 0 price. you can use a generic crm, erp etc .. but most the valuable workflows are 1 of 1. hence need to be bespoke. case in point SAP implementation consultants. however, the huge obstacle is most "software" engineers don't think like engineers or businessmen but think like scientists and tend to be dogmatic. the huge affinity for "dick" swinging sorry ladies .... i.e showing how smart you're and coming up with the most complex contraption e.g kubernetes, react means we will never get to that level. as most engineers won't be able to deliver things solo or with a small team and hence will rely on employment. and please don't mention A.I -- humans can't make predictable userland software as is.

say_it_as_it_is 2y ago

I'm thinking majority owner CEO is the least disposable employee

Ekaros 2y ago

I wonder how often average employee leaves company voluntary when they are not needed or produce value? I see some rockstars pursuing their own goals, but how many of your average employees would do it? And not do it for other reasons like wanting a career change or more opportunities. Purely just for good of the employer?

ozgrakkurt 2y ago
In my experience people don’t change jobs because of comfort and the lack of resilience to stress that comes with being unemployed. And possibly having negative interactions with people they work with. Also there is the possible pain of guilt some employers try to impose like, we invested so much in you, bla bla, but you left us

presentation 2y ago

If anyone at a company isn’t disposable then the company isn’t resilient.

coldtea 2y ago

>“There’s been a systematic change where employees feel the employer is extremely lucky to have them,” Mr Gurner said. “We need to remind people they work for the employer, not the other way around.” At least in historical times there was the ocassional revolt against the feudal overlords, and types saying such things were stomped which kept them in some humility. Hell, even Louis XVI saw himself guillotined when he pushed his luck too far.

Nasrudith 2y ago
Read the rest of the French history book, please. So you know what happened afterwards and keep your pants zipped up.
- harimau777 2y ago
  Over a long enough time period: France became a well functioning democracy with a strong social safety net, worker protections, and work life balance.
- coldtea 2y ago
  The royals and the feudal system crumbled? More such types met their death in the guillotine, including some revolution leaders? Count me in! (Sorry, I'm European, we know the whole history in my parts, from Charlomagne to Robespierre, Saint-Just, all the way to De Gaulle and Macron)

softwaredoug 2y ago

Work to make your employer disposable too by always marketing yourself and networking.

SanderNL 2y ago

Capitalism is a brutal, fatally flawed system that just so happens to work pretty well depending on which side of the game you are on. Sometimes, everybody sort of gets by on it, but that requires sustained heavy-handed out-of-band correction also known as government intervention. We have set a game in motion that even sounds bad in theory leads to hideous results. That it quasi-works in practice is a goddamn miracle and a testament to our flexibility. I say quasi, because for it to work for the top of the pyramid it requires large swaths of our species to exist in bitter, soul-crushing poverty and, given that morality is not really an issue for us psychopaths, it remains to be seen if our recent penchant for planet-scale destruction has any long-lasting effects on our ability to survive as a species.

stavros 2y ago

People here are talking about loyalty, when they really shouldn't be. A company is not your family. Hell, a company isn't even something you can form a bond with. You can be loyal to the people in a company, but the relationship with the company is purely transactional, and it lasts exactly as long as it's mutually beneficial. Thinking that you should stay in a company even after it stops being beneficial for you will not lead to anything good.

resource_waste 2y ago
The relationship is key. I had a worker do some good work for low pay, because they believed in the idea. Situations changed and I need someone else for the position. I have so much guilt and I must do something for this worker.
- ecjhdnc2025 2y ago
  You can't change the reasons for which you need a new person, and you've materially benefited from the person working for low pay. But it's not guilt, it's your morality and ethics identifying a gain you made that you feel you shouldn't be comfortable with. One suggestion, perhaps the most obvious: identify the likely pay/compensation of the person who will replace them, and then pay them the difference (or as much of it as you can) in severance over and above what you're required to offer. Second suggestion: help find this person a new job at the kind of pay they should actually have been earning for the quality of work they were doing. But don't feel guilt: it's more like a moral obligation. It's a good thing, not a negative emotion. It means you're thinking like a complete person in a world where it is common to pretend that isn't necessary.
  - jrs235 2y ago
    >it's your morality and ethics identifying a gain you made that you feel you shouldn't be comfortable with. What's your definition of guilt then? Just curious. Thanks.
    - 2y ago

iamnotsure 2y ago

Developing nonfree software is not worth it.

