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

561–570 of 596 posts

Re: Zoom lays off 15% of employees

#561

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

haswell wrote: post #72
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even symbolic gesture is more than I have come to expect these days. While it may not be what is demanded, I welcome it as a welcome change. That said, I disagree with the categorical phrasing. Clearly some reduction would make an impact ( I think we agree that 100% would; if so, at this point it only becomes a question of what is reasonable ).

I guess my point was that it would be very surprising if someone making that amount of money did not have finances structured such that they could stop working tomorrow and be fine through the end of their lives. To your point, if one has a habit of spending lavishly, it seems fair that the source of funding has to come from somewhere that isn’t this year’s paycheck, but it seems like the end result would be a faster…

I don't really disagree with that point with possibly one exception: board forced CEO's hand.

Still, day to day living expenses are in the eye of the beholder. Once you get to that point, you do miss little comforts in life like being able to eat endangered penguin pate or rent a sub party at mariana trench. It is harder to justify that expense when you just had your salary adjusted. Not impossible. Just harder.

I am tempted to set myself a reminder to check, but I don't think you are wrong by saying that.

Re: Zoom lays off 15% of employees

#562

Post by andrekandre »

gitfan86 wrote: post #452
andrekandre wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If people are always "protected" how do you deal with low performing companies? mentor them? help them find a better position? change managers? lots of things you can do before firing... also i think the word "protection" the previous commenter means is 'protection from random/mass firings/layoffs without cause' not firing for being lazy/sabotage etc

Mentor a company?

i have to admit, i completely read that as "employee".... though i wonder if the op also meant that...?

Re: Zoom lays off 15% of employees

#564

Post by shapefrog »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #311
shapefrog wrote: post #2

TLDR: We have made the tough but necessary decision to reduce our team by approximately 15% and say goodbye to around 1,300 hardworking, talented colleagues. Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34515267 ZM stock: 83.26 +6.19 (+8.03%) - thats a profit of 400mil on the day for the CEO.

good?

CEOs everywhere will be looking at a +10% day in their stock price and consider writing a blog post themselves.

Re: Zoom lays off 15% of employees

#565

Post by simplotek »

domber wrote: post #542
simplotek wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, it's robotic, and pathetic. Which way do you feel its the best way to be notified you're being fired?

I mean saying "FIRED" in the subject line is horrible.

I didn't asked which way you didn't liked. I asked which way do you feel its the best way to be notified you're being fired.

I'm sure there is no good way of getting the news.

Re: Zoom lays off 15% of employees

#566

Post by simplotek »

actually_a_dog wrote: post #442
simplotek wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So? It doesn't make sense to accuse someone of not feeling the economic impact of a downturn at all while downplaying the fact that they actually lost $5billion.

If there's no functional difference between before and after the loss, it damn well does. Tell me, how did his lifestyle change as a result of losing this $5 billion? What actual pain of loss did he feel, above and beyond seeing some numbers go down?

> Tell me, how did his lifestyle change (...)

If you were serious or had devoted any thought into the issue you wouldn't even consider the silliness of framing a $5billion loss as a lifestyle issue.

Re: Zoom lays off 15% of employees

#567

Post by kerkeslager »

AstixAndBelix wrote: post #549
kerkeslager wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So let me get this straight: jobs are good for workers, so when a worker loses their job, that's... somehow also good? Sure, they were depending on that job to feed their kids and pay their mortgage and now both those things are at risk. But the real story here is that they had a job for two whole years and should be grateful to have been generously paid a miniscule fraction of what their work gained the company for…

If you feel your work is so incredibly valuable you can either start a company yourself or become a gold-ticket consultant. Either way you'll quickly learn that turning your hard work into revenue on your own with any decent amount of efficiency is not that simple.

> If you feel your work is so incredibly valuable you can either start a company yourself or become a gold-ticket consultant.

> Either way you'll quickly learn that turning your hard work into revenue on your own with any decent amount of efficiency is not that simple.

