Cloudflare to cut about 20% of its workforce

Post by ambicapter » Fri, May 08, 2026, 2:52 PM UTC

s_dev wrote: post #607

rdtsc wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When was the last time you saw any job seeker seriously enquire about such practices in interviews or at the application stage? - “Are you hiring people just to fire them a year later to protect yourselves?” - “Yes we do” It’s a bit naive to think they’d just own up to it.

>- “Are you hiring people just to fire them a year later to protect yourselves?” You think the naive part is the response and not that question? My point is that you'll simply have to read between the lines on responses with leading questions not that they're going to be upfront about these things. Also the interview isn't the only way to gauge these things, You can Google for layoff numbers as well and make determin…

Post by delfinom » Fri, May 08, 2026, 2:56 PM UTC

scott01 wrote: post #451

AloysB wrote: post #135

This is awkward. Exhibit A - September 2025 - "Help build the future" - Cloudflare hires 1111 interns to "help build the future" [ https://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-1111-intern-program/ ] Exhibit B - May 2026 - "Building for the future" - Cloudflare lays off 1100 people, about 20% of their workforce to "continue building the future" [ https://blog.cloudflare.com/building-for-the-future/ ] I'll finish on this quo…

I’ve seen managers hiring people with an intent to lay them off when winds change to protect themselves and their close circle. I can only imagine they’ve had great KPIs in both cases: first for scaling the team, and then for cutting costs.

Post by narush » Fri, May 08, 2026, 3:03 PM UTC

Post by _heimdall » Fri, May 08, 2026, 3:03 PM UTC

shimman wrote: post #671

_heimdall wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For better or worse, it isn't a company's job to pay laid off employees until they find a new role. The industry standard for severance is 1-2 weeks pay per year at the company, paying out roughly 7 months is a big deal (and yes, an acknowledgment of how rough they know the job hunt will be).

Maybe it should be the companies job, being jobless in the US is a potential death sentence and since we don't have universal healthcare, universal childcare, or universal higher education/vocational training the onus should be forced on the companies to provide welfare for workers since they are so adamant about not paying taxes to create a welfare system that doesn't mean homelessness or death. There is also no ind…

Post by tempest_ » Fri, May 08, 2026, 3:05 PM UTC

mukmuk wrote: post #274

tempest_ wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both of those are true assuming the lay offs come from different demographics. You lay off 1100 who are late in their career for younger people who will work more hours for less. You're building the future with new fresh people instead of the "dead weight"

Isn’t this illegal?