Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Who is firing?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–37 of 37 posts

Re: Ask HN: Who is firing?

#31

Post by nfw »

jholman wrote: post #17
mkramlich wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My own understanding of what "firing" meant was termination because, essentially, the employer didn't like the employee anymore, usually because they did something "wrong". Whereas if a batch of employees had to be let go, ostensibly purely for financial reasons, nothing very personal or direct, then they are "laid off", not fired. Every once in a while I hear somebody say fire when I think it was layoff, and it irks…

If you're in the business of concealing responsibility, then by all means, use the word "lay off". Employers like to use "lay off" to imply that it was not the fault of the management team, it's not because they're bad guys, it's just the unfortunate reality. That's partly true, it's partly bullshit, and the fact is that it affects people profoundly, and calling it a "lay-off" doesn't help things. Employees who have…

But if the ex-employee had been a net asset, they wouldn't be laying that ex-employee off, unless they were liquidating the entire company.

I've worked as an executive in large organizations and this is flatly untrue. Here's a few situations I've seen or participated in:

- Scrap the project. Get rid of everybody who is assigned to it.

- Not happy with group's performance? Don't fix the group's management, scrap the entire group.

- Product X isn't doing well in the market. Fire everyone who is on the product X team, and acquire the company that makes product Y as a replacement.

- Our access to cash is down, as is our bottom line. Reduce your budget by 20%, again, while maintaining coverage. (read: keep your cheap, shitty people, fire your good ones.)

- We're not starting many new projects. As each existing project comes to a conclusion, get rid of all the resources.

When you're trying to close a large shortfall you just accept that some good people will be let go for stupid reasons, and that's acceptable.

So if you've been laid off, and some ignorant jerk tries to tell you that it means you weren't a net asset, ignore them. Whether it happened during growth, decline or turnaround, it's possible you were let go because you were dead wood; but it's also entirely possibly that you are fantastic but were let go anyway.

Re: Ask HN: Who is firing?

#33

Post by jrockway »

RBr wrote: post #27
phrotoma wrote: post #2

I work for Canada's largest bank and they're turfing contractors at a pretty rapid rate. Shoveling lots of work offshore. Edit: FTE's seem safe for the moment.

This is a trend going through large Canadian businesses right now. They seem to think that by outsourcing work to overseas mills that they can save money. Sales and support aside, it's the companies that are outsourcing engineering that are really hurting.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I work for a "global organization", and the people we hire in the US are just as incompetent as the people we hire in India. (We have good people in all the locations too, of course... but living in the US or UK or Canada does not mean you are going to do a good job.)

I love it when someone emails support and gets an answer like "plz read wiki"... and then you realize the person that wrote that is a white dude from Chicago that speaks no languages other than English. I can forgive lazy writing if English is not your first language. But if it's your only language, please spell please correctly and use "the" when appropriate. A complete sentence would also be nice.

But I digress.

Re: Ask HN: Who is firing?

#34

Post by jonhendry »

rue wrote: post #25
mkramlich wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My own understanding of what "firing" meant was termination because, essentially, the employer didn't like the employee anymore, usually because they did something "wrong". Whereas if a batch of employees had to be let go, ostensibly purely for financial reasons, nothing very personal or direct, then they are "laid off", not fired. Every once in a while I hear somebody say fire when I think it was layoff, and it irks…

A "layoff" is (should be) a temporary suspension from work to reduce costs and "termination", well, termination of employment.

Layoffs still work like that sometimes, especially in manufacturing.

It makes sense if, say, you work at a supplier for Ford, and Ford slows their production temporarily, so they don't need the part you make. So you get laid off for a month or two, knowing Ford will gear back up eventually and start ordering more parts.

That doesn't happen in most industries. But even if it did, who's going to want to sit on their heels without an income hoping they'll be brought back in?

Re: Ask HN: Who is firing?

#36

Post by bmelton »

jrockway wrote: post #33
RBr wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a trend going through large Canadian businesses right now. They seem to think that by outsourcing work to overseas mills that they can save money. Sales and support aside, it's the companies that are outsourcing engineering that are really hurting.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I work for a "global organization", and the people we hire in the US are just as incompetent as the people we hire in India. (We have good people in all the locations too, of course... but living in the US or UK or Canada does not mean you are going to do a good job.) I love it when someone emails support and gets an answer like "plz read wiki"... and then you realize the person that w…

The outsourcing of activities generally has less to do with quality than with cost. Of course, the cost is relative too.

A company I used to work for outsourced a large chunk of the work force to Poland. Poland was chosen because they were technically sound, generally, spoke above-average intelligible English and, most importantly, valued the American dollar about 6 times more than we do.

This meant, generally, that they could hire 6 Polish workers for every American worker we laid off (if you ignore the fact that many of the American workers were longer in the tooth, and hence higher on the salary scale, which made it even more profitable a deal.)

The main worry about moving somewhere with an economy that isn't horribly weak is that as our American dollars infuse their economy, and more Polish outsourcing companies are stood up to attract more American dollars, we inflate their economy. The cost of living goes up, the value of our dollar becomes less strong, and the benefits to having moved work there becomes less appealing. This could well lead to a tipping point when American companies pull out, which I worry could 'burst the bubble' and leave Krakow Poland in worse shape than if we'd never been there.

Re: Ask HN: Who is firing?

#37

Post by olihb »

jonhendry wrote: post #34
rue wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A "layoff" is (should be) a temporary suspension from work to reduce costs and "termination", well, termination of employment.

Layoffs still work like that sometimes, especially in manufacturing. It makes sense if, say, you work at a supplier for Ford, and Ford slows their production temporarily, so they don't need the part you make. So you get laid off for a month or two, knowing Ford will gear back up eventually and start ordering more parts. That doesn't happen in most industries. But even if it did, who's going to want to sit on their he…

I know that it happens a lot in seasonal industries like tourism. Especially where there's no other industries. If your state/country has a pretty comprehensive social safety net (like here in Quebec), it's not unheard off.
Post reply on HN