5 ms·

IMHO having everyone call in to listen to a pre-recorded message telling them they're fired is just as bad as the public firing Armstrong gave. At least have t

by tdicola 12y ago

IMHO having everyone call in to listen to a pre-recorded message telling them they're fired is just as bad as the public firing Armstrong gave. At least have the decency to have a face to face conversation or meeting.

gtaylor 12y ago
Is this commonly done? I'd feel like a terrible person doing this. At the very least, have an actual human on the phone doing the mass firing.
- dsacco 12y ago
  Yes, this is common. It's not just tech companies. As an example, a number of years ago Best Buy had a huge round of layoffs amidst a revolving door of unsuccessful CEOs. Stores that were closing did not know until a specific date, when they'd go into work as usual and open a securely delivered packet. If the packet delivered was packet A, it informed them that they were laid off, effective immediately - all employees of that location. Packet B informed them that they were not closing. They had no idea what the case would be until the morning they opened the packet, and the packet was delivered the previous night.
  - vetler 12y ago
    Wow. I've never heard of layoffs being done this way before. I guess it's a scalable way of doing mass layoffs, but still ... that is really cold-hearted.
    - jonnathanson 12y ago
      It's cold-hearted, but if scale is an issue, then some of the alternatives can seem equally horrifying. Is it really more humane to send a couple of axe-wielding Bobs to the office, set them up in one or two rooms, and then steadily parade people in and out over the course of a day, the rest of the team trembling and gossiping and worrying about when and whether their turns will come up, their eyes locked on every colleague and friend to slink back to his desk from the abattoir? Think about that at 1,000-person-layoff scale. If we apply some basic Little's Law math to the process here, we quickly see how "by-hand" firings would drag on for quite some time, perhaps needlessly prolonging the inevitable, and almost certainly disrupting work at the entire office for days on end. There is no "good" way to do this. I've never had to do it myself, and I can only hope I never have to. The thought of how "best" to do it would keep me up for weeks. At the very least, I suppose in-person messengers are better than automated voicemail recordings, or sealed envelopes. But even if using a human messenger, a mass layoff is not going to go down well for the people being laid off. There is something to be said for ripping off the band-aid (though perhaps in timed batches, so you're not just dumping N people out into the cold, to fight over the same jobs on the market all at once).
      - oddevan 12y ago
        > There is something to be said for ripping off the band-aid If you're keeping any significant portion of your existing workforce, absolutely. Doing a single round of layoffs and then being able to tell the remaining employees "If we haven't talked to you, you're staying" can make the hit to morale that much smaller. It'll still lower morale, that's unavoidable. But it will take away the stress of "is my job safe?" for the remaining employees.
cookiecaper 12y ago
I fired someone via e-mail earlier this week. There were a lot of elements that went into the "best way" to do it, and I don't think it's an objective fact that face-to-face is best. I've fired people face-to-face before too and it's usually not pretty. One benefit of being fired by asynchronous communication is that you maintain more dignity/privacy and can re-emerge after you've had a little bit of time to get your composure together. One time when I fired an employee in person, he immediately started to sob and made some statements that I believe he instantly began to regret (which were not personally demeaning and which I don't hold against him). I think he would've preferred to have been fired by e-mail. I think people overthink this, and I think I overthought it when I just did it this week. The fact is that when you fire people, most of them are going to be upset, and they'll find something to rationalize that emotion no matter what you do. If you have a face-to-face, they'll say "Can you believe he was mocking us by wearing his ball cap, or his old tennis shoes, or those jeans he wore the same day he hired all of us, or that polo with the company logo on it like the company hasn't already been besmirched? How disrespectful!" or they'll just completely fabricate something like "Wow, he was so aloof in that meeting, what a mean guy". What it really comes down to is that most people are going to look for "facts" that support their emotional perspective, not emotions that are congruent with the factual perspective. The pre-recorded call firings are done that way to make sure the phrasing is perfect. Most likely the lawyer has already written the script and they do several takes to perfect the firing executive's inflection, tone, etc. I don't think this is objectively worse than firing someone in person or via e-mail either. For the record, the employee I fired stated that the firing was "classless and vile" despite the inclusion of a generous and completely optional severance package, an immaculately respectful email that politely informed her the position was being eliminated and stated that we hoped we'd work together in the future, and so forth. It was honestly one of the classiest firings in which I've been involved, but like I said, to the fired person, there's always a grudge to find if they want to find one, and she wanted to find one. Her grudge is that I didn't "give the customary notice period" for a firing, which afaik absolutely doesn't exist anywhere except in the few cases that fall under the WARN act (under which companies are entitled to pay a severance equal to the legally-mandated notice period in lieu of notice).
- jalfresi 12y ago
larzang 12y ago
Doing it live isn't necessarily better. On May 14, 2007, the staff of Sigil Games Online were told to meet in the parking lot at 4:30PM and to take with them what they would need for the rest of the day. The employees were told that the launch of the game had not gone well, the company was in financial trouble and they were selling the company to Sony Online Entertainment. Director of Production, Andy Platter, then told the employees "You're all fired."
- cheapsteak 12y ago
  A silver lining on a group-firing/layoff is that you're already with a bunch of people going through the same thing as you are. A production studio I was with had to shut down due to some contracts falling through, and everybody went to the liquor store, got a bunch of beer, sat outside (this was in the Summer) and had an afternoon drinking and reminiscing. We all just chatted from 10am till late into the evening. It was sad but also one of my fondest memories, one of those that makes you tear up and smile.
  - martin-adams 12y ago
    >> A silver lining on a group-firing/layoff is that you're already with a bunch of people going through the same thing as you are I'd see it as you're with a bunch of people, some even friends now all applying for the same remaining jobs
- Kiro 12y ago
  I have some experience working in the gambling industry where this happens now and then (mostly due to new US regulations and crackdowns). Basically you come into work and instead of a normal morning kickoff everyone gets fired, completely unexpected. Another thing is that all the poker and casino companies often share office buildings in small non-regulated countries like Malta and Gibraltar. So the same happens to all the other companies which means the streets outside are filled with people from a dozen of companies who have just been fired. I think two thirds of the whole building or something like that was relieved on the same day the last time it happened.

