511–520 of 1001 posts
Go to their job page: https://stripe.com/jobs/search Almost 700 open roles right now...
It says they laid off much of the recruiting team, so nobody is left to remove the listings.
Quoted post unavailable.
Yeah, so you're going to go march in there and do something? What exactly are you proposing here? It's a layoff. It happens. It's ironically a sign of them being good executives and doing what they need to do to keep their company viable so they can keep the ship running going forward for the remaining sustainable head count.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are doing what any company does whether the slow down in the economy impacts them or not. They lie and say it impacts them and use it to do a purge. I worked at companies that were in no way impacted by the 2008 financial crisis (in fact, business was booming). Leadership managed to use it as an excuse to do a hiring freeze and plead with existing employees that they are the lucky ones and they need to work hard…
Many find the r word offensive. Can you please be kinder and express yourself differently? https://www.verywellfamily.com/what-is-the-r-word-3105651 Your post brings up interesting view points, thanks for sharing.
Or is it worse to be constantly patronized, behind your back, by throngs hell-bent on pretending away that generally accepted disfavor (and even Darwin himself)?
I work for Stripe and got laid off this morning. Sucks because my manager was only told this morning, and didn't have a chance to talk about how well I was doing or take any part in the decision making. We'll at least I'll get a break. I worked nights and weekends all of October.
> Sucks because my manager was only told this morning As a manager I find their really curious. I guess they were trying to avoid leaks. I wonder how they chose who to lay off. Most recent performance rating? Next level managers impression?
Imagine the mechanics if they involved every single low-level manager in decision making. You'd never find 15%. Everyone would justify where a person on their team or their team as a whole deserves to be saved. So you apply broader rules (eg certain products, certain types of jobs, performance based). The upside is that you can avoid people-specific favoritism. The downside is that you lose good people in those areas as you're not distinguishing good from bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sucks because my manager was only told this morning As a manager I find their really curious. I guess they were trying to avoid leaks. I wonder how they chose who to lay off. Most recent performance rating? Next level managers impression?
> As a manager I find their really curious. I guess they were trying to avoid leaks. That's something I don't quite get. This adversarial relationship between employees and employers and management is stupid. Why not tell the workforce you have to cut costs, so if you're thinking of changing careers now is the time. Whoever is left presumably wants to stay.
Layoffs are not an indication of failure. Not on those who get laid off, those that remain, or senior leadership. The universe is a dynamic, changing place. People [should] move in and out of jobs and industries in response to those changes in the world. This is a good thing, and much better than blindly doing the same thing forever, in the face of changes. I don't know the specifics of Stripe's business at all, but…
> Layoffs are not an indication of failure. Not on those who get laid off, those that remain, or senior leadership. I appreciate the sentiment, but think it is hard to believe when you are in it. As someone who got laid off, it sure doesn't feel that way. I felt like a failure, and was angry. It took me about a year to get over it. I've also been part of the "go forward" group (to use the parlance of our times) and t…
I've seen three "mentors" get laid off in my career, and it really reinforced in me this idea that leadership doesn't necessarily care about your technical abilities. Sometimes the best people get cut.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does sound wild. Letting people who are likely angry having access to company resources and financials being able to make real damages to Stripe's customers. Companies want to keep high performers. Voluntary layoffs is a very dumb move.
This is such an adversarial read of things. Some companies do offer employees to quit in exchange for some compensation. It's win-win, the company reduces costs and the employee doesn't work at a place they don't want to be at. The whole "the employee can cause damage to the company" view is ridiculous – guess what, the employee can already do damage to the company while employed there, yet they don't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Been there with Braintree. One day they told us “your company profile is too risky, we won’t serve you unless you keep a deposit of $x million with us. We couldn’t afford that, so we migrated to another provider and then diversified - we integrated Stripe, Adyen and later a few local providers and we were able to dynamically switch between them. It was a lot of effort, but it made us more resilient and independent
Most large Stripe clients split traffic. It doesn't make sense to have Stripe be a single point of failure if you're processing enough volume.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or they are a self motivated high achiever.
This is a case study of the futility of intra-corporate "high achieving" when you can be laid off on a whim regardless of performance.