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

It's Never Too Early to Fire

a16z.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 189 posts

Re: It's Never Too Early to Fire

#51

Post by arethuza »

im3w1l wrote: post #29
forgotpw1123 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>My next company will have explicit rubrics for what it takes to get fired, and your status will be tracked daily >You'll know at all times exactly how close you are to getting fired with how much severance Good luck getting anyone to stick around! People want job security, they don't want to feel like they're walking on eggshells every day. You seem to think the only thing people want out of a job is money. >Anyone…

>It's a serious legal risk to re-hire fired employees. That's interesting to hear. Could you explain in what way?

Maybe its a US thing - here in the UK I've seen multiple people re-hired and in each case it worked out pretty well.

Re: It's Never Too Early to Fire

#52

Post by tkyjonathan »

nvarsj wrote: post #46
lokedhs wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have worked in Sweden, and I would like to offer a counter point. I don't think we disagree that the reason the hiring process is so involved in Sweden is because it's so hard to fire someone. This results in a situation where the company does everything they can to minimise the risk of hiring the wrong person. The downside of this is that companies will not take any chances when it comes to hiring people. I believ…

I work in the UK and it's similar. Except we have a lot of diversity due to a vibrant contractor (at-will) market. Which the Tories are trying desperately to destroy, for some reason. Permanent employees are basically impossible to fire. It's a mixed bag I think. On the one hand, there is a large social benefit to having such gov enforced job security. On the other hand, it drives down wages, and hurts companies that…

Contractors are especially needed in unionized permanent companies - where contractors/3rd party companies are needed just to get things moving in the direction management wants.

Re: It's Never Too Early to Fire

#54

Post by CaveTech »

arethuza wrote: post #51
im3w1l wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's a serious legal risk to re-hire fired employees. That's interesting to hear. Could you explain in what way?

Maybe its a US thing - here in the UK I've seen multiple people re-hired and in each case it worked out pretty well.

It was likely re-hiring people who left on their own will. Re-hiring someone you fired is quite a bit different, especially if it was for cause.

Re: It's Never Too Early to Fire

#55

Post by ramblerman »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #2

Weirdly, I think we would all benefit quite a lot from a normalization of fast firing. Part of the reason it's hard to get a job is that companies are afraid to fire you, so they jump through all kinds of strange hoops to try to predict how good an employee you'll be based on, really, no information. This also forces companies to filter out "possibly good" candidates and only hire "probably good" candidates. If it we…

As a contractor moving into permanent recently this rings true.

It was just downright awkward to go for the 4th or 5th interview. Everything was really good, but now the cto needed to meet me as wel etc etc...

I'm used to one interview (2 tops) to get started one week later. I've never been let go, but I think there is less taboo about firing contractors.

Re: It's Never Too Early to Fire

#56

Post by Trundle »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #2

Weirdly, I think we would all benefit quite a lot from a normalization of fast firing. Part of the reason it's hard to get a job is that companies are afraid to fire you, so they jump through all kinds of strange hoops to try to predict how good an employee you'll be based on, really, no information. This also forces companies to filter out "possibly good" candidates and only hire "probably good" candidates. If it we…

I believe people that would thrive in that environment would already be working as contractors or founders or at least in an industry where compensation is strongly tied to recent KPI's like sales or finance.

Things might be different if everyone was doing it like you say, but as it is right now there's a lot of work and friction involved with changing jobs. Getting hired is an ordeal during which you're not getting paid. If someone receives an offer from A with which they can be 90% sure that they'll have the position in a year or two if they want it still, or from B where they will most likely have no job again next week, why the hell would they ever choose B? Let alone common scenarios that come with job change such as moving a family, buying a house in a different city, intentionally leaving a specific position elsewhere to gamble on this one, etc.

I'm almost certain you'd be signing yourself up to employ the worst the labour pool has to offer, which is going to suck no matter how quickly you fire because you're still going to have to be on boarding them.

Re: It's Never Too Early to Fire

#57

Post by commenter1207 »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #41
alexbeloi wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If it were normal to get fired after a day or a week, you could get hired at 10 different companies over a span of two months and likely find a really great position, where you're a great fit. That might work well for people that are unemployed, but it'll be hard to attract anyone that has a secure job with such flimsy offers.

I don't really care about people who are happy with their current job.

The difficult thing with hiring is, most of the best people are already employed - and most of their employers are keeping them happy. If you are focusing on unhappy employees or the unemployed, then you are focusing on a comparatively poor pool of prospective hires.

Re: It's Never Too Early to Fire

#58

Post by throwanem »

ramblerman wrote: post #55
erikpukinskis wrote: post #2

Weirdly, I think we would all benefit quite a lot from a normalization of fast firing. Part of the reason it's hard to get a job is that companies are afraid to fire you, so they jump through all kinds of strange hoops to try to predict how good an employee you'll be based on, really, no information. This also forces companies to filter out "possibly good" candidates and only hire "probably good" candidates. If it we…

As a contractor moving into permanent recently this rings true. It was just downright awkward to go for the 4th or 5th interview. Everything was really good, but now the cto needed to meet me as wel etc etc... I'm used to one interview (2 tops) to get started one week later. I've never been let go, but I think there is less taboo about firing contractors.

I've never been anywhere that didn't hire after two interviews, tops - I've never even applied anywhere like that.

One wonders if the company you're talking about has so much trouble making any decision, or only this sort.

Re: It's Never Too Early to Fire

#59

Post by walshemj »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #2

Weirdly, I think we would all benefit quite a lot from a normalization of fast firing. Part of the reason it's hard to get a job is that companies are afraid to fire you, so they jump through all kinds of strange hoops to try to predict how good an employee you'll be based on, really, no information. This also forces companies to filter out "possibly good" candidates and only hire "probably good" candidates. If it we…

how is it "hard" to fire in the USA

Re: It's Never Too Early to Fire

#60

Post by throwanem »

dullgiulio wrote: post #39
traskjd wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a similar logic to folks that "settle" with marriage. It's not a long term win, and if you're not building for the long term, why do it at all?

On the countrary, there is a lot of evidence that people who "settle down" have lower levels of stress and overall live a better life. It might not be causation but correlation, but nonetheless, you are wrong. Marriage is definitely a long-term win. For the short term, there is Tinder.

This might be an issue of idiom - "settle down" and "settle" do not mean the same thing. The latter refers to disregarding reasonable qualms and known issues with a potential life partner and going ahead anyway, more or less on the theory of "oh well, where am I going to do better?"

Doing so can work out in the long run, I suppose. But it very often doesn't.

Post reply on HN