tleb_ 2y ago

I have trouble understanding how people work for such big companies. Of course if the scale is 1000 employees "the company" cannot care about you; it is an institution not a bunch of people anymore. There is no upper layer to blame, the structure and scale themselves are the culprit. I decided against that and work in a small company. Work-life balance is nice, we are friends and we all care (at least some bit) about the company itself. That is, because "the company" is us.

resource_waste 2y ago
The pay is absurdly good and the experience is literally worth $100/hr more than small businesses.
throwaway7ahgb 2y ago
Risk / Reward balance. The place I work at is cut-throat. The company says that we are NOT a family, we are a team (Like professional baseball). Some people are better at other teams (Aka not fit for this company and get traded). However they pay very well (Cash and benefits) and I can handle it. The people that cannot should work at places more like USPS or smaller shops.
- kcb 2y ago
  This is worse than the typical family speal. I hope you realize it's just another tactic of the same manipulation. Trying to provide a sense of superiority to it's employees to justify working conditions. If you can't handle it, "go work at USPS" is especially telling.

npteljes 2y ago

Loyalty is lock-in, lock-in makes the one locked in more vulnerable, and more vulnerable means less power, and less power means less compensation.

Andrew_nenakhov 2y ago

> The recent tech layoffs have shown that employees are disposable in the eyes of executives Ah, yes. Employees, who would easily switch jobs for whatever reason when it's beneficial for them, complain that they can be let go when it's beneficial for the organization.

Nasrudith 2y ago

Really if you aren't disposable barring literal world class individuals, then management is utterly incompetent at their jobs. Even in a utopian happy relationship you could get hit by the proverbial bus or truck and then the company and everyone else in it is screwed.

OutOfHere 2y ago

Related: "Disposable Employers (2014)" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40932252 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40932252

akudha 2y ago

I have been a lousy employee, average employee, exceptional employee at various jobs in my life. The one thing that is 100% common in all these jobs? Nobody gave a shit. The only people who cared a tiny bit were my immediate team mates, that too because their deliverables were tied to my own. Anyone young reading this - the only thing that you will get for doing good work is more work. Of course there are exceptions (these exceptions are usually more at team level than organization level), but they are rare. If you don't agree, try asking for more than 2% raise and see how the conversation goes. Unless your employer is totally dependent on you or you have some rare skill, chances of you getting treated fairly are pretty low. I used to be idealistic and look down upon people who work two remote jobs effectively getting paid twice for the same time. I don't do it myself, but I have gotten off my high horse and no longer frown on such practices. If they can make it work, more power to them. Loyalty to an employer is like loyalty to Trump, it is just a one way street

whatamidoingyo 2y ago
> If you don't agree, try asking for more than 2% raise and see how the conversation goes. Yeah, I did, like 3 months ago. "We'll let you know when the boss gets back." Haven't heard a word about it since.

varispeed 2y ago

If you are not a shareholder of the company you work at, you are basically a cow that is being milked and once you no longer can be milked or business decides they need to pivot to pork, you'll get slaughtered. Always do bare minimum, just enough to not be fired but keep your managers upset. Never do more than what you are paid to do and adjust your performance based on how happy you are with the pay and how much money company makes off your work. Seen examples when employee on £80k found a way to optimise some queries in the product. That translated to substantially lowered bills and increased sales. Talking millions in extra revenue. Did they get a bonus? Bump in the salary? No. Soon after company found a new investor who brought in their own team and that developer was let go. Lesson - never go out of your way, never do more than you are asked to do. Save any brilliant ideas to yourself. Maybe when they let you go, you will use them at your own business and get competitive advantage.

