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

Congratulations You’ve Been Fired

mobile.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 445 posts

Re: Congratulations You’ve Been Fired

#241

Post by swyman »

incepted wrote: post #231
chrisyeh wrote: post #125

For the record, I'm one of the co-authors of "The Alliance," which Dan Lyons refers to in his op ed. Dan refers to our book and quotes a single sentence fragment: "Your company is not your family." Everything else he writes in that section of the piece has nothing to do with the content of the book. 1) "You’re serving a “tour of duty” that might last a year or two" Actually, the book makes it clear that the duration…

> the point we make in the book is that few employees expect or want lifetime employment at a single company Any citation about this claim? Because in my experience, it's completely incorrect. Outside of the US, lifetime employment is a heavily coveted goal, because economies outside of the US are in a terrible shape overall with unemployment rate routinely above 10%. Inside the US, except for white collar workers in…

I think it's pretty clear that we're talking about white-collar, US-based, urban workers and not about a rural Argentinian engine mechanic

Re: Congratulations You’ve Been Fired

#242

Post by chris_wot »

chrisyeh wrote: post #194
T2_t2 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Dan Lyons misrepresents your ideas, but rather I think more fundamentally he doesn't share your vocabulary, worldview nor expectations. The reverse is also true, and your arguments in return don't use worldview or definitions he would understand nor recognise. The modern world seems to be a constant case of vocabulary misunderstanding, where we all say "widget", and I mean thing and you mean "an element…

I appreciate the thoughtful comment. And I wouldn't dispute that we believe that lifetime employment by a single company is unlikely to be offered or accepted in today's world. But Dan Lyons is misrepresenting us when he implies that we believe that employees should be loyal to companies even though companies show no loyalty to employees. We're not pro-corporation or pro-employee; our point is that work is a voluntar…

Do you address the power imbalance between employees and employers? Do you address that an employee in such a culture is viewed as a disposable resource and no loyalty towards them is necessary, no matter what they do?

Or do you address that corporations are run by people, who each have lives and that those who are older, female or who gave young families they must support and who they want to spend time with don't feel they are in such "voluntary" work forces? What about corporate cultures where if you say no to ridiculous work hours (often unpaid) or unreasonable demands will be "graduated" from their role?

Or have you addressed the disruption to someone's life when they are forced out of a job, or the feelings of worthlessness they often feel, or the injustice that is often done to them?

Your views appear to promote toxic corporate cultures. Frankly, they are designed for people who are highly mobile and who have as much power as their employers. You don't appear to address any of these things.

Re: Congratulations You’ve Been Fired

#243

Post by [deleted] »

chrisyeh wrote: post #194
T2_t2 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Dan Lyons misrepresents your ideas, but rather I think more fundamentally he doesn't share your vocabulary, worldview nor expectations. The reverse is also true, and your arguments in return don't use worldview or definitions he would understand nor recognise. The modern world seems to be a constant case of vocabulary misunderstanding, where we all say "widget", and I mean thing and you mean "an element…

I appreciate the thoughtful comment. And I wouldn't dispute that we believe that lifetime employment by a single company is unlikely to be offered or accepted in today's world. But Dan Lyons is misrepresenting us when he implies that we believe that employees should be loyal to companies even though companies show no loyalty to employees. We're not pro-corporation or pro-employee; our point is that work is a voluntar…

[deleted]

Re: Congratulations You’ve Been Fired

#244

Post by chris_wot »

chrisyeh wrote: post #219
Alex3917 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think Dan Lyons misrepresents your ideas, but rather I think more fundamentally he doesn't share your vocabulary, worldview nor expectations. Pretty much the #1 asshole behavior on the Internet is criticizing other people's books/studies without having read them. Chris is right, this reflects extremely poorly on Lyons.

I suspect the reason that Dan Lyons mentions "The Alliance" is that we cite some of HubSpot's programs in the book. Specifically, we mention HubSpot's "Learning Meals" program, which encourages employees to take smart people outside the company to lunch. HubSpot will pick up the tab as long as you share what you learn with the rest of the company on the intranet.

This is pure speculation. You seem to be upset that Lyons has mischaracterised your work, yet you also seem to be happy to do the same to him.

Lyons worked for a company that has an abusive culture. They recently had two top people in management leave because of unethical behaviour - and you observed and promoted aspects of such a culture in your book.

I think that you are getting just criticism, and you are taking it quite badly.

Re: Congratulations You’ve Been Fired

#245

Post by eplanit »

superswordfish wrote: post #109

Doing cold calls in a boiler-room is a shitty job. News at 11. > Tech workers have no job security. The bad ones have none. The decent ones might, it depends on circumstance. The good ones almost always have plenty. But don't call yourself a "tech worker" when you're making sales calls.

This is a fundamental fact that seems lost on most readers here. The article is a criticism of [modern day] _sales_ work.

Re: Congratulations You’ve Been Fired

#247

Post by shoo »

capote wrote: post #209
neurobuddha wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It reminds me of Newspeak, the language in Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

You're doubleplus-unhired!

you do not work for the firm. you have never worked for the firm.

Re: Congratulations You’ve Been Fired

#248

Post by chris_wot »

swyman wrote: post #241
incepted wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the point we make in the book is that few employees expect or want lifetime employment at a single company Any citation about this claim? Because in my experience, it's completely incorrect. Outside of the US, lifetime employment is a heavily coveted goal, because economies outside of the US are in a terrible shape overall with unemployment rate routinely above 10%. Inside the US, except for white collar workers in…

I think it's pretty clear that we're talking about white-collar, US-based, urban workers and not about a rural Argentinian engine mechanic

That is a total misreading of the comments you are replying to. First of all, it's not at all clear that only white collar employees are what is being referred to in that book. Secondly, the book appears to be not just targeted to the U.S. market, but globally.

Re: Congratulations You’ve Been Fired

#249

Post by chris_wot »

argonaut wrote: post #235
braythwayt wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he was lying to himself > delude themselves about how awesome startups are > people continue to write articles about this nonsense every month You seem to be unrelentingly "blaming the victims." Obviously, it is to people's benefit to have the most realistic expectations possible about companies they join. But does that in any way absolve employers of making realistic representations of what employees can expect? D…

This is Dan Lyons we're talking about. Not some naive fresh-out-of-school CS grad. Dan Lyons spent more than a decade and a half as a journalist and editor covering tech, business, and startups.

I'm genuinely curious how this is relevant.

Re: Congratulations You’ve Been Fired

#250

Post by [deleted] »

aleyan wrote: post #80

Issues raised in the article aside, I am here to argue semantics. The article used the word start-up 3 times, plus one more in the title of his book. The company he worked for however, HubSpot is 10 years old and public and thus by definition is not a startup. Other two companies mentioned, Amazon and Netflix are both over a decade old and public and thus are not start-ups by any stretch of the imagination. Startups…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN