11–20 of 32 posts
Confused European here :) Is there a reason they pretend she has been fired for bad performance, instead of just admitting management decided to fire X%?
What makes you think she has not been fired for performance? She has had 0 sales in 5 months according to her own video.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For those that may not have experience in enterprise facing sales (same topic, different submission): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38964345
Do you think it's impossible to fire a sales person for performance reasons in under 6 months then?
In this scenario, I don't think anyone would predict getting axed for performance reasons if they appeared to be getting along with the team / manager and weren't receiving any red flag feedback.
In the context provided in the clip, it really comes off as using the "performance" as an easy excuse to let her go, without actually providing information to back it up.
Confused European here :) Is there a reason they pretend she has been fired for bad performance, instead of just admitting management decided to fire X%?
What makes you think she has not been fired for performance? She has had 0 sales in 5 months according to her own video.
But it is clear from the video that this is a mass layoff, not firing an individual based on her performance. So my question is, why are they pretending this is about performance?
Does this make any difference for the severance package and unemployment?
This is moral fall of HR, The worst thing in a company is lying HR, who have no idea about the team, company, performance and etc.
I saw it at the enterprise level during the last layoff hell when thousands were let go at my company. On the ground, there was almost little to no logic to the layoffs because the decisions were made by disconnected execs who sit in bullshit meetings all day.
In fact, it goes both ways. Even when teams are expanded out - a decision made in partnership some absurd headcount planning 3rd party consultants - it's almost as if they never talked to the team, but some exec who is 3-4 layers removed from the actual valuable individual contributors who understand the work, have frustrations and desires and should theoretically have a part in influencing planning decisions.
Confused European here :) Is there a reason they pretend she has been fired for bad performance, instead of just admitting management decided to fire X%?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you think she has not been fired for performance? She has had 0 sales in 5 months according to her own video.
I got the impression that she was a new hire (3 months minus holidays, but maybe I misheard?). But it is clear from the video that this is a mass layoff, not firing an individual based on her performance. So my question is, why are they pretending this is about performance? Does this make any difference for the severance package and unemployment?
Confused European here :) Is there a reason they pretend she has been fired for bad performance, instead of just admitting management decided to fire X%?
Probably because of the WARN act. They seem to be claiming it’s for performance so they can avoid paying unemployment benefits as well. Absolute scummy behaviour. But I guess that is to be expected in the USA, where most tech employment is at-will and CEO's kowtow to the board and shareholders at the expense of employers.
Firing people is emotional work, so it frequently gets outsourced to professional "firers" who are emotionally detached, know all the objections, can't be swayed by any argument, and who have no power to prevent the firing, even if they wanted to. The call in this video is a perfect example of this scenario, though she did a fantastic job of standing up for herself IMO and I feel for her.