21–30 of 32 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
You can fire many people based on performance.
This is an indictment of the HR profession, its credentialing entities, and various state and federal labour laws which often create perverse incentives.
It is also an artifact (and indictment) of post S/Ox corporate culture where line managers have been removed from the "non-functional" administration of staff. and a cult of youth that has seen people with hard won managerial experience pushed out and replaced by younger employees who are too often -not- selected on the basis of management performance (since they have no track record) but rather for natural aggressiveness and disregard for others combined with an ability to hide that behind a bland non-threatening, socially acceptable, exterior. An ability that is in my personal opinion uncomfortably close to sociopathic behavior, but hey, that's just me and I am not a psychologist, right?
Anyone who thinks this is an isolated incident, or indicative of Cloudflare being in some way worse than any other similar company is profoundly mistaken.
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.
Not every US state allows this. Also, sometimes if a certain number of people are all fired at the same time due to "performance", they still have to pay 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%?
What makes you think she has not been fired for performance? She has had 0 sales in 5 months according to her own video.
The tech company I work at has an average sales pipeline of over 12 months.
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 wouldn't even squarely place the blame on HR. HR is simply a (soulless) messenger. This is an executive level decision that likely has no basis in longterm strategy but rather financial pressures. 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 exec…
HR is the department responsible for knowing this and not allowing this sort of bs.
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.
I wouldn't even squarely place the blame on HR. HR is simply a (soulless) messenger. This is an executive level decision that likely has no basis in longterm strategy but rather financial pressures. 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 exec…
HR is in charge of minimizing risk to the company. One thing that is very risky is claiming performance reasons are a reason for firing when it’s really a layoff. Depending on where they are the state will not be happy that they are trying to game the unemployment system, and federally they may be in violation of the WARN act. HR is the department responsible for knowing this and not allowing this sort of bs.
How HR decided to use the reason "low performance" doesn't look great at all, but from my collaboration with HR compliance folks in the past I don't think it's a violation because it's technically the "truth".
This is not on Cloudflare in particular. This is not even on the two clueless hatchet people sent to do the dirty work. This is an indictment of the HR profession, its credentialing entities, and various state and federal labour laws which often create perverse incentives. It is also an artifact (and indictment) of post S/Ox corporate culture where line managers have been removed from the "non-functional" administrat…