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

Riot Games laying off 11%

riotgames.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 158 posts

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#71

Post by User23 »

WalterBright wrote: post #40
dbrueck wrote: post #21

From the public info at least, this is one of the better examples of how to handle layoffs: generous severance, an apology that sounds sincere, a reasonable amount of info, etc. To the commenters saying this is just about juicing profits: ok, maybe so, but it seems at least equally plausible that it is what he says it is. Once you've reached the point that you've realized you've made a mistake, it makes sense to act.

Layoffs are often a polite way of firing deadwood. The laid off people can preserve their dignity and apply for unemployment.

You spelled “people who are bad at office politics” wrong there.

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#72

Post by ClumsyPilot »

klodolph wrote: post #43
glimshe wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what is it in practice? If nothing happens, in any way, what's the point of saying it? If it means nothing, then sure, I'm accountable too, why not?

> (of a person, organization, or institution) required or expected to justify actions or decisions; responsible This is from the OED. There’s no mention of consequences. You are expected to account for your actions. Like an accountant is expected to keep an accounting of transactions. I’m an on-call engineer, I’m accountable for outages. That means that I give a root-cause analysis when they happen. I’m not given dis…

> You are expected to account for your actions. Like an accountant is expected to keep an accounting of transactions.

If an accountant lies in his numbers, they go to prison.

Why are you missing the most obvious explanation, it’s simply a political point they have to be seen saying, but have no intention of doing

- I.e. it’s a lie

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#73

Post by acdha »

imgabe wrote: post #56
codeflo wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's narcissistic BS corporate speak that ridicules the victims. We shouldn't stop pointing that out just because it's common.

Sorry, someone who gets laid off is not a victim. It's a known part of the deal of having a job. You might decide to quit and leave the employer. The employer might decide they don't need you anymore and lay you off. You both have that option. You know this going in and you both are supposed to make arrangements to be able to deal with this possibility.

Sophistry aside, it’s still profoundly disruptive for many people. Whether or not they know there’s a risk, it means people are scrambling to reestablish their finances and routines, and in many cases that can have long-lasting impacts – people have to move, Americans have disruptions to their healthcare access & providers, and older people might never regain their old salary.

That doesn’t make it illegal, or even a bad business move, but it very much has victims. They’re the ones being sacrificed for the good of the company.

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#74

Post by mhh__ »

xyst wrote: post #58

> … We want to make sure Rioters who are leaving us this week have a bit of time to identify and unwind any personal info or accounts that may be tied to their Riot email addresses. TIL: people of recent generations use work e-mails for personal usage. I have only seen this phenomena with older generations when they worked for a single company their entire life until or up to retirement.

Possibly just open source stuff / juniors glued to their work machine too much because they work for a games company during a lockdown (potentially)

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#75

Post by sarchertech »

imgabe wrote: post #70
Apocryphon wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say that, but there are always cases of people getting laid off despite having positive performance reports, were hired shortly prior to RIF, were given assurances there would not be layoffs, etc. People don't continuously act like their jobs are precarious, even if the American system with its employer-tied insurance and other mediocre safety nets, should incentivize us to.

> there are always cases of people getting laid off despite having positive performance reports, were hired shortly prior to RIF, were given assurances there would not be layoffs, etc. Right. And since we know this, isn't it basic common sense to ask yourself "what would I do if I lost my job tomorrow?" and have some savings and a plan? Especially if you're a relatively well-paid tech employee? It doesn't matter if y…

Sure and it’s probably a bad idea to walk alone in bad areas of town at night. That doesn’t mean that if you get shot while doing so that you aren’t a victim.

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#76

Post by Apocryphon »

imgabe wrote: post #70
Apocryphon wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say that, but there are always cases of people getting laid off despite having positive performance reports, were hired shortly prior to RIF, were given assurances there would not be layoffs, etc. People don't continuously act like their jobs are precarious, even if the American system with its employer-tied insurance and other mediocre safety nets, should incentivize us to.

> there are always cases of people getting laid off despite having positive performance reports, were hired shortly prior to RIF, were given assurances there would not be layoffs, etc. Right. And since we know this, isn't it basic common sense to ask yourself "what would I do if I lost my job tomorrow?" and have some savings and a plan? Especially if you're a relatively well-paid tech employee? It doesn't matter if y…

More than a fifth of Americans have no savings. At a certain point of spread, irresponsibility stops being a matter of personal character and becomes a systemic problem that concerns the public interest.

https://www.newsweek.com/americans-have-burned-through-their...

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#77

Post by acdha »

WalterBright wrote: post #40
dbrueck wrote: post #21

From the public info at least, this is one of the better examples of how to handle layoffs: generous severance, an apology that sounds sincere, a reasonable amount of info, etc. To the commenters saying this is just about juicing profits: ok, maybe so, but it seems at least equally plausible that it is what he says it is. Once you've reached the point that you've realized you've made a mistake, it makes sense to act.

Layoffs are often a polite way of firing deadwood. The laid off people can preserve their dignity and apply for unemployment.

If 11% of their employees are “deadwood” they have had a spectacular failure of management.

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#78

Post by mhh__ »

WalterBright wrote: post #30
latchkey wrote: post #25

Really bums me out when I see people getting laid off and they still list a bunch of open job reqs. They were good enough to empty it out... Work with us - Open Positions: 0

Peoples' job skills are not interchangeable.

Below a certain IQ sure. The actual answer here is presumably just that it's legally cleaner — that and internal hiring and so on is apparently logistically almost impossible for a lot of companies (organizations accumulate a lot of scar tissue, flexibility is usually the first thing to go)

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#79

Post by mhh__ »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #20
randomsofr wrote: post #7

Their severance looks good, (6mo minimum, cash bonus, health insurance, computer, etc). Also, kinda weird to being referred as a bet.

Every forward looking business strategy decision is a bet.

Particularly attractive/cheap bets along these lines are often massively short vega

Re: Riot Games laying off 11%

#80

Post by sarchertech »

acdha wrote: post #73
imgabe wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, someone who gets laid off is not a victim. It's a known part of the deal of having a job. You might decide to quit and leave the employer. The employer might decide they don't need you anymore and lay you off. You both have that option. You know this going in and you both are supposed to make arrangements to be able to deal with this possibility.

Sophistry aside, it’s still profoundly disruptive for many people. Whether or not they know there’s a risk, it means people are scrambling to reestablish their finances and routines, and in many cases that can have long-lasting impacts – people have to move, Americans have disruptions to their healthcare access & providers, and older people might never regain their old salary. That doesn’t make it illegal, or even a…

Exactly. My wife is a highly paid doctor, but she can only work at a children’s hospital. If she were laid off we’d be fine financially, but we’d still have to relocate the entire family hundreds of miles away.
Post reply on HN