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

Normalising Layoffs/Firing

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 253 posts

Re: Normalising Layoffs/Firing

#231

Post by zeruch »

jlund-molfese wrote: post #40
zeruch wrote: post #4

"We have normalised firing of people." We spent decades in the US smashing unions, smashing pensions (replacing them with more volatile instruments like 401Ks) and made at-will employment dangerous for both sides of the equation. Firing has been trivialized for decades. This is not new, and the current wave is minuscule compared to 2008, 2000, and previous. The worst is yet to come.

Why would an employee in the tech sector prefer an employer-managed pension? A 401(k) usually allows me to choose what I invest my money in (including bonds), and can be rolled over to a new employer easily. And it’s my money once it’s in my account, not my employer’s money. They can’t require me to work for a certain period of time to get it out, and don’t pay me less to compensate for offering the retirement benefi…

"Why would an employee in the tech sector prefer an employer-managed pension?"

They might not, but that position presumes that the person has only experienced the 'upside' of the industry. Why would ANY employee in ANY industry prefer it in boom times? They wouldn't. But that in and of itself is very short-term opportunistic thinking. It may still not overall be the position one wants to take, but that also presumes that there is only a binary decision to be assessed, and policy/regulation is rarely lacking in granularity.

Pensions carry their own benefits and detriments. As someone whose been in tech for 25 years, I'm largely ambivalent at this stage, but I suspect many aren't, and are asking more pointed questions to themselves.

Re: Normalising Layoffs/Firing

#232

Post by atemerev »

ryandrake wrote: post #224
Jochim wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly I don't think the US model is something we should be competing with for the same reasons I don't think we should be emulating sweatshops in China or India. Based on recent stock trends their value is largely hypothetical and based on both hype and the assumption that they're able to grow indefinitely. I'd be happier to exclude them from our markets entirely. The growth-oriented model that's become popular in…

It's helpful to think of the USA as a gigantic factory that produces billionaires. The manufacturing process runs off of energy ("money") provided by banks, investors and government, and the raw materials that get consumed and discarded are the lives and livelihoods of workers, and the end product that pops off the assembly line is "wealthy people".

That’s what they told us in a Soviet primary school back in USSR. The alternative wasn’t compelling enough.

Re: Normalising Layoffs/Firing

#233

Post by lostlogin »

atemerev wrote: post #228
lostlogin wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s interesting how your points could be right yet you will have disagreement over whether it’s a problem. Growth at any cost is utterly toxic in my view. You describe lower European salaries, yet minimum wage in the US is outrageously low. What the US seems to have created us a system for creating wealth inequality.

“Minimum wage” is fiction. There are many countries (including European countries) that do not have minimum wage. It doesn’t have any base in reality, and people should not accept such ridiculous salaries. That’s what unions and labor negotiations are for.

Those receiving such wages seem unlikely to be in a position to negotiate a lot better.

Regulation is a dirty word to many, but it’s a solution I support for minimum wage.

Re: Normalising Layoffs/Firing

#234

Post by scarface74 »

lostlogin wrote: post #226
scarface74 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unemployment is funded on the state level via corporate taxes. I have no issue with getting rid of loopholes on corporate taxes.

I think you’ve perfectly covered why such a protection is lacking. Schemes someone else pays for sound great, but until people agree to pay them, they don’t happen.

How is that whole depending on your employer for health care working out in the US?

Why would you want to depend on them for your long term financial stability?

Re: Normalising Layoffs/Firing

#235

Post by listenallyall »

hellisothers wrote: post #206
listenallyall wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind that a 401k is almost all funded with your own money. The amount going into the 401k is deducted from your paycheck... you can see it in one of the boxes. A pension, on the other hand, was funded by the company. And that is the exact reason there are so few defined-benefit pensions today in the private sector. These things were so incredibly generous that they are potentially bankrupting the original com…

While this is true, the company could just pay you $18,500 less and put that in your pension. Benefits are fungible.

That's not how a defined BENEFIT pension, like what GE offered for decades, works. The "defined" promise is related to what the employee receives, not what is contributed.

Re: Normalising Layoffs/Firing

#236

Post by scarface74 »

Jochim wrote: post #227
scarface74 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even with appropriate safety nets I think a case could still be made for discouraging companies from firing people lightly and requiring the effects to be cushioned due to the amount of upheaval finding a new job can cause both financially and socially. In the US, there is no stigma to losing your job via a reduction in force. As far as financially, I don’t have any moral objection to unemployment insurance being h…

> In the US, there is no stigma to losing your job via a reduction in force Sorry, I could have been more clear here. I meant the loss of social relationships either at the company or by potentially having to move neighbourhood/city. > The VC funded company I worked for literal had no money when it was bought out for pennies. I was one of the people doing pitch decks to potential acquirers and in the room for the tec…

> Sorry, I could have been more clear here. I meant the loss of social relationships either at the company or by potentially having to move neighbourhood/city.

Are you really going to put the onus on private companies to ensure that no one ever has to move from their hometown?

