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

521–530 of 596 posts

Re: Zoom lays off 15% of employees

#521

Post by s1artibartfast »

gadflyinyoureye wrote: post #469
s1artibartfast wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I agree that his ownership position gives him direct financial accountability for the performance of the company. He does well when it does well. That said, the swings tech stock over the last couple years have very little to do with his leadership. Yuan is not responsible for the tech bubble and its deflation. No human on the planet could have made zoom hold its peak stock price.

Keep in mind that his income is probably not what he lives on. He probably gets loans with the stock. That 500 mill bump probably got him a large loan.

He probably doesn't need more stock borrow against if he has billions of dollars of equity already and a seven digit annual compensation. His stock transfers and sales are public information so you can look that up if you want. A cursory search shows that he sold at least 50 million dollars worth, which should cover some daily expenses

Re: Zoom lays off 15% of employees

#522

Post by bruce511 »

mvc wrote: post #448
Spooky23 wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s symbolic. He built a juggernaut that went from nothing to industry leader in a few years. Just like Cisco did with WebEx, they can park the company for a few years and print billions until the next disruptor arrives.

Indeed. Such a drag to share the spoils with the proles who built such a successful company.

Ahh, that confluence where capitalism intersects with socialism.

Did the workers build the company? Did the capital build the company by providing the pay to pay the workers?

Did the workers take any risks? Or did they sign an employment contract, and get paid the same every month regardless of performance? Their only risk, that the contract will end, perhaps unexpectedly [1]?

In the case of small private businesses (which of course the vast majority of businesses are) did the "Capitalist" worry about making payroll this month, get short paid when cash is short, try and predict the future, make tough decisions when things go wrong, and somehow be a human?

Of course the socialists believe the capitalists should keep those people hired forever (or better yet, not hire them to begin with?) - ironically that's what the capitalists want as well. But life happens and hard decisions have to be made.

[1] risk costs money. If you have one employer you are at risk. As much as you can, hedge this risk with liquid savings. This has been good advice for thousands of years. Most workers live so close to poverty that this is unattainable. However folks at (big tech whoever) have the means to do this AND get decent severance, so I'm not crying for them just yet.

Re: Zoom lays off 15% of employees

#523

Post by s1artibartfast »

rodw wrote: post #475
s1artibartfast wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really how it works when companies give severance in the US/ California. Pre-notice only really matters if you are letting people go with nothing.

IANAL and this may be minor nit, but I think when the WARN act is applicable, the laid-off employees are still _technically_ employed for 90 days (the pre-notice duration) and any additional severance benefits happen after that. In other words, when the WARN act applies I don't think it's sufficient to give 90 days of severance. Those employees must remain on the payroll during the notice period. I think it's common…

First off, the ACT is for 60 days not 90. Second, the active quite clear on what happens if you don't provide the notice. In that case, you have to pay the employees in 60 days of severance.

This means that you can give the full notice and no severance whatsoever. Alternatively, you can give no notice but a minimum of 60 days worth of pay.

Re: Zoom lays off 15% of employees

#524

Post by s1artibartfast »

noirbot wrote: post #507
BurningFrog wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sometimes wonder if Americans are uniquely prone to focusing on words rather than the underlying concepts that the words, somewhat imperfectly, attempt to describe. Once you learn a second language, you have to confront this reality. But many Americans only ever use English, and it's maybe easier to never have to think about this then?

But isn't this discussion literally about the idiomatic concepts involved? The whole argument of semantics is a "literally vs. figuratively" discussion. Workers were "used" in the way I use a tool to do a job, but potentially not "used" in a colloquial English way that someone tricks someone into doing something for them. If anything, this is because Americans on HN think too much about the concepts underlying words…

I think you are both right to a certain extent. As the comment thread demonstrates, some people think the literal definition of used is exploitative. This begs the question of why people thank the literal definition is different. I think a reasonable hypothesis is that American English speakers communicate less with non-native speakers who have learned a textbook definition.