I work as a consultant in part because it makes turning my work into revenue easier. :D

But, that's overly-glib--I'm aware that my career is somewhat of an outlier here. The more important point to be made is that "value", in the capitalist sense of "the value of something is what people are willing to pay for it", has nothing to do with actual value. The pandemic highlighted this when it became apparent that all our "essential" workers also happen to be our least paid. The very basics of human survival would cease to be available without these people: food, water, etc.--do you really think the software which allows you to post pictures of your brunch for your friends is more valuable than not starving to death?

The reason for the disconnect between pay and value is that pay is determined by the people at the top, who obviously have an incentive to decide their own work is valuable and therefore they deserve the most pay. Unsurprisingly, the people with the power to enforce their opinions on what is most valuable, have decided that "deciding what is most valuable" is the most valuable skill of all! The narrative that a CEO is more valuable than a farm hand exists because it's propagated by those who have the most to gain from it.

I won't accuse you of being one of those people, but at the very least you've bought into a story which isn't true.

To be clear, the people at the top, don't have

Re: Zoom lays off 15% of employees

#568

Post by b112 »

viceroyalbean wrote: post #502
b112 wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder. Where were all these detractors, when all the hiring was happening, at record salaries, over the last 2 years? Did they heap praise on this same CEO, when he hired, provided jobs, record salaries, and more? Even now, after these layoffs, this same CEO resides over a company worth immensely more, with more employees than 2+ years ago, and at excellent salaries. So where were the praises before the layoffs? B…

That's assuming that hiring a person is the exact inverse of firing someone, which is often not the case. Firing someone has more negative effect than hiring's positive effect when e.g people move, leave previous jobs (possibly), have children, buy houses.

So your assertion is that the employer is responsible for your well being? Not just in a transitory fashion, but beyond?

Yet responsibility is a two way street. And it embues more than one stance.

So you will work with dilligence to help the company, take pay cuts, work overtime when times are tough, work for free, struggle and strive and sacrifice, for just as (in your world) the company should maintain your employment through thick and thin, you should do the inverse, yes?

And by this logic, jumping ship for greater pay is questionable too, for what of your obligations? And leaving if given a pay cut in bad times, is wrong as well?

You see, the transaction you envision is framed by a transactional nature. Most feel little obligation other than the metric; I work, you pay.

(This does not discount joy in work, nor happiness at a job done well. It is merely that this is the exchangeful nature I speak of)

And that is the metric all employer/employee relationships are legally, primarily construed.

If you move for a job, negotiate a moving allowance. Thus, you will not be harmed by that loss and cost. If you take a job, ensure severance is a clear and unencumbered thing, and so on and so forth, so you do not lose in this equation.

And if you are at the start of your career, and incapable of such negotiations, due to lack of clout, then you are fortunate for that hire, and in a sense, continuing your education, as your first job teaches much, and thus should expect such things at the first.

But all said, this is merely how things work. Few hearts bleed for the janitor in such situations, or a construction worker, or an employee at mcdonalds.

Yet for the tech worker, replete with 10x these salaries, with perks, with jobs considered cushy by many, the blood of bleeding hearts flows freely, along with the bleating of complaint filling the air.

I have little sympathy.

Re: Zoom lays off 15% of employees

#569

Post by kcplate »

lkrubner wrote: post #412
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…

"Because of that, I am firing myself" A team does terrible for awhile -- should the coach be removed? A company does terrible -- should the CEO be removed? This is what accountability means. Just this year I was hired by a Board Of Directors, of a startup with 150 people, to do an evaluation of the technology and code, and I found epic levels of tech debt and irresponsible decision making. When I gave my report to th…

> I was hired by a Board Of Directors, of a startup with 150 people, to do an evaluation of the technology and code, and I found epic levels of tech debt and irresponsible decision making

A BOD doesn’t hire someone to do this without there being some suspicion within the board that there is an issue. That board was likely divided on keeping one or both of those individuals and your results were used to sway votes.

Post reply on HN