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

241–250 of 345 posts

Re: Plaid Layoffs

#241

Post by bink »

peanuty1 wrote: post #217
matsemann wrote: post #45

> For Plaids in the UK and Europe, you will receive an email outlining how the process will work in accordance with your local employment laws. My company also did layoffs recently. I'm quite happy about how it works here in the EU, can't just fire people on the spot. It's a whole process where you need to map out what roles you need going forward, and then which people should fill those roles, so can't just at rando…

I think I would much prefer the American policy of getting 4 mos of severance and accelerated vesting.

Sure, for this round. Later rounds usually aren't so generous.

Re: Plaid Layoffs

#242

Post by playoff_burner »

richard___ wrote: post #145

Twitter started an avalanche. So obvious.

Not in fintech. The big Stripe layoff (14%) was before Twitter.

I think Twitter gets a lot more credit than it deserves for the layoff wave, given that companies had already put effort into modeling the ROI of their labor. The idea that you could do significant workforce reduction and not have the product completely collapse overnight isn't new: it's obvious.

Re: Plaid Layoffs

#243

Post by playoff_burner »

cochne wrote: post #27
PhoenixReborn wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, in a highly regulated environment like finance or healthcare this is the norm for opsec reasons. Can't have disgruntled laid-off employees taking revenge actions against the company or customers.

Why not just send the email first, so that people don't have to wait in suspense to see if they still have a job?

The suspense lasted 1 minute. The "team update" and cut/no-cut emails went out pretty much simultaneously.

Re: Plaid Layoffs

#244

Post by Bagelsandlox »

function_seven wrote: post #160
stu2b50 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? That seems entirely innocuous?

I'll try to explain why I think it's gross. All of these tech companies come up with cutesy terms for employees. "Googlers", "Plaids", "Metamates", "Splunkers", "Pinployees". It seems like a cheap way of tying workers' identities to The Company. It's a cheap gesture used in an attempt to create a distinct "culture". So in the context of a mass-termination, it really rubs me the wrong way to refer to these people as "…

Hi, I was affected by this layoff unfortunately.

Plaid just gave me 16 weeks of pay, 6 months of insurance premiums, waived the vesting cliff I hadn't hit yet, and let me go with way more dignity than I've ever seen in my 20 year career (19 of those years spent at "normal" non-silicone Valley companies)...

...they can call me whatever the hell they want at this point and I'll be OK with it lol

Re: Plaid Layoffs

#245

Post by ShamelessC »

jamiequint wrote: post #185
Mistletoe wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the vitriol is more tied to the founder model of get as big as you can, as fast as you can, by hiring as many as you can, so that the valuations keep getting bigger and bigger so you can cash out. Then you cut loose all the people you know you didn’t actually need.

This is a strawman. Nobody operates this way. You don't raise more money by hiring more people. In some markets you raise more by making more revenue even if unprofitable, which is not great but is very different than raising as a function of number of employees.

It’s not a straw man, you’re just debating the least charitable interpretation. It is true that VC-backed tech startups hire in large batches if they can ”afford to”. This “adds value” (for a potential acquisition or IPO) by attaining the intellectual property and time of said hired employees in writing.

One or two of them are “good enough” to nail new record growth. Some survive by way of credentials, as their @stanford.edu email is good for leads/future hiring/brain drains.

The rest are “scaled down” as they say.

Re: Plaid Layoffs

#246

Post by kgwgk »

sroussey wrote: post #54
kgwgk wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the UK is in Europe. Makes as much sense as a Japanese company referring repeteadly to employees in New York and/or the United States.

The UK and EU would be better? From a business perspective, Europe and EU are the same thing, and the UK is not part of the EU anymore.

From a business perspective, they seem to consider that the UK is part of Europe:

https://plaid.com/blog/plaid-hires-head-of-europe/

Their site mentions offices in London and Amsterdam. Maybe UK means London and Europe means Amsterdam?

(Or maybe they have some employees elsewhere in Europe - they offer their services in several countries... including another non-EU country: Norway.)

Re: Plaid Layoffs

#247

Post by Ancalagon »

jamiequint wrote: post #185
Mistletoe wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the vitriol is more tied to the founder model of get as big as you can, as fast as you can, by hiring as many as you can, so that the valuations keep getting bigger and bigger so you can cash out. Then you cut loose all the people you know you didn’t actually need.

This is a strawman. Nobody operates this way. You don't raise more money by hiring more people. In some markets you raise more by making more revenue even if unprofitable, which is not great but is very different than raising as a function of number of employees.

To the contrary, this sounds remarkably similar to the way the startup Better Mortgage was/is operating to me.

Re: Plaid Layoffs

#248

Post by adamrezich »

bink wrote: post #223
adamrezich wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

> the morale hit of a mass layoff.

this is really hard to quantify, especially when it's increasingly becoming standard operating procedure across the industry.

Re: Plaid Layoffs

#249

Post by everybodyknows »

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…

If you're still unemployed when COBRA runs out, you'll need private health insurance. IIRC, this was about 50% higher than COBRA. In order to get it, you'll need a form from your former employer (or agent) certifying continuity of coverage. Expect the form to go missing, with persistent phone followup required. This based on my own FAMANG departure a few years back.

Re: Plaid Layoffs

#250

Post by jamiequint »

ShamelessC wrote: post #245
jamiequint wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a strawman. Nobody operates this way. You don't raise more money by hiring more people. In some markets you raise more by making more revenue even if unprofitable, which is not great but is very different than raising as a function of number of employees.

It’s not a straw man, you’re just debating the least charitable interpretation. It is true that VC-backed tech startups hire in large batches if they can ”afford to”. This “adds value” (for a potential acquisition or IPO) by attaining the intellectual property and time of said hired employees in writing. One or two of them are “good enough” to nail new record growth. Some survive by way of credentials, as their @stan…

"founder model of get as big as you can, as fast as you can, by hiring as many as you can, so that the valuations keep getting bigger and bigger so you can cash out"

I'm pretty sure I just directly interpreted what they said.

Post reply on HN