Better.com CEO fires 900 employees on Zoom call • Hacker News Board

Re: Better.com CEO fires 900 employees on Zoom call

#391

Post by rkk3 » Mon, Dec 06, 2021, 6:25 PM UTC

stormcode wrote: post #213

djrogers wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Abuse? Really? Is a single email where someone vents frustration for 2 lines actually abuse ?

Yes, in my opinion it is. Think about abuse in other contexts to put it in perspective. If a teacher in the middle of giving a homework assignment had said the same thing, would that be okay? What about a police officer who pulled someone over during a traffic stop? What about a customer at a drive thru saying this into the speaker? This is not a random person on the street corner shouting at other random passers by.…

> Think about abuse in other contexts to put it in perspective. If a teacher in the middle of giving a homework assignment had said the same thing, would that be okay? What about a police officer who pulled someone over during a traffic stop? What about a customer at a drive thru saying this into the speaker?

Calling a group of people "DUMB DOLPHINS" on an email chain ... Inappropriate, un professional, dis-respectful all seem like a better way to characterize it.

Its like the reverse of when Prince Andrew described Jeffrey Epstein behavior as "Un-Becoming". There is probably a better way to characterize it.

Re: Better.com CEO fires 900 employees on Zoom call

#392

Post by bumby » Mon, Dec 06, 2021, 6:26 PM UTC

munificent wrote: post #376

tshaddox wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s literally extremely common for companies to inform people that they will be laid off weeks in the future. Companies often have entire facilities that get shut down with months of advance notice. Not to mention that temporary jobs are also extremely common, so this explanation that the only thing ever preventing employees from sabotaging their employer is the hope that they will be employed there indefinitely is…

My understanding is that in those cases, the employees are generally offerred a significant severance package that is conditional on them not causing any problems until the day they are laid off. This way, the employee still has something to lose. Most people wouldn't cause any problems, but a small fraction will cause trouble if they're put in a position where they feel harmed and can retaliate with no consequences…

In my previous work, people wanted to remain on good terms because they were good jobs they were hoping to return to once economic conditions were better. It also helped that they were unionized so they got a reasonable package to make ends meet in the interim.

Re: Better.com CEO fires 900 employees on Zoom call

#393

Post by kapp_in_life » Mon, Dec 06, 2021, 6:26 PM UTC

2fast4you wrote: post #360

tucnak wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You found me.

You are 100% productive for 8 hours a day?

Not who you're replying to, but even if I'm not 100% productive I'm also not ignoring phone calls, and showing up late for meetings. All while billing my company for OT

Re: Better.com CEO fires 900 employees on Zoom call

#394

Post by coffee » Mon, Dec 06, 2021, 6:27 PM UTC

DangerousPie wrote: post #20

I know this sounds horrible but in the days of covid and working from home, what are companies supposed to do if they have to lay off large amounts of people? Make them all risk their health to come to an in-person event, only to be fired? Drive to every employee's house to fire them in person? It obviously sucks but I don't see how, in 2021, this is any different from the kind of thing that would happen all the time…

> I know this sounds horrible but in the days of covid and working from home, what are companies supposed to do if they have to lay off large amounts of people?

This isn't about a Zoom call.

This is about companies taking massive, quick capital to rapidly expand head count at such a rate to which this inevitably occurs.

It lacks responsibility, care, empathy, or even the slightest bit of concern for those that have invested their opportunity cost of being a part of your company.

Re: Better.com CEO fires 900 employees on Zoom call

#395

Post by atribecalledqst » Mon, Dec 06, 2021, 6:27 PM UTC

This is only somewhat related, but a couple years ago somebody at my company who many people had worked with and liked (he'd been around for a long time) died unexpectedly over a holiday weekend. Our management decided the best way to disseminate this news was to hold an all-hands where they announced he'd been found dead. (OK, they used the term "deceased" so it was slightly more formal)

I probably won't ever forgive them for that. That kind of news is extremely personal and they shouldn't have called us into a room to tell us in front of literally everyone else at the company. I don't need or want my coworkers to see how I react to death -- what if I'd burst into tears? I certainly had felt like doing that.

Honestly even though he was really well-known, the best way to handle it would have been to send an email out (like they did for everyone else who passed) and then have an optional get-together where people could reminisce if they wanted to. Preferably in an informal environment like a bar or restaurant for happy hour.

Curious what other people's experiences have been.

