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

Buffer Layoffs

open.buffer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 429 posts

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#201

Post by bduerst »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #145
nilkn wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The $155k salary might be due to the transparency, but could it also be due to a simple inability to pay developers $300k+? That's well over double the CEO's salary. I think it's clear they simply don't have the revenue and cash reserves to pay developers that kind of money. I suspect you'll find this to be true at a lot of smaller startups that rely on actually making money instead of fundraising.

The latest model I have seen showed founders making about one-third of top-level employees.

In take-home income right? They still have sizeable ownership of the company and vesting.

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#202

Post by AndrewKemendo »

hondo77 wrote: post #184
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how do you account for companies like ours when, during hard times the CEO and CTO took no pay for two months so that they could continue paying employees? Or by offering employees the same class of stock as the founders with the same voting rights etc...?

Two whole months ( rolls eyes )? You think they did because of a sense of "family"? Maybe they didn't want employees leaving in this labor market and I'm guessing they didn't want to lay people off because others would take that as a signal to jump ship. Trust me, if things get bad, they'll let people go. Two months is not really bad.

You're right, two months isn't bad, but it was a sacrifice, something people in this thread seem to just assume isn't done by management.

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#203

Post by gohrt »

jes wrote: post #86
terrywilcox wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recommend not having children if you're only keeping them as long as it serves your self interest.

I recommend thinking carefully about what is to your long-term self-interest, and then acting accordingly. That would include not creating children if you and your partner are not certain that you want them and will do what is required to raise them in a peaceful, loving and rational home.

What if the children are the ones disturbing the peace, not loving, and bering irrational?

And how can you be "loving" and "rational" at the same time?

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#204

Post by gohrt »

jandrese wrote: post #154
kybernetikos wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The shares are yours, but the company reserves the right to buy them back at the lower of the current price and price you paid for them, which it does when you leave. http://stockoptioncounsel.com/blog/standards-ownership-canth...

This is necessary for stock options to work properly. The whole point is to make sure people want to stay and make a profitable company, not that they ditch the instant the stock passes some threshold. On the other hand, this can lead to disaffected employees who are only staying with the job because they are waiting for their options to mature.

so, the way stock options work properly is that you can work to build a company, and if management blows the revenue, or fires you a month before exit, you get nothing of value out of it?

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#205

Post by jonknee »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #197
jonknee wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That they needed the employees to continue to work so that they could later get rich with their hugely disproportionate equity stakes?

I find this an interesting, if cynical response. It's as though there is no possible set of actions that would be enough.

I mean it's nice optics, but the salary of the person with the most equity is pretty meaningless overall. If the company works out that person is never going to notice the missing paychecks, if the company doesn't work out everyone still loses their jobs. It's business, not family.

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#206

Post by sbilstein »

compiler-guy wrote: post #36

This may be a little cynical but: "With our culture of bringing our whole selves to work and seeing team as family, with shared values we live by,..." In the American business world, you are an employee until you aren't. Confusing being an employee with being "family" is a mistake, both for the company and the employee. When times get bad, companies do what it takes to survive, including throwing employees overboard.…

100% agree. I may be friends with my boss or others but the professional relationship is completely business. I don't expect that to help me out if there are cuts to be made or if I am underperforming, etc.

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#207

Post by gohrt »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #202
hondo77 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two whole months ( rolls eyes )? You think they did because of a sense of "family"? Maybe they didn't want employees leaving in this labor market and I'm guessing they didn't want to lay people off because others would take that as a signal to jump ship. Trust me, if things get bad, they'll let people go. Two months is not really bad.

You're right, two months isn't bad, but it was a sacrifice, something people in this thread seem to just assume isn't done by management.

It depends on whether you needed those employees for the company's survival, or you kept them on doing under-productive work worth less than their pay.

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#208

Post by slededit »

st3v3r wrote: post #115
tn13 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "With our culture of bringing our whole selves to work and seeing team as family, with shared values we live by,..." This is total BS that employers might say to employees but either people will be foolish to believe so. In India I worked for a large company that indeed operated like family. The company avoided layoffs by cutting salary of high performing employees to retain non-performers. Promotions were based on…

"Employers should not feel ashamed to lay off people." On the contrary, they absolutely should. It means they failed. Management should be punished for letting it get to that point, not rewarded for doing it as they often are.

Some businesses are cyclical, and we really don't have a more formal setup for employees that are only needed for 2-3 years of a 5 year business cycle.

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#209

Post by zeroxfe »

st3v3r wrote: post #115
tn13 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "With our culture of bringing our whole selves to work and seeing team as family, with shared values we live by,..." This is total BS that employers might say to employees but either people will be foolish to believe so. In India I worked for a large company that indeed operated like family. The company avoided layoffs by cutting salary of high performing employees to retain non-performers. Promotions were based on…

"Employers should not feel ashamed to lay off people." On the contrary, they absolutely should. It means they failed. Management should be punished for letting it get to that point, not rewarded for doing it as they often are.

Failed at what? The feedback loop between investment and return is extremely long in companies, and it is almost always impossible to tell if you're overshooting (until its too late.) And slowing down does not work at startups, especially in hugely competitive markets.

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#210

Post by selectron »

univalent wrote: post #117
hopsoft wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Don't confuse your job with your family. Reminds me of this terrific article from David Brady. https://heartmindcode.com/2013/08/16/loyalty-and-layoffs/

Thanks for sharing. I wish someone had given me this advice years and years ago before I sank my 20s into a soul-less corporation for no benefit.

Hopefully you at least got paid, so there was some benefit.
Post reply on HN