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

Plaid Layoffs

plaid.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 345 posts

Re: Plaid Layoffs

#221

Post by daggersandscars »

spit2wind wrote: post #187
daggersandscars wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, (most) employers are required to offer former employees continued coverage via the COBRA ( https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/health-plans/cobra ) program. COBRA compliance is built in to corporate insurance policies. Extending healthcare coverage via another method would require extra costs on the employer's part. Giving former employees the cash equivalent allows them to use COBRA if desired or to find al…

I don't think this correct. My understanding is that COBRA is a federal act to allow former employees (who meet certain conditions) to keep the same healthcare plan they had under their former employer. This is important because it preserves the amounts paid into the deductible, as well as the coverage. COBRA, as far as I understand, is not offered by the employer. It is a federal safety net. The employer has no mone…

> I mention this because your post suggested that employers were required to do more

I'm sorry my post suggested that -- it was not intentional. As you note, employers have no monetary obligations to former employees under COBRA.

My intent was to offer a reason why Plaid, having decided to give employees money towards health care, would opt for cash vs extending the Plaid's existing policy to cover non-employees.

Totally get the rantyness. My experiences with COBRA have not been great either and your points are good ones.

Re: Plaid Layoffs

#222

Post by MangoCoffee »

Calvin02 wrote: post #79

I know this feels trite but do other industries do a better job of messaging layoffs? I was laid off from a non-tech company in 2006-2007. There was no message from the CEO, no public admission of fault, etc. We knew the layoffs were coming. On the Friday of the layoff, my manager came around and took me to the HR office. I stood in line with others to sign some paperwork. I was then escorted back to my desk to colle…

>I was laid off from a non-tech company in 2006-2007. There was no message from the CEO, no public admission of fault, etc.

same. i've been in IT for 10+ years in none tech companies as well. i never got any message from CEO for mass layoff.

no message from CEO seem to be pretty standard outside of Silicon Valley.

Re: Plaid Layoffs

#223

Post by bink »

adamrezich wrote: post #76
monero-xmr wrote: post #19

Dear Floofernistas, This is the hardest thing I have ever done. The market changed - I thought we would make more money, now I think we will make less money. Therefore we have discovered that we don't need all of you. If you aren't needed, here is some money. I hope this is enough money that the internet isn't too mad at me. Remaining Floofernistas, please be kind to the ex-Floofernistas, and help them. Again, I am s…

aside from the funny proper noun, how should things be handled differently? why do people think that corporations' primary goal should be to maintain employment of everyone in their company, that there's some sort of moral imperative to do so? is this just because social media has been pretending that corporations are people for so long now that we've forgot that they actually aren't?

This is a pretty cynical take on the idea of retaining qualified employees during a downturn. When I hear people talk about doing what you can to not have mass layoffs I don't think what they mean is that the company has an obligation to the employees that overrides their obligations to their shareholders. The way I read it is that people are saying that retaining good employees is beneficial to the company and the shareholders compared to the morale hit of a mass layoff.

If companies are using mass layoffs to get rid of the "chaff", so to speak, then they have a management problem. Maybe all these companies performing mass layoffs do really have a management problem and hired way more than they should have. But if that's the case maybe the first step is to rectify the management problem rather than to layoff 10-20% of the staff. There really isn't a way that can be done smartly so that you retain the best people and don't destroy morale, effectively harming the shareholders in the long term.

Re: Plaid Layoffs

#224

Post by troupe »

bombcar wrote: post #139
jacobmarble wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it the company's responsibility to employ people until it runs out of money? Are you certain that "here is some money" is just to keep the internet anger at bay? Do companies exist to protect their employees, or to provide something useful for their customers?

There are some privately owned companies (maybe some public benefit companies) that have done things other than layoffs - some have take "universal paycuts until business improves" - instead of laying off 10% everyone takes a 10% paycut (sometimes management/owner takes more). Those companies are usually very quiet and not in the news. Others have so much "normal churn" that they can do effectively a layoff by just s…

Public companies make public announcements because they need investors to know they are cutting costs.

Re: Plaid Layoffs

#225

Post by cubecul »

Frankly, you may be unsatisfied with the wording of the post, but there are no better alternatives, and nobody in these comments would have done any better.

Re: Plaid Layoffs

#226

Post by Plasmoid »

chinchilla2020 wrote: post #197
Calvin02 wrote: post #79

I know this feels trite but do other industries do a better job of messaging layoffs? I was laid off from a non-tech company in 2006-2007. There was no message from the CEO, no public admission of fault, etc. We knew the layoffs were coming. On the Friday of the layoff, my manager came around and took me to the HR office. I stood in line with others to sign some paperwork. I was then escorted back to my desk to colle…

Previously I worked in the energy industry. Layoffs were definitely far more lucrative for employees. * Most individual contributors received 1-2 years of pay * Next bonus cycle was paid out early as part of severance * Contract employees were fully paid out their 1-3 year contracts (Why the hell don't tech startups offer contracts? Another discussion we should have some day) * Senior employers were usually 'bridged…

> The tech industries 2020-2022 "hire everyone then figure out what they should work on" caused the layoffs to increase in magnitude.