Re: Better.com CEO fires 900 employees on Zoom call

#396

Post by acdha » Mon, Dec 06, 2021, 6:30 PM UTC

ripper1138 wrote: post #307

pixelgeek wrote: post #86

I would also like to point out that there is no actual proof that there was the type of employee shenanigans he talks about. He also says "The 43-year-old CEO said that the “market has changed” and that the company had to lose weight in order to remain agile enough to adapt to the evolving housing market, which appears to be cooling after a pandemic-boosted boom." So maybe the 'people stealing time' comment is just a…

How do you know there’s no proof? Not like they’re gonna write a blog about it.

Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. If they had such a large number of people who were actively lying about doing work and, presumably, faking the records that’s the kind of thing where they’d be firing lots of managers and maybe even referring them to the police since it was an organized activity, not giving them weeks of severance.

I doubt they paid the Indian employees well but multiplied by hundreds of people that’s still a large enough number to get an auditor’s attention, especially if you’re in a regulated industry like mortgage banking.

Managers who allowed this clearly aren’t doing due diligence in key areas and that would make it pretty likely that there is fraud or negligence happening elsewhere, too. If you legitimately had this massive a problem, you’d want to be out in front of the questions from regulators and banking partners. Treating it as a simple layoff and only mentioning that later does not sound like a prudent finance company CEO.

Re: Better.com CEO fires 900 employees on Zoom call

#397

Post by bumby » Mon, Dec 06, 2021, 6:31 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #224

tyingq wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what seems right to me. It's not the virtual nature, it's the lazy mass group layoff that's objectionable and disrespectful. If you're being laid off, you probably have a lot of questions. A 1:1 meeting would allow for that.

> It's not the virtual nature, it's the lazy mass group layoff that's objectionable and disrespectful. Is it? I can plausibly make the other argument that not having to do it yourself and offloading it to middle managers/HR is also "objectionable and disrespectful".

If the CEO didn’t want to seem like he was passing the buck, he could have had an all-hands meeting afterwards and explain it was ultimately his decision.

Re: Better.com CEO fires 900 employees on Zoom call

#398

Post by Sohcahtoa82 » Mon, Dec 06, 2021, 6:34 PM UTC

GrinningFool wrote: post #243

fourseventy wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

assuming they did a 20 minute meeting for each employee thats 233 hours or 29 business days to fire all 700 of them...

This reads like a solution to a twisted elementary school math problem, but: Assuming 1 manager for 10 employees, that's 90 managers each doing a 3h20 minute block of 20 minute meetings, allowing all to be fired in one morning.

What if the manager is also getting fired?

Re: Better.com CEO fires 900 employees on Zoom call

#399

Post by michaelt » Mon, Dec 06, 2021, 6:36 PM UTC

tshaddox wrote: post #277

mrits wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't really fire 900 people on individual Zoom calls. After the first 10 minutes everyone will know what their meeting is about and it makes the problem worse. People will be texting their managers begging for information and the manager will have to lie for a day or two until they are authorized to say in the meeting.

> After the first 10 minutes everyone will know what their meeting is about and it makes the problem worse. Huh? It’s not a surprise birthday party. I’m not sure why a key goal would be that each fired person is taken completely by surprise.

The goal there is to minimise the time spent waiting for the other shoe to drop.

After all, if you know layoffs are happening, and your boss schedules a confidential one-on-one meeting with you tomorrow, how well are you going to sleep tonight?

And what of the people who aren't getting fired - you can't really reassure them their jobs are safe before you've told the people whose jobs aren't safe. So you'll be keeping them in limbo too.

Of course, no amount of careful management is going to make people enjoy getting fired (except perhaps a generous voluntary early retirement package)

Re: Better.com CEO fires 900 employees on Zoom call

#400

Post by rhino369 » Mon, Dec 06, 2021, 6:38 PM UTC

leetcrew wrote: post #214

beckingz wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time I got laid off the CEO said that he knew it was hard for me, but also wasn't easy for him. Which is true: firing people is one of the hardest managerial tasks, but it's tone deaf and disrespectful to make it about the manager's feelings. Shows a lack of maturity.

idk, some people might take small comfort in the fact that an actual human feels bad about it. who knows? imo all this "right/wrong way to fire people" is mostly bikeshedding. by far the worst part of being fired is the part where you don't have a job anymore. letting affected employees know as early as possible and paying severance are the only material ways to alleviate that.

It's not inappropriate to be apologetic or sympathetic. But saying "this is hard on me" is basically asking for sympathy from the person you are putting in a very stressful situation.