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

281–290 of 429 posts

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#281

Post by bhuga »

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.…

There's plenty of agreement with you, so I'll offer a counterpoint.

When a company is small--less than 10 or 20 people--it really can feel like a 'family' in that everyone would rather see the company fail than break apart. "Layoffs" aren't realistic in such an environment; the company is either working or it isn't.

As a company grows, these rules necessarily change. It's just a fact of having more people, as the momentum of the company becomes bigger than any individual. It's part of how a company grows. I've watched it happen; it's a strange thing and it feels like something has been lost, no matter how necessary it is.

The change from a tight-knit team, battling for success against all odds, to a sizable company with growth curves, finances, lawyers, outlooks, audits and EBITDA can sneak up on you. I think it would especially surprise early employees and founders, who remember the days when it didn't feel like a company at all.

Employment is never quite 'family'. But there's reasons to be empathetic to these founders' mistakes and choice of words, rather than a blanket "anyone who thinks that way has another thing coming."

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#282

Post by wavefunction »

blacksmythe wrote: post #106
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/

>> (our VP) specifically named you because your piece is finished. That is really poor, short-sighted management.

It's a good way to find out about the quality of the officers in your firm.

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#283

Post by galistoca »

People keep saying "admire the transparency", "appreciate the transparency", but really what's the point? Who is the "transparency" for?

I really couldn't care less about my salary being made public to the world, all I care about is working on something I believe in.

Extreme transparency has nothing to do with their business growth and it will probably come back to haunt them later, I don't know why they're going so far as to do all this.

Doing business is extremely hard on its own, why complicate matters and expose private details to the public, which can and probably will at some point be used against you? I mean even on this thread people nitpick and gossip about every single details. And it would be a lie to say they care 0% about these things. If they do care, it just means less time worrying about their core business.

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#284

Post by ryanSrich »

vox_mollis wrote: post #116
dsacco wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I admire Buffer for being so transparent with their salaries, but I don't think I would ever decide to work for a company that mandated it. In my (admittedly limited) experience, mandating salary transparency tends to increase the salaries of low performers and reduce the salaries of high performers. It usually eliminates the potential for negotiating raises and poses difficult questions about paying some employees m…

$155k is already pretty obscene, let alone double. Around here, $50k entry and $90k 10y+ senior for developers is fairly standard.

Where is "around here", Europe? Because anywhere in the U.S. is going to have a higher starting salary than $50k.

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#285

Post by galistoca »

spitfire wrote: post #181
pbreit wrote: post #62

I have mixed emotions with Buffer's shtick. On the one hand there's something fresh and unique about it. On the other, I think: just put your heads down and get to work serving customers! I'm guessing the main benefit of the open-ness is marketing. I doubt it helps the company much beyond that.

Well, except for hiring. When they get to that again. Sometimes just vocalizing things came lead to new insight. I like their approach, minus the salary transparancy.

Same logic goes for hiring. If you need to use this kind of gimmicky tactic--which is obviously bad for the company in the long run--to find new hires, it probably means you need to focus more on the core product to turn it into something that is naturally attractive for potential employees.

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#286

Post by ryanSrich »

minimaxir wrote: post #2

While Buffer's transparency is incredible, the financial calculations in the article fail to account for the possibility of an employee exodus domino effect, especially after both knowing the financial state of the company, and relevant perks being cut.

So just hire more people? No one is irreplaceable. Buffer is a very well known, and well regarded startup. An employee exodus would be a minor hiccup (and something that is very unlikely to happen at all).

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#287

Post by galistoca »

mahyarm wrote: post #256
chx wrote: post #252

Why is this several hundred upvotes news? A startup grows from 30-something to 90-something it's too much it trims a little. That's entirely normal. What's the big news?

It trimmed the most recent employees, who decided to take the job after rejecting other job offers. Hiring 60 people in one year and then firing 10 of them in less than a year isn't nice and it doesn't feel nice. It's definitely a screw up in planning. I understand why it can happen for sure, but still sucks.

That too but the fact that he's using this as a "look what I did guys! I'm being transparent!" post opportunity is what really offends me.

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#288

Post by bbcbasic »

harryh wrote: post #60
jes wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say no relationships, including family relationships, should be maintained if they aren't in the long-term self-interest of all parties. In other words, every relationship is a trading relationship, and the currency of the realm isn't always, or even often, monetary in nature.

How many times do I have to get annoyed at my kid for waking up in the middle of the night before you're OK with me kicking him out of the house? Keep in mind that he is currently 11 months old...

Really. You get angry at a baby?

To answer your question... kick him out this week by getting a relative to take care of him for a night and catch up on sleep.

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#289

Post by ttam »

cyberpanther wrote: post #214
arcticfox wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The voting on your post implies people disagree, but the method you mention is the way the vast majority of companies try to operate because it intuitively makes sense. Even in a cut-throat industry like sports, athletes aren't cut or traded the instant they enter a slump (if they still have future potential).

As mentioned below, Netflix has the philosophy "we're a professional sports team". Yet they don't pay people millions of dollars like an athlete. If you really want to be cut throat, great, pay people like an athlete then. Otherwise quit the BS.

Netflix is actually known for paying some of the best salaries in the Valley.

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#290

Post by inopinatus »

freddie_mercury wrote: post #247
cyberpanther wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As mentioned below, Netflix has the philosophy "we're a professional sports team". Yet they don't pay people millions of dollars like an athlete. If you really want to be cut throat, great, pay people like an athlete then. Otherwise quit the BS.

Not all professional sports pay millions.

Most professional athletes don't earn big money. Rather like music, a very few make it in the big leagues. Of the rest, some find steady work in minor teams; many, many others struggle to get by combining their passion with casual day jobs.

If your sport isn't one of the few that can command massive advertising dollars, then there may be no pay at all. The value chain is very clear: all high athlete salaries are ultimately funded by advertisers wanting access to consumer eyeballs.

Overlay all this with the very short effective career, the near-absence of post-athletic marketable skills, and the devastating effect of injuries, and you'll find athletes are statistically underpaid over their lifetimes.

Post reply on HN