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

Can Netflix Survive in the New World It Created?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 158 posts

Re: Can Netflix Survive in the New World It Created?

#141

Post by brokenmachine »

ci5er wrote: post #134
outworlder wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually, unless the company is really small, they won't drag it down. Unless they are CEOs, which are seldom fired. And get golden parachutes even when they do get fired.

I've kept people on because they were going through a rough patch and I felt squeemish about kicking them when everything else was going wrong. Bad stuff happens to good people and I didn't want to make it worse. But it hurt group morale on every team they were shuffled to. Hard working teams quietly build up resentment against dead weight. In retrospect, I would have been better off getting the board's permission to…

The reason being a boss sucked is because you are an empathetic person. Typical sociopathic management types have a "kill or be killed" mentality, and would not think twice about getting rid of people going through a "rough patch".

Not saying that keeping dead wood on is good for anyone either, just that most management wouldn't put the feelings of an employee even in the same ballpark as the interests of the company.

If it makes you feel any better, I'd rather work for you!

Re: Can Netflix Survive in the New World It Created?

#142

Post by rosege »

tajen wrote: post #101
distances wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You’ll have to fire some really nice, hard-working people. But you have to do it with dignity. I wonder if this is part of the reason why there are not too many Netflix-like high achieving companies in Europe -- firing people is not possible. Even totally sucking at your job isn't acceptable reason for employment contract termination, that'd be just a reason for further training. You'll have to go through different…

I reckon this is correct in France: As an employer, if you attempt to fire someone, you will almost automtically end up in a trial and be condemned, whatever indemnities you gave upfront. My father fired someone at age 55 (before it was forbidden to fire people >50yo) and paid cash for the difference between his unemployment benefits and his former salary until retirement. He landed at Prod'hommes (ombudsman) and los…

Reminds me of this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2853251/US-tycoon-re...

Re: Can Netflix Survive in the New World It Created?

#143

Post by update »

sevensor wrote: post #95
ergothus wrote: post #40

One of the best professional pieces of advice I've ever read said something like "Think you're indispensable? Do they know that?". It made me aware that often the people making the hiring/firing decisions aren't actually aware of my day-to-day. Rather, they know only the summary info. Those kudos to fellow employees and in-house "awards" that I'd been ignoring? Those are documentation that someone is worthwhile, and…

> Think you're indispensable? Do they know that? Indispensable employees are a sign of organizational failure. They indicate a weak point in the organization -- if that person gets hit by a bus, or walks off the job, or is on vacation during a crisis, we're all in trouble. And if an employee becomes indispensable on purpose, that person is a problem and should be let go before the situation gets worse. Where I used t…

> Indispensable employees are a sign of organizational failure. They indicate a weak point in the organization

Contention for fun: "Hands are indispensable, thus, they indicate a weak point in the organization."

Re: Can Netflix Survive in the New World It Created?

#144

Post by ci5er »

brokenmachine wrote: post #141
ci5er wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've kept people on because they were going through a rough patch and I felt squeemish about kicking them when everything else was going wrong. Bad stuff happens to good people and I didn't want to make it worse. But it hurt group morale on every team they were shuffled to. Hard working teams quietly build up resentment against dead weight. In retrospect, I would have been better off getting the board's permission to…

The reason being a boss sucked is because you are an empathetic person. Typical sociopathic management types have a "kill or be killed" mentality, and would not think twice about getting rid of people going through a "rough patch". Not saying that keeping dead wood on is good for anyone either, just that most management wouldn't put the feelings of an employee even in the same ballpark as the interests of the company…

> just that most management wouldn't

I don't know if this is true. (It might be). Most manager types that I've have talked with struggle with how to do it it well.

The "path to wisdom" in technical skills (which are more my forte) seem to be lots of practice around things that start out being practiced ... mechanically. And each and every Ubuntu 14.04 server in my cluster is pretty much like the others.

I think that people are harder. Even with just two, who believe they love each other - there wouldn't be a career in marriage counseling if it was easy.

Ignoring the traditional heirarchy looking bits that show up on org charts: coordinating and synchronizing the members of a team and teams with one another is certainly not anything that most coders want to spend their day doing. They don't even want to write documentation! So, it's an important function: conducting a group exercise, like a dance, made up of a bunch of talented and self-directed humans. Especially when something new is being created and no one brain has the whole picture. (Thinking about it now, it boggles me that we even try.)

We (society) are going through a strange transitional time right now. Like the 1850s~1930s in the US when we were transitioning from Ag to Industrial and it had the civil war on one end, a bunch of crazy elections from 1890 or so in the middle, and the New Deal at the end.

I think that managers aren't trained to be coordinators in this new world: who would train them? And beyond that, we take our best tech leads and promote them: losing a great technical contributor and gaining a badly skilled coordinator.

Anyway: thanks for the kind words. Since I left BigCo as an engineer back in the day to start my NewCo, and got big (and crashed), I've been unemployable by BigCos and very hesitant to start anything again. I kind of "fell off the rails".

