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

Ask HN: What is it like working at Netflix?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 74 posts

Re: Ask HN: What is it like working at Netflix?

#41

Post by lk145 »

diab0lic wrote: post #33
lk145 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you elaborate about the kinds of things that constitute a major failure? Also, would you say your experience matches those of people you know on other teams with other managers?

Repeated major failures would be something like regularly failing to deliver or making a critical error multiple times. A pattern of behavior that doesn't fit the culture, NOT a one off mistake. A great example of this would be the engineer who accidentally leaked House of Cards a week early. The only consequence is that a "process" was removed to make doing what he was trying to do easier. I don't think firing this…

Certainly, it's one experience among many. Thanks for sharing your perspective.

Re: Ask HN: What is it like working at Netflix?

#42

Post by diab0lic »

kjackson wrote: post #37
diab0lic wrote: post #29

I currently work at Netflix. Opinions contained herein are entirely my own, sorry for any errors I typed this on a phone. Hope I can help you make a decision. More than willing to answer any questions, just reply here. :) The turnover rate you quoted is undoubtedly overstated or at least out of date. As for getting fired within a month, it won't happen. People are generally let go for a repeated pattern of major fail…

Thank you for your responses, I appreciate it!

No problem, anything I can do to help you make your decision.

Re: Ask HN: What is it like working at Netflix?

#43

Post by kethinov »

sokoloff wrote: post #36
kethinov wrote: post #15

I've known people who've worked at Netflix and have complained about some toxic policies. Some highlights I can recall: Unlimited ESPP rewards already wealthy employees. If you can afford to not take any pay for six months, you basically get a big bonus. I was told there was (and may still be) some kind of stack ranking system. Employees are fired if they're in the bottom x percent of performance reviews, even if the…

Why would an unlimited ESPP be a bad thing, especially to the point of being a "toxic policy"? Does it really matter if someone else takes more advantage of that than you? I'd love that as a perk, even if it made someone else even more money. I care about me and my family, not how much someone else gets...

Because any company which rewards people with extra money for deferring 100% of their comp for six months is elitist. The vast majority of their staff can't afford that and are therefore paid less for being poorer.

Re: Ask HN: What is it like working at Netflix?

#44

Post by kethinov »

diab0lic wrote: post #29

I currently work at Netflix. Opinions contained herein are entirely my own, sorry for any errors I typed this on a phone. Hope I can help you make a decision. More than willing to answer any questions, just reply here. :) The turnover rate you quoted is undoubtedly overstated or at least out of date. As for getting fired within a month, it won't happen. People are generally let go for a repeated pattern of major fail…

> Those who are rich can afford to take more risk, and they are taking more risk by putting more in.

No, that's not how ESPP works. There is zero risk that they'll make less money than someone who takes it all as salary instead. It's a guaranteed significant increase in income.

> Unlimited stock contribution being a bonus for already rich employees: Really? Really?! I say this as someone who came in with a negative net worth and no cash flow.

Yes, really. Wealthier Netflix employees are paid more than you because they can afford to defer 100% of their comp for six months.

Re: Ask HN: What is it like working at Netflix?

#45

Post by mc32 »

kethinov wrote: post #43
sokoloff wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would an unlimited ESPP be a bad thing, especially to the point of being a "toxic policy"? Does it really matter if someone else takes more advantage of that than you? I'd love that as a perk, even if it made someone else even more money. I care about me and my family, not how much someone else gets...

Because any company which rewards people with extra money for deferring 100% of their comp for six months is elitist. The vast majority of their staff can't afford that and are therefore paid less for being poorer.

Yes, but are they poorer than if they worked at a different company doing a similar job?

I probably would not work for this kind of company, but I don't see it as 'wrong' just not the kind of company _I_ would work for.

Re: Ask HN: What is it like working at Netflix?

#46

Post by diab0lic »

kethinov wrote: post #44
diab0lic wrote: post #29

I currently work at Netflix. Opinions contained herein are entirely my own, sorry for any errors I typed this on a phone. Hope I can help you make a decision. More than willing to answer any questions, just reply here. :) The turnover rate you quoted is undoubtedly overstated or at least out of date. As for getting fired within a month, it won't happen. People are generally let go for a repeated pattern of major fail…

> Those who are rich can afford to take more risk, and they are taking more risk by putting more in. No, that's not how ESPP works. There is zero risk that they'll make less money than someone who takes it all as salary instead. It's a guaranteed significant increase in income. > Unlimited stock contribution being a bonus for already rich employees: Really? Really?! I say this as someone who came in with a negative n…

Right, I apologize, I had assumed you're familiar with the Netflix option program and just inappropriately using the term ESPP. We have a rather straightforward option program in which you purchase an immediately vesting option for 40% of the current market price, strike price is equal to the current market price. If the stock doesn't increase 40% (used to be 20%) then you don't just break even, that money is gone. There is risk.