So many companies hired borderline recklessly during the pandemic. The question in my mind was "Where did these people come from?" and "Is this demand really sustainable?"

Re: Plaid Layoffs

#227

Post by playoff_burner »

boringg wrote: post #70

I get that layoffs seriously are terrible but a lot of these tech companies are providing some pretty seriously nice exit packages. I fail to understand the amount of acid in the comment thread? Layoffs suck, corporate speak is always cringey. What would people want as alternatives outside perfectly executed business plans that don't have layoffs? Handheld individual exit goodbye packages? Im seriously asking for leg…

I was affected by this layoff and also don't understand the acid.

It's abrupt, for sure, but the writing's been on the wall for months (our internal Blind even called that these would happen before the December holidays). I'm sure I'll be a little sad tomorrow or next week when this really hits, but for now looking at it numbly and rationally I don't see what else I would expect, though I can see how this would be especially troubling for H-1B colleagues.

As far as surprise layoffs go, without sharing internal details, this one still has a strong human touch.

(Feel free to ask questions or provide suggestions- this is new for me. I might use this burner to Not Think About It for a while.)

EDIT: Read the other replies. This sounds really bad for people on visas.

Re: Plaid Layoffs

#228

Post by vkou »

twelve40 wrote: post #212
vkou wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overhiring right before a recession/tightening of the money supply is not exactly 'bringing chaos to the community'. With the 20/20 benefit of hindsight, its a mistake, but its not a malicious mistake. Also, I'll remind you that the Fed is actively trying to increase unemployment. Do you think that's going to happen without people... Losing their jobs?

I don't understand the concept of overhiring tbh. Especially for pretty level-headed services like Plaid or Stripe who have very concrete products and do not engage in pie-in-the-sky metaverses. Surely well-run fintechs can plan their work better without wasteful and dramatic swings?

> Surely well-run fintechs can plan their work better without wasteful and dramatic swings?

No, because it's really, really hard. During periods of economic upheaval, nobody can reliably predict where all of the inputs into their business, and the demand for outputs of their business are going to be six months from now.

(If they could, they should shut down all the 'productive' parts of their business, and just run an investment fund instead.)

Re: Plaid Layoffs

#229

Post by mkipper »

Calvin02 wrote: post #79

I know this feels trite but do other industries do a better job of messaging layoffs? I was laid off from a non-tech company in 2006-2007. There was no message from the CEO, no public admission of fault, etc. We knew the layoffs were coming. On the Friday of the layoff, my manager came around and took me to the HR office. I stood in line with others to sign some paperwork. I was then escorted back to my desk to colle…

I used to work for a defense contractor where layoffs were pretty regular. If the company wasn't winning new contracts, they couldn't afford to keep paying all the staff. It's a pretty simple arrangement, and when layoffs happened, you didn't expect any heartfelt message from leadership about how unexpected it was and how hard they tried to avoid it. It's just the reality of that business and everyone knew that.

In a way, most tech companies are similar. The main thing they try to demonstrate to investors is growth. One aspect of this is hiring as many people as possible when times are good, knowing full well that when the market has a downturn, they'll be overstaffed and forced to lay people off. This seems to be how tech companies work, and investors seem to prefer for tech companies to be run this way. Mass layoffs are pretty much inevitable unless the market stays rosy forever.

So it's a bit patronizing to see a CEO write about how hard of a decision it was, or how they really tried to avoid this at all costs. They might not have predicted COVID, but they absolutely knew they were steering the ship in a direction where this was going to happen eventually.

To be fair, the messaging in this Plaid announcement is about as good as you can do IMO. They chose to hire at a rate that is only sustainable in an environment of infinite growth and they now have to reconcile with that. There isn't much mention of how heartbreaking this for the CEO, how much they love every member of the Plaid family, or how this is an absolute last resort they tried to avoid at all costs. It's just the result of how they chose to run the business. I think that's about all you can really say.

Re: Plaid Layoffs

#230

Post by clintonb »

dehrmann wrote: post #213

The equity grant part is nice, but it's also tricky. For RSUs, it's a tax liability for an illiquid asset at a time when you have less/no income. For options, it gives you the option to hand money over to the company, making layoffs a fundraising round . And this is in a company that's struggling and you're not inclined to believe in right now.

> For RSUs, it's a tax liability for an illiquid asset at a time when you have less/no income.

There is no tax liability if the RSUs are double-trigger. In such cases the tax liability isn't incurred until IPO (first trigger) and time delay (second trigger).

Post reply on HN