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

Zoom lays off 15% of employees

blog.zoom.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 596 posts

Re: Zoom lays off 15% of employees

#391

Post by saos »

908B64B197 wrote: post #388
saos wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its the bootcamps that worry me and the endless YouTubers preaching how they became a so and so after 3 months. But yeah nothing is secure.

> Its the bootcamps that worry me and the endless YouTubers preaching how they became a so and so after 3 months. At one point we broadened our hiring pipeline to grads of a local bootcamp (their sales rep were apparently very convincing). About two thirds of the candidates couldn't write three lines of code on a whiteboard.

I don't have anything against bootcamp but I see common pattern:

1. They are in it for money 2. They are in it for the lifestyle 3. They suffer big on by imposter syndrome

The programmers I've worked with over the years were just passionate about programming and thats why they entered the field. They spend years refining the craft. But, now it has drastically changed. The next generation what it "now". Everything "now". They want to buy a home "now". They want new shows "now".

Re: Zoom lays off 15% of employees

#392

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

brk wrote: post #329
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just fucking stop with this already. Quit pretending like your employees are so aligned with the company that some kind of special terminology is needed, or even logical. I cannot judge how Zoom works internally but a lot of companies (ours included) has a term to refer to employees. They are usually not born out of some leader making up a ridiculous term, but out of some sort of chaotic process where the origin of…

> a lot of companies (ours included) has a term to refer to employees Why? Employee is a perfectly suitable and applicable term. You're not "associates" or anything else that implies there is some kind relationship that is anything other than work for hire. Granted, if you have some kind of internal way to refer to yourselves or your teams, that's great. But like politics or religion, it should probably be a thing th…

> Why? Employee is a perfectly suitable and applicable term.

Because a lot of communication in companies is on the same level. People eventually send emails to "hey demonym" rather than "hey coworkers". I think these sort of things develop pretty naturally and unforced.

Re: Zoom lays off 15% of employees

#393

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

bombcar wrote: post #249
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would find it odd if the only time you don't use that term on emails then happens to be layoffs.

Which is why I wouldn't use the term in general, at least from the top-down. It's inherently a "we're all in this together" term which especially isn't applicable when you aren't .

TBH I did not think much of this practice ever. I see that it's weird seeing that in layoff emails but I don't bat an eye normally.

Re: Zoom lays off 15% of employees

#394

Post by GaryNumanVevo »

buggy6257 wrote: post #361

- Comments about how this is a good thing and bravo to the CEO for actually taking accountability - Replies saying how it's never enough and the CEO should be fired for doing something as stupid as hiring people during an economic boom - Comments off ^^^ talking about how much net worth the CEO has based on stock that he hasn't liquidated, and how much he made off this temporary stock bump from cutting "cruft" - Comm…

I'd pay for HN thread summaries like this

Re: Zoom lays off 15% of employees

#395

Post by [deleted] »

domber wrote: post #352
password11 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you are a US-based employee who is impacted, you will receive an email to your Zoom and personal inboxes in the next 30 minutes that reads [IMPACTED] Departing Zoom: What You Need to Know. This is the way to notify people of a layoff. Immediate binary yes/no. Although there is no great way to do it, this layoff seems pretty respectful and well done.

Are you kidding? Passing the message that you're CANNED in the SUBJECT of the email is now considered respectful ? No, it's robotic, and pathetic. They'll soon be writing these lovely messages to their employees, as well as you're fired emails with ChatGPT.

[deleted]

Re: Zoom lays off 15% of employees

#396

Post by s1artibartfast »

lazide wrote: post #379
s1artibartfast wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never heard your definition. My connotation has always been ritual suicide. E.g. Seppuku in Japan, captains going down with the ship, ect. The origin of the phrase in the west stems from the roman practice of military ritual suicide following defeat. It was more a matter of honor than seeking victimhood. A captured general represented an embarrassment to the empire, provides the enemy with a hostage, and would…

Are you referring to 'falling on your sword', or 'accountability' in your response? Some of your examples are not equivalent to falling on their sword. Notably, going down with the ship is the opposite (in some ways), as it is 'fighting to the end to save the ship and it's people'. If someone (going down the ship wise) doesn't get on a lifeboat when everyone else has already gotten off, then yeah it's probably more a…

I am addressing what you said here:

>Falling on one’s sword has, from what I’ve always read, has been portrayed as someone accepting too much responsibility, to the point they actually avoid dealing with the consequences of their actions and make the situation worse overall by killing themselves.

