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

Stack Overflow reducing headcount by 20%

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 209 posts

Re: Stack Overflow reducing headcount by 20%

#151

Post by pjc50 »

dogruck wrote: post #138
keganunderwood wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm OK being "instantly" terminated as long as you pay me for the duration of the notice period.

I agree with you, but many people do not share our view. The general counter argument is that if you make it difficult for companies to terminate employees, then companies will search for alternate mechanisms to sustain profitability. For example, instead of terminating an employee, the company might reduce executive pay, or pass the increased expenses on to customers. Again, I agree with you.

> instead of terminating an employee, the company might reduce executive pay,

Well that won't happen.

Apart from a few cases where executives agree to take all their compensation in equity to rescue a failing business, they tend to pay themselves first, sometimes at the cost of the long term health of the business. Philip Green / BHS is the example that comes to mind.

Re: Stack Overflow reducing headcount by 20%

#152

Post by bsaul »

I think an interesting path for stackoverflow would be to provide live channels for technology support and conversation. A bit like public slacks.

I remember a few technologies that officially said something like "support is provided through custom stackoverflow tags", but it didn't bring more functionalities.

A company trying to launch its new technology (i can imagine asp.net core for example) could have an associated community channel to talk about it, with automatic links from tags. That would be a nice addition.

Re: Stack Overflow reducing headcount by 20%

#153

Post by dredmorbius »

taway_1212 wrote: post #52
brian-armstrong wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inherent conflict here - programmers don't click on ads, fullstop. I can't imagine a group I'd want to advertise to less.

They do click on job ads.

Not the ones we don't see.

Re: Stack Overflow reducing headcount by 20%

#154

Post by dogruck »

pjc50 wrote: post #151
dogruck wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you, but many people do not share our view. The general counter argument is that if you make it difficult for companies to terminate employees, then companies will search for alternate mechanisms to sustain profitability. For example, instead of terminating an employee, the company might reduce executive pay, or pass the increased expenses on to customers. Again, I agree with you.

> instead of terminating an employee, the company might reduce executive pay, Well that won't happen. Apart from a few cases where executives agree to take all their compensation in equity to rescue a failing business, they tend to pay themselves first, sometimes at the cost of the long term health of the business. Philip Green / BHS is the example that comes to mind.

To be fair, your example is not a counterpoint because the company also collapsed.

I think you’d have to show examples where a company:

  1. Was not allowed to fire employees,
  2. Executives did not take a pay cut,
  3. The company continued to do well.

Re: Stack Overflow reducing headcount by 20%

#155

Post by walshemj »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #127
Ralfp wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on country too. In EU our work laws regulate how your employee may be laid off. My country (poland) says that employee has to be notified about termination: - week ahead if he or she was employed for less than month - month ahead if he or she was employed for less than three years - three months ahead if he or she was employed for more than three years This goes both ways however, as employee has to notify hi…

A three months notice before quitting seems pretty excessive IMHO. I can kindof understand it from the perspective of the company that would need to find a replacement, but for the worker, it seems ridiculous. Note: I am American, and most states are aren’t “right-to-work” meaning you can quit at a moment’s notice, but it’s common courtesy to give 2 weeks notice.

Its normal for professional jobs and most eu residents someone only having 2 weeks notice would probably think oh so your a janitor or toilet cleaner

Re: Stack Overflow reducing headcount by 20%

#156

Post by walshemj »

jaredklewis wrote: post #132
Ralfp wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on country too. In EU our work laws regulate how your employee may be laid off. My country (poland) says that employee has to be notified about termination: - week ahead if he or she was employed for less than month - month ahead if he or she was employed for less than three years - three months ahead if he or she was employed for more than three years This goes both ways however, as employee has to notify hi…

I’m quite surprised to hear one must give their employer notice. Doesn’t Poland or the EU have laws against forced labor? In the US, for example, all employment by private corporations is “at will.” Anyone can quit at a moments notice, for any or no reason at all. For the sake of one’s colleagues and reputation it is widely considered good practice to give no less than 2 weeks notice, though this is merely custom.

Its because employment laws descend from those governing Masters and servants as does the USA's

Re: Stack Overflow reducing headcount by 20%

#157

Post by dep_b »

Of all questions I've asked on Stack Overflow, 50% were eventually answered by myself (and some became pretty popular after that) and 5% was answered by someone else. 45% is still open.

Good to see them back to a focus. I guess hiring could be a good cash cow but all of the sub communities are a bit much.

Re: Stack Overflow reducing headcount by 20%

#158

Post by baldfat »

kjxsnht43 wrote: post #72
codeflo wrote: post #57

It's undeniable that their main developer Q&A site is a really great thing that saved me many hours of work. However, it was somewhat hostile to its more export users from the very beginning: the reputation system favors quickfire replies to grab the first upvotes, and they seem to put a strong emphasis on "cookbook" answers where many of the more nuanced discussions were closed as "opinion based". I think there are…

I couldn't agree less. First off, they're not going out of business, just letting 20% go and one would assume refocusing. I think the site is set up to get good answers and not just the first upvotes as answers stick around and users can vote answers up or down as they see fit. The first answers on older questions tend to be very long and in-depth and give a lot of good information about the pros and cons of the appr…

> Opinion based

I wish Stackoverflow would buy https://slant.co and just point people to that site for opinions.

Re: Stack Overflow reducing headcount by 20%

#159

Post by future1979 »

pjc50 wrote: post #147
jaredklewis wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m quite surprised to hear one must give their employer notice. Doesn’t Poland or the EU have laws against forced labor? In the US, for example, all employment by private corporations is “at will.” Anyone can quit at a moments notice, for any or no reason at all. For the sake of one’s colleagues and reputation it is widely considered good practice to give no less than 2 weeks notice, though this is merely custom.

It's not "forced labour", it's just a contractual term. You certainly _can_ quit on zero notice but you've breached contract and it will cost you. If you look closely at US startups you'll usually find the founders and senior staff are on "notice required" contracts of several months.

If you make the breach cost infinitely high, how is that not a modern form of slavery?
Post reply on HN