> Most companies have at least some assets when they wind down. Putting employee obligations first simply means that any value derived from the liquidation is first used to settle that debt rather than other creditors

A software companies only assets are the software and maybe a few laptops. These days many don’t even have servers.

Don’t get me wrong, we were guaranteed by our backers that we would be paid for every hour we worked and they kept their promise.

Re: Normalising Layoffs/Firing

#237

Post by Jochim »

atemerev wrote: post #232
ryandrake wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's helpful to think of the USA as a gigantic factory that produces billionaires. The manufacturing process runs off of energy ("money") provided by banks, investors and government, and the raw materials that get consumed and discarded are the lives and livelihoods of workers, and the end product that pops off the assembly line is "wealthy people".

That’s what they told us in a Soviet primary school back in USSR. The alternative wasn’t compelling enough.

The options aren't limited to authoritarian dictatorship and capitalist oligopoly.

In the same vein it isn't communist to suggest that billionaires should maybe remain slightly smaller billionaires in order to provide workers a decent quality of life.

Until fairly recently you could support a household on one income in most western countries. We're now seeing people struggling on two after decades of tax cuts and historically low tax burdens on the extremely wealthy.

Re: Normalising Layoffs/Firing

#238

Post by Jochim »

scarface74 wrote: post #236
Jochim wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the US, there is no stigma to losing your job via a reduction in force Sorry, I could have been more clear here. I meant the loss of social relationships either at the company or by potentially having to move neighbourhood/city. > The VC funded company I worked for literal had no money when it was bought out for pennies. I was one of the people doing pitch decks to potential acquirers and in the room for the tec…

> Sorry, I could have been more clear here. I meant the loss of social relationships either at the company or by potentially having to move neighbourhood/city. Are you really going to put the onus on private companies to ensure that no one ever has to move from their hometown? > Most companies have at least some assets when they wind down. Putting employee obligations first simply means that any value derived from th…

> Are you really going to put the onus on private companies to ensure that no one ever has to move from their hometown?

Not at all. I do think companies should be prevented from firing people without generous severance and/or good reason.

If there was a good social safety net then I'd be open to that being relaxed a bit.

> A software companies only assets are the software and maybe a few laptops. These days many don’t even have servers.

There's also IP but I think that's missing the point. Getting paid something is better than nothing and many companies do have assets that would cover some/all of their outstanding payroll. At the moment, as far as I'm aware, employee payroll is fairly far down the list of creditors. I believe it should be first.

> Don’t get me wrong, we were guaranteed by our backers that we would be paid for every hour we worked and they kept their promise.

I'm glad your backers treated you and your colleagues generously. My preference is usually to bake in desired outcomes like this rather than relying on individual generosity.

Re: Normalising Layoffs/Firing

#239

Post by scarface74 »

Jochim wrote: post #238
scarface74 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sorry, I could have been more clear here. I meant the loss of social relationships either at the company or by potentially having to move neighbourhood/city. Are you really going to put the onus on private companies to ensure that no one ever has to move from their hometown? > Most companies have at least some assets when they wind down. Putting employee obligations first simply means that any value derived from th…

> Are you really going to put the onus on private companies to ensure that no one ever has to move from their hometown? Not at all. I do think companies should be prevented from firing people without generous severance and/or good reason. If there was a good social safety net then I'd be open to that being relaxed a bit. > A software companies only assets are the software and maybe a few laptops. These days many don’…

> Not at all. I do think companies should be prevented from firing people without generous severance and/or good reason

It’s not a good reason that “we don’t have the money” or “we decided that our horse and buggy manufacturing division is no longer the direction we are going”?

A company is not a charity. The purpose of a company is to sell things at profit and they hire you with an understanding of exchanging labor for money.

> I'm glad your backers treated you and your colleagues generously. My preference is usually to bake in desired outcomes like this rather than relying on individual generosity.

So are you going to force investors to keep funding companies when they run out of money?

Re: Normalising Layoffs/Firing

#240

Post by llamataboot »

yolovoe wrote: post #200
llamataboot wrote: post #98

Definitely harder to lay people off when they know them. I can remember my dad not sleeping for weeks after he made it to management because he was going to have to lay off 5 friends. -- That being said, I'm not sure the entire tech industry wouldn't benefit from less friction to switching - hiring is an insanely expensive and very low-signal process - spend 200 hours hiring a person and maybe they fit and work well,…

I haven't heard of anyone spending 20-60 hours in interviews. Most onsites are remote these days, and the entire interview loop is probably at most 6 hours including phone screen or coding assessment. I find interviewing to be pretty frictionless for the most part. The hardest part is setting some time aside for for leetcode prep.

I haven't seen many interview processes less than 10 when we figure some initial rounds, some onsite or technical stuff, last rounds much less all the scheduling in between and the desire for everyone to meet during the work day when you are also working

a takehome can easily be 10+ hours

onsites have gotten a bit shorter since they went remote, but are still a lot. Let's say 8 hours. That means 5 companies, a whole work week to fit into full work weeks..

Post reply on HN