by tdicola 12y ago

gtaylor 12y ago

Is this commonly done? I'd feel like a terrible person doing this. At the very least, have an actual human on the phone doing the mass firing.

dsacco 12y ago
Yes, this is common. It's not just tech companies. As an example, a number of years ago Best Buy had a huge round of layoffs amidst a revolving door of unsuccessful CEOs. Stores that were closing did not know until a specific date, when they'd go into work as usual and open a securely delivered packet. If the packet delivered was packet A, it informed them that they were laid off, effective immediately - all employees of that location. Packet B informed them that they were not closing. They had no idea what the case would be until the morning they opened the packet, and the packet was delivered the previous night.
- vetler 12y ago
  Wow. I've never heard of layoffs being done this way before. I guess it's a scalable way of doing mass layoffs, but still ... that is really cold-hearted.
  - jonnathanson 12y ago
    It's cold-hearted, but if scale is an issue, then some of the alternatives can seem equally horrifying. Is it really more humane to send a couple of axe-wielding Bobs to the office, set them up in one or two rooms, and then steadily parade people in and out over the course of a day, the rest of the team trembling and gossiping and worrying about when and whether their turns will come up, their eyes locked on every colleague and friend to slink back to his desk from the abattoir? Think about that at 1,000-person-layoff scale. If we apply some basic Little's Law math to the process here, we quickly see how "by-hand" firings would drag on for quite some time, perhaps needlessly prolonging the inevitable, and almost certainly disrupting work at the entire office for days on end. There is no "good" way to do this. I've never had to do it myself, and I can only hope I never have to. The thought of how "best" to do it would keep me up for weeks. At the very least, I suppose in-person messengers are better than automated voicemail recordings, or sealed envelopes. But even if using a human messenger, a mass layoff is not going to go down well for the people being laid off. There is something to be said for ripping off the band-aid (though perhaps in timed batches, so you're not just dumping N people out into the cold, to fight over the same jobs on the market all at once).
    - oddevan 12y ago
      > There is something to be said for ripping off the band-aid If you're keeping any significant portion of your existing workforce, absolutely. Doing a single round of layoffs and then being able to tell the remaining employees "If we haven't talked to you, you're staying" can make the hit to morale that much smaller. It'll still lower morale, that's unavoidable. But it will take away the stress of "is my job safe?" for the remaining employees.