Yes there are differences in my examples. Captains are on boats, and Samurai are in Japan. I'm not trying to say they are identical in every way.

The common factor is that these actions are all seen as honorable positive within the context of the society where they took place.

I get that you might have your own personal take and values on these types of actions. People could have suffered more or made a more utilitarian Choice if their objective was the greater social good.

Yes, I'm sure many people have been made to fall on their sword as patsies. However, I don't think that changes the common understanding of the idiom, or how the practice was viewed in the historical context.

You may see it as the coward's way out to avoid living with shame or fixing your problems, which is fine. I just don't think it is an accurate depiction of how contemporaneous people viewed it. People did not look at a captain going down with the ship or a general falling on their Gladius as a coward dodging their responsibilities. I don't think most people today feel that way either, but obviously there are exceptions with you being one

Re: Zoom lays off 15% of employees

#397

Post by cryptoboy2283 »

buggy6257 wrote: post #361

- Comments about how this is a good thing and bravo to the CEO for actually taking accountability - Replies saying how it's never enough and the CEO should be fired for doing something as stupid as hiring people during an economic boom - Comments off ^^^ talking about how much net worth the CEO has based on stock that he hasn't liquidated, and how much he made off this temporary stock bump from cutting "cruft" - Comm…

You've forgot meta comment categorizing comments

Re: Zoom lays off 15% of employees

#398

Post by rchaud »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #385
haswell wrote: post #8

> As the CEO and founder of Zoom, I am accountable for these mistakes and the actions we take today– and I want to show accountability not just in words but in my own actions. To that end, I am reducing my salary for the coming fiscal year by 98% and foregoing my FY23 corporate bonus. Members of my executive leadership team will reduce their base salaries by 20% for the coming fiscal year while also forfeiting their…

> When you’re making CEO salary, no amount of salary reduction will have a day to day impact, but this seems strongly symbolic at least. If I remember correctly, Steve Jobs had a $1 salary. And a Learjet. A lot of these folks don't make most of their money from salary. If his main income is from stocks, then he may actually be doing fairly well.

Which is what makes it galling to see other CEOs, also receiving most of the compensation in stock, 'taking responsibility' by....leaving their personal bottom lines unchanged.

Unlike Steve Jobs though, the Zoom CEO won't be able to back-date his options to collect a cool $20 mill in capital gains [0]

[0]: https://www.cultofmac.com/443542/steve-jobs-apple-stock-back...

Re: Zoom lays off 15% of employees

#399

Post by rchaud »

GaryNumanVevo wrote: post #394
buggy6257 wrote: post #361

- Comments about how this is a good thing and bravo to the CEO for actually taking accountability - Replies saying how it's never enough and the CEO should be fired for doing something as stupid as hiring people during an economic boom - Comments off ^^^ talking about how much net worth the CEO has based on stock that he hasn't liquidated, and how much he made off this temporary stock bump from cutting "cruft" - Comm…

I'd pay for HN thread summaries like this

this is a solved problem: http://n-gate.com/hackernews/

Re: Zoom lays off 15% of employees

#400

Post by somedude895 »

madamelic wrote: post #86

This sucks but something like COVID should normalize the idea in the minds of workers that all workers are disposable regardless of education or skill. If you don't own 51% of the company, you are disposable. Zoom had a use for you during COVID, now they don't: bye-bye. You were used, they got what they needed and now it is time to go. That's how workers are treated and people should understand that. You are not Geor…

> This sucks but something like COVID should normalize the idea in the minds of workers that all workers are disposable

I don't know who you're talking about but it should have only taken common sense to know you're disposable as an employee.

Post reply on HN