Re: Zoom lays off 15% of employees

#525

Post by spaceman_2020 »

EMM_386 wrote: post #343
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…

> 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. I can't tell if all of this is due to the age of people who have joined the workforce over the last decade, when we were in a constant uphill swing. Markets go through cycles, boom and bust. We happen to be in part of the cycle where interest rates are rising, inflation is high, profi…

We’ve just had a 15 year boom market. Layoffs are a distant memory

Re: Zoom lays off 15% of employees

#526

Post by speby »

joegahona wrote: post #509
speby wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously? What 'fairness' exactly is it people want when companies do layoffs? "Hey, we are laying off 3,000 people. Because of that, I am firing myself and the company will no longer have a CEO and will have to find someone else, starting immediately. In addition, I plan to donate all of my life's savings and file for unemployment like everyone else and, if needed, live in my van down by the river. I hope this make…

This warrants maximum punishment and humiliation: 1. Yuan should immediately terminate himself as CEO, and his salary/bonus should be divvied up among those who were [IMPACTED]. In fact, all 1,300 people should be named co-CEOs and together they shall lead the company to prosperity and avoid such a boneheaded misstep in the future. 2. He should have to give his life savings to those 1,300 people. His family should li…

Lol. Now that’s taking it to the next level.

Re: Zoom lays off 15% of employees

#527

Post by rodw »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #523
rodw wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL and this may be minor nit, but I think when the WARN act is applicable, the laid-off employees are still _technically_ employed for 90 days (the pre-notice duration) and any additional severance benefits happen after that. In other words, when the WARN act applies I don't think it's sufficient to give 90 days of severance. Those employees must remain on the payroll during the notice period. I think it's common…

First off, the ACT is for 60 days not 90. Second, the active quite clear on what happens if you don't provide the notice. In that case, you have to pay the employees in 60 days of severance. This means that you can give the full notice and no severance whatsoever. Alternatively, you can give no notice but a minimum of 60 days worth of pay.

You're right. I don't know where I got 90 from but the period is 60 days.

Curiously, based on the DOL guide at [1], which to be fair isn't text of the actual law but it is an official government publication meant to explain it, _technically_ it is _not_ acceptable to give 60 days of severance in lieu of notice, but since the penalty for violating the act is a 60 days pay and benefits to all impacted employees, it works out the same either way.

> Can I pay my workers their salary and benefits for 60 days in lieu of notice? > > Neither the Act nor the regulations recognize the concept of pay in lieu of notice. WARN requires notice, making no provision for any alternative. Failure to give notice does a significant disservice to workers and under-mines other services that are part of the purpose of the WARN Act. However, since WARN provides that the maximum employer liability for damages, including back pay and benefits, is for the period of violation up to 60 days, providing your employees with full pay and benefits for the 60-day period effectively precludes any relief

[1] https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/Layoff/pdfs/_Empl...

Re: Zoom lays off 15% of employees

#528

Post by jholman »

SQueeeeeL wrote: post #347
nickff wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laying off employees is not 'the company failing'; he reports to investors, not employees. The employees have very little on the line with respect to the company.

Damn, whoever made a comment has probably has never had a job that's genuinely engaged them (and certainly has never been unexpectedly laid off). What a sad reality most people's jobs are :(

I've been unexpectedly laid off, and I've had at least one job that genuinely engaged me, and I think that laying off employees, or firing employees, or otherwise terminating employees, is not evidence that a company has failed, or that the CEO has failed, or any of those things.

If you want a job where losing that job is tantamount to company failure, start your own business. When it fails (and statistically it probably will), your failure will also lead to your job loss. Congratulations.

If you "have a job", you're accepting being a cog in a machine that's primarily not about you. I make that trade-off, as do most people, but don't mislead yourself about what's going on.

Re: Zoom lays off 15% of employees

#529

Post by jholman »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #381
wheelinsupial wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you talking about "accountability" or "falling on your sword?"

I'm talking about the meaning and entomology of falling on your sword. That said, I think it is a huge stretch to translate this history to the context of CEO accountability.

What does this have to do with the study of insects?

Re: Zoom lays off 15% of employees

#530

Post by 5350-uiop-1130 »

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…

> reducing my salary for the coming fiscal year by 98% and foregoing my FY23 corporate bonus

wouldn't be surprised if is a white lie or straight lie.

with corpo-speak it's often more about what isn't said then what is.

Post reply on HN