But some things have gotten worse since then: employers are scared employees will sue them if managers have an empathetic conversation with an employee, and co-evol employees thinking that typical managers don't give a shit. (Mutual arising) It isn't healthy and I don't like the direction.

But, not my problem any more! I just fix up people's patent portfolios for them. And sometimes make a widget prototype for them ("Here, have an invention") and they can make it, produce it, support it, sell it, etc...

Re: Can Netflix Survive in the New World It Created?

#145

Post by rpgmaker »

zeveb wrote: post #121
dragonwriter wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How likely is Hastings to adopt that standard if he knew that it would apply to him too? He probably knows it applies to him whether or not he adopts it for people below him: CEOs usually have contracts that not only state that a "if you decide you don't want me, you write me a big check to go away" policy applies to them, but actually spell out in fairly precise terms how big of a check that is.

Which implies that really, Netflix extends the same courtesy to all employees. Which is pretty awesome. Not being a good fit is a fact of life; having a cushion to find your next position is pretty nice.

The amount the employee gets may be generous but seems to be arbitrary while the CEO's contract specifies clearly how much he or she will be owed. It certainly beats just getting the boot with no money.

Re: Can Netflix Survive in the New World It Created?

#146

Post by curun1r »

kmonsen wrote: post #56
dismal2 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that there is an ideal place for everyone in capitalism and be able to pay for all the costs of day to day life is some kind of libertarian hacker news delusion.

For me it seems like hacker news loves universal basic income, because they understand this might not be true today and even less likely to be true in the future.

Really? I think HN loves UBI because it presents the opportunity to try to build a company without the worry of having to figure out how to pay rent and put food on the table. It's a lot easier to take risks when you've got money, however small, coming in.

When they called for research on UBI, everyone focused on what you're focusing on...the hubris that SV thinks it can automate everyone else's jobs. But the point I mention above is, to me, the more powerful one. Freeing people to follow their passions will enable people to give up their 9-5s without first having to save up. Creating a startup is a giant leap into the unknown with only the hope that you'll land safely. UBI is a parachute in case you miss your landing.

Re: Can Netflix Survive in the New World It Created?

#147

Post by aaronblohowiak »

digler999 wrote: post #83
athenot wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It works for Netflix because they appear to pay above average. So the marketplace can accomodate companies that pay less and tolerate more, as well as ones that are super demanding but pay more. But if the labor market were compressed more like in Europe, all companies could afford that behavior, without having to spend abnomally higher in salaries, and that would be a problem.

my experience has been that when employers "pay above average", what they really mean is they pay 1 employee for the work of 1.5 employees. Do you really think the engineering team goes home at 5pm?

The later shuttles leave at 5:10, and then we do some emailing and such on the way home...

Re: Can Netflix Survive in the New World It Created?

#148

Post by cr1895 »

jasonkostempski wrote: post #75
distances wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what he meant -- that in Europe almost all employment contracts are permanent, which may not be obvious to an American reader without explicit mention.

You're right, it wasn't obvious. I had hit submit too early, I had meant to ask how long the contracts typically last for and if maybe it was better for a company to just use shorter contracts. Are they required to be permanent for the most part? Sorry for getting way OT here.

I'll explain how it typically works in the Netherlands, for non-self-employed people at least (that I'm not familiar with; note also that there has recently been some controversy where companies will classify employees as contractors to get around the stricter permanent contract laws, e.g. PostNL delivery people being contracters instead of full employees).

Typically two temporary one-year contracts will be offered (or some variation of this; four six-month contracts, etc.) Once this temporary contract duration is up an employer can either not renew the contract, or if they do renew it is by law an indefinite contract. If, for instance, you were hired at a company through a recruitment agency and your employment contract was through said recruitment agency, your clock would be reset at the company if you were to negotiate a direct contract with the company after leaving the recruitment agency contract.

It's also typical for a probationary period at the start of the first contract; in my case it was only one month, though I'm not sure if this is usual or if it could be longer for others.

NB: Previously, the law allowed three years of temporary contracts before the indefinite one, but this was changed several years ago.

Re: Can Netflix Survive in the New World It Created?

#149

Post by Programmatic »

mindcrime wrote: post #135
Programmatic wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the part that is transparent is that you're not going to build your career and retire at Netflix, you know it's a stint. It may be arbitrary and capricious otherwise, but you know that in advance and can decide if it's worth it. I would not mind being in such an environment for a stint, myself.

I think the part that is transparent is that you're not going to build your career and retire at Netflix, you know it's a stint. But anybody who has been paying attention has known that any job is "just a stint" since at least the 90's, if not the 80's. A big part of the Re-engineering[1] push of the 90's involved reducing costs, at least in part by reducing head-count. And before that, you had the 80's LBO[2] craze,…

There are varying levels of job security, and the loyalty part in technology especially just means that you have to voluntarily leave to another company to get treated better. I'd rather work somewhere that had little to no job security but where everyone was on the ball. Otherwise, the detritus starts to pile up when they aren't mobile within the market.
Post reply on HN