I wasn't asking really in terms of wether or not it was true, I'm asking really as in you somehow think this is some negative point against the company. I'm just not sure I understand how providing an opportunity to employees is a negative?

The wealthier Netflix employees who accept more risk than me are paid more than me, because they're in a position to accept more risk.

Re: Ask HN: What is it like working at Netflix?

#47

Post by sokoloff »

kethinov wrote: post #43
sokoloff wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would an unlimited ESPP be a bad thing, especially to the point of being a "toxic policy"? Does it really matter if someone else takes more advantage of that than you? I'd love that as a perk, even if it made someone else even more money. I care about me and my family, not how much someone else gets...

Because any company which rewards people with extra money for deferring 100% of their comp for six months is elitist. The vast majority of their staff can't afford that and are therefore paid less for being poorer.

But I can't think of any situation where an employee makes less money because the policy is available to them than if the policy weren't available to them. (Absent of course a decline in value of stock they bought under the ESPP and then held for the decline, but that's a risk inherent to investing, not a policy problem.)

At worst it seems to be a policy that's beneficial to all, and some people choose to/are able to take more advantage of it. Doesn't meet my bar for toxic.

Re: Ask HN: What is it like working at Netflix?

#48

Post by kethinov »

diab0lic wrote: post #46
kethinov wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those who are rich can afford to take more risk, and they are taking more risk by putting more in. No, that's not how ESPP works. There is zero risk that they'll make less money than someone who takes it all as salary instead. It's a guaranteed significant increase in income. > Unlimited stock contribution being a bonus for already rich employees: Really? Really?! I say this as someone who came in with a negative n…

Right, I apologize, I had assumed you're familiar with the Netflix option program and just inappropriately using the term ESPP. We have a rather straightforward option program in which you purchase an immediately vesting option for 40% of the current market price, strike price is equal to the current market price. If the stock doesn't increase 40% (used to be 20%) then you don't just break even, that money is gone. T…

Interesting, thanks for the additional detail. I am not a critic of a system like that.

However, that doesn't explicitly refute my point. Am I wrong in assuming that there are no limits on ESPP contribution?

If that is indeed the case, then my argument stands.

Re: Ask HN: What is it like working at Netflix?

#49

Post by kethinov »

sokoloff wrote: post #47
kethinov wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because any company which rewards people with extra money for deferring 100% of their comp for six months is elitist. The vast majority of their staff can't afford that and are therefore paid less for being poorer.

But I can't think of any situation where an employee makes less money because the policy is available to them than if the policy weren't available to them. (Absent of course a decline in value of stock they bought under the ESPP and then held for the decline, but that's a risk inherent to investing, not a policy problem.) At worst it seems to be a policy that's beneficial to all, and some people choose to/are able to…

> But I can't think of any situation where an employee makes less money because the policy is available to them than if the policy weren't available to them.

That isn't the point. The point is it's immoral to pay people more simply because they are already wealthy.

Re: Ask HN: What is it like working at Netflix?

#50

Post by sokoloff »

kethinov wrote: post #49
sokoloff wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I can't think of any situation where an employee makes less money because the policy is available to them than if the policy weren't available to them. (Absent of course a decline in value of stock they bought under the ESPP and then held for the decline, but that's a risk inherent to investing, not a policy problem.) At worst it seems to be a policy that's beneficial to all, and some people choose to/are able to…

> But I can't think of any situation where an employee makes less money because the policy is available to them than if the policy weren't available to them. That isn't the point. The point is it's immoral to pay people more simply because they are already wealthy.

I now understand your point, and I thank you for that. It was escaping me, because I so strongly hold the opposing point of view. Thank you for explaining it.

My view is that with an ESPP policy, Netflix helps align employee incentives with investor (and executive) incentives, and that makes those employees more likely to act as shareholders and take a pro-company mindset. It serves a legitimate purpose and is a hell of a perk, IMO.

Taking that perk away hurts the poor employees more than the rich employees. Rich employees can invest in other stocks, bonds, real estate, etc. Granted, the ESPP is an excellent investment vehicle for them so it's not a surprise they take advantage of it, but if you kill the program, you hurt the very people you're trying to help.

Post reply on HN