neilv 2y ago

Lately, especially with the layoffs frenzies, I've been rethinking one of my engineering culture practices in particular: having a culture of everyone maintaining documentation for everything (using particular lightweight methods and conventions). It's a lot harder harder to tell people to do this (because it's professional, it's effective for your team and company, and you'll be valued as a great engineer)... when they can look around themselves, at our industry, and see all the sociopathic execs at companies having great years... getting rid of people to make numbers look even better. And making a liar out of me for telling people they should be thinking about our collective success, rather than hoarding information for job security, or declining to help out a colleague in what (in a sociopathic company) could be a zero-sum game. I still believe in great engineering teams, and I will heal or smite any toxic elements within my power... but I haven't yet figured out how to reconcile my best-practice culture theories with the current reality, when we see all these prominent techbro companies revealing more of their true nature in a way that employees can't ignore. One idea is to bootstrap a company that's better, and not get into a VC trap that eventually will probably make you be jerks even if you weren't already predisposed. (It's hard-mode, compared to just getting some VC money, hiring people, and just repeatedly trying to look like you have growth potential. Also, you have to share the equity more equitably, or you're telling people that the truth is that it's transactional, and most of the talk about focusing on the success of the whole is a swindle, to get them to do what you want to make you specifically rich.) Another idea is to find a good company, and work within that. (But that's hard, when even the ones that profess to be more values-oriented than most are usually just a veneer over the familiar sunny-sociopath culture.) Another idea is to hire a team with values compatible with the good culture theory, and if the company starts going bad, we idealistically or on principle still do things right. And it the company really stabs itself in the face, and we have to move on to other places, we'll have that network of a rare great team.

Rachma_AS 2y ago

Rachma

wanderingmind 2y ago

I think most advice here is bad for long term career. Yes, you should ask to be paid for what you are worth, you should walk away from toxic culture and avoid being exploited. Having said that, you need to care, care about your work, your team. You must give it all you have and have the pride of having produced great outcome. You will learn and grow and have a great network of people. Don't do this for others. Do it for yourselves and your mental health, because the joy of having done your best will be more rewarding in the long term.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

demondemidi 2y ago

Depends on your job and relevance to the company’s bottom land AND the ramp time for new talent. I’m in charge of delivering two products. If they canned me, their roadmap would be toast for the next five years. And we’re so short staffed there’s no one to fill my role or bring someone in and ramp them even if they could find someone.

josefritzishere 2y ago

I hope this is a lesson to workers to make career decisions with the same level of detachment that your employers do.

josefritzishere 2y ago

I feel like Marx wrote something poignant about this.

temporarely 2y ago

The nature of the relationship between the employer and employee is spelled out in the employment agreement (in the US). Sure it is legalize but the nature of the relationship is clear: Any company that claims to be a "family" should put an employment agreement in front of you that reflects that. I have yet to see anything even remotely resembling such a relationship. Rather, ime, the nature of the relationship spelled out is one of asymmetric power, rights, and remedies.

cnotv 2y ago

I don't think have seen any different since always. You have to always look for the next job, IT companies do not last, this is how it works. It's not just a legal matter, it's objectively the economy. Even if you would enforce it, a company would not be able to make money in some cases. Boards and top management care just about money anyway, so you'll get extra degrees of shit.

tamimio 2y ago

Why is an employer allowed and socially accepted to hire more than one person to do the same job, and even have someone shadowing you, but an employee might get fired if caught working another job? Why can an employer fire someone on the spot without notice, but an employee is expected to give a notice period? These are among many questions that highlight the power dynamics between employers and employees.

banku_brougham 2y ago

I lot of the discourse on here is flavored by an industry experiencing more than 20 years of boom times.

jalapenos 2y ago

If I could perhaps offer a middle of the road take. I think there's immaturity on both sides of this. Many employees are treating employment as a kind of child-parent relationship, where as long as they're at least moderately obedient, they're entitled to be taken care of. On the other hand, there's certain employers who feel a childish need to show how strong they are, by being ruthless, and making big dramatic "difficult" changes (not difficult for them) as a kind of theatrical performance of how action-taking they are. If approached maturely, employers would be reticent to do layoffs like this, because they show comically poor staffing management, and cause huge waste and losses. And employees would put more effort into career defence, rather than putting all effort into working hard for an employer, who they can't guarantee will or can reciprocate their loyalty. I.e. greater diligence is needed on both sides.

SergeAx 2y ago

> It’s okay to like your job and employer. Just understand that, as an employee, you are disposable. This is a) trivial and self-evident, and b) symmetrical in the sense that company is disposable too: any employee may fire the company at any time and get to another company with a two weeks notice. So, what's the point?

tennisflyi 2y ago

Why would you ever think you weren’t? Also, think of it as a sports team, not a family (ew)