cookiecaper 12y ago

I fired someone via e-mail earlier this week. There were a lot of elements that went into the "best way" to do it, and I don't think it's an objective fact that face-to-face is best. I've fired people face-to-face before too and it's usually not pretty. One benefit of being fired by asynchronous communication is that you maintain more dignity/privacy and can re-emerge after you've had a little bit of time to get your composure together. One time when I fired an employee in person, he immediately started to sob and made some statements that I believe he instantly began to regret (which were not personally demeaning and which I don't hold against him). I think he would've preferred to have been fired by e-mail. I think people overthink this, and I think I overthought it when I just did it this week. The fact is that when you fire people, most of them are going to be upset, and they'll find something to rationalize that emotion no matter what you do. If you have a face-to-face, they'll say "Can you believe he was mocking us by wearing his ball cap, or his old tennis shoes, or those jeans he wore the same day he hired all of us, or that polo with the company logo on it like the company hasn't already been besmirched? How disrespectful!" or they'll just completely fabricate something like "Wow, he was so aloof in that meeting, what a mean guy". What it really comes down to is that most people are going to look for "facts" that support their emotional perspective, not emotions that are congruent with the factual perspective. The pre-recorded call firings are done that way to make sure the phrasing is perfect. Most likely the lawyer has already written the script and they do several takes to perfect the firing executive's inflection, tone, etc. I don't think this is objectively worse than firing someone in person or via e-mail either. For the record, the employee I fired stated that the firing was "classless and vile" despite the inclusion of a generous and completely optional severance package, an immaculately respectful email that politely informed her the position was being eliminated and stated that we hoped we'd work together in the future, and so forth. It was honestly one of the classiest firings in which I've been involved, but like I said, to the fired person, there's always a grudge to find if they want to find one, and she wanted to find one. Her grudge is that I didn't "give the customary notice period" for a firing, which afaik absolutely doesn't exist anywhere except in the few cases that fall under the WARN act (under which companies are entitled to pay a severance equal to the legally-mandated notice period in lieu of notice).

jalfresi 12y ago

larzang 12y ago

Doing it live isn't necessarily better. On May 14, 2007, the staff of Sigil Games Online were told to meet in the parking lot at 4:30PM and to take with them what they would need for the rest of the day. The employees were told that the launch of the game had not gone well, the company was in financial trouble and they were selling the company to Sony Online Entertainment. Director of Production, Andy Platter, then told the employees "You're all fired."

cheapsteak 12y ago
A silver lining on a group-firing/layoff is that you're already with a bunch of people going through the same thing as you are. A production studio I was with had to shut down due to some contracts falling through, and everybody went to the liquor store, got a bunch of beer, sat outside (this was in the Summer) and had an afternoon drinking and reminiscing. We all just chatted from 10am till late into the evening. It was sad but also one of my fondest memories, one of those that makes you tear up and smile.
- martin-adams 12y ago
  >> A silver lining on a group-firing/layoff is that you're already with a bunch of people going through the same thing as you are I'd see it as you're with a bunch of people, some even friends now all applying for the same remaining jobs
Kiro 12y ago
I have some experience working in the gambling industry where this happens now and then (mostly due to new US regulations and crackdowns). Basically you come into work and instead of a normal morning kickoff everyone gets fired, completely unexpected. Another thing is that all the poker and casino companies often share office buildings in small non-regulated countries like Malta and Gibraltar. So the same happens to all the other companies which means the streets outside are filled with people from a dozen of companies who have just been fired. I think two thirds of the whole building or something like that was relieved on the same day the last time it happened.