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

Patch's new owner lays off staff in 1:39 conference call

soundcloud.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 162 posts

Re: Patch's new owner lays off staff in 1:39 conference call

#121

Post by rayiner »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #35
pvnick wrote: post #23

Wow. That was incredible. The monotonous way in which the message was delivered, the complete lack of emotion and empathy, is appalling. Notice she did not apologize nor express any condolences beyond declaring the new unemployed state of those people to be "unfortunate." Without knowing much about the situation (I only listened to the recording), and leaving myself wide open to be corrected by someone with more insi…

I've often heard that apologies in various contexts can be used as evidence for litigation (eg, saying "oh sorry" after an auto accident) . Its a sad state of affairs, but people have to protect themselves from idiots and the courts they convince.

Lawyers tell you not to apologize for fear of what else you might say while apologizing ("oh I'm so sorry, I was on my cell phone!"). It's not because courts or juries will interpret a mere "I'm sorry!" as an admission of guilt.

Re: Patch's new owner lays off staff in 1:39 conference call

#122

Post by codegeek »

swayvil wrote: post #119
codegeek wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do professional and being nice have to be mutually exclusive ? Why do we have to be "coldly professional" and not "morally/humanly professional" ? No one is complaining about layoffs here. What is being complained about is the way companies are treating their employees. I don't expect a handout or a hug and can find my own work if I get fired. But if you fire me the way these guys did, you will surely never be on…

professional = I want to eat you nice = I want to help you professional + nice = I want to eat you and help you? Now that doesn't work at all.

An analogy like that can be used in many ways. Here is my version:

professional = I have to eat you (not want)

nice = I am sorry (being nice is not only about helping)

professional + nice = I have to eat you and I am sorry.

Re: Patch's new owner lays off staff in 1:39 conference call

#123

Post by dba7dba »

jere wrote: post #2

I had a recruiter send me an email exactly 5 months ago today claiming "I've placed ten folks with AOL in the past year, and Patch is the most profitable and exciting division especially for the engineers." First time I've ever had to respond to a recruiter to tell them they were full of shit. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/08/09/layoffs...

Never EVER trust a recruiter. Years ago I got an email from a recruiter about a job after I submitted my resume. The position was a Novell admin. On my resume, there was NOTHING about Novell.

IMO it's a complete waste of time.

Re: Patch's new owner lays off staff in 1:39 conference call

#124

Post by protomyth »

001sky wrote: post #118
protomyth wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not Capitalism, its Lawyerism. The sad fact that you can get sued for being something other than a robot is horrible. The HR / Lawyer part of our economy is one heck of an anchor compared to the legitimate wrongful termination and employment discrimination.

What's crazy is that the US is an "at will" employment law. Which means you can get fired (or quit) for any trivial reason at all what so ever (the meaning of 'at will'). The only people with legal recourse are protected classes (ie, minorities). But it would be both improbable and abusive if mass-lafoffs were only legal fodder in this context. Who the heck else is suing and for what? Or is it just the threat of laws…

> What's crazy is that the US is an "at will" employment law.

I live in an "at will" state and it hasn't been a problem. I believe in freedom of association.

Re: Patch's new owner lays off staff in 1:39 conference call

#125

Post by rayiner »

protomyth wrote: post #103
codegeek wrote: post #63

This kind of behavior (promoted by HR/Legal) needs to stop. Period. It is not about firing people by conference, phone or whatever. It is about the thanklessness and the attitude that sucks. Does it really hurt to genuinely feel and say "sorry we cannot keep you any longer. Hope you understand". No one is going to sit and whine about being laid-off but the manner of layoffs (in america at least) is getting shameful,…

Its not Capitalism, its Lawyerism. The sad fact that you can get sued for being something other than a robot is horrible. The HR / Lawyer part of our economy is one heck of an anchor compared to the legitimate wrongful termination and employment discrimination.

I think you're really underestimating the stupid shit companies say and do when dealing with employees, and its the potential for stupid shit that drives the excess of caution. Say an HR drone lays off a woman with kids (or a pregnant lady), and says "sorry! Well at least you'll get to spend a little more time with little Jimmy!" Or, take many blue collar jobs. If you lay off a black or Hispanic employee, there is a very good chance he or she has experienced racism at work. Factories are not exactly politically correct places, after all. In my opinion, a lawsuit in response to something like this is not frivolous litigation. Some of those people really do have legitimate claims, and you can't tell a priori who they are.

Re: Patch's new owner lays off staff in 1:39 conference call

#126

Post by rayiner »

rdl wrote: post #19

In addition to the "firing people by conference call is a douche move", her voice is an excellent argument against hiring any non-Australian with the high rising terminal mode of speech.

Food for thought: http://jezebel.com/5973869/women-stop-talking-old-men-dont-l....

I personally find both vocal styles (along with very strong accents: http://paulgraham.com/accents.html) off-putting, but I don't really like the reasons why I do.

Re: Patch's new owner lays off staff in 1:39 conference call

#127

Post by reeses »

rizzom5000 wrote: post #95
sneak wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I heard it as coldly professional. What, do you think they'd want a hug? I object to your use of "appalling". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo7zkd0kRS4

I agree, and if I were the one losing my job I'd prefer to hear the cold hard facts rather than artificial consolations from someone I've likely never met before. The fact that those cold hard facts were disseminated via conference call, however, is not something that I find professional unless we are talking about the layoff of remote workers etc. - and even then I'd prefer a personal phone call.

After "you have no job," all they want to hear is dates, severance, and benefits. Anything else is just wasting everyone's time, because they are in their own heads and not listening.

Re: Patch's new owner lays off staff in 1:39 conference call

#128

Post by seandhi »

jere wrote: post #2

I had a recruiter send me an email exactly 5 months ago today claiming "I've placed ten folks with AOL in the past year, and Patch is the most profitable and exciting division especially for the engineers." First time I've ever had to respond to a recruiter to tell them they were full of shit. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/08/09/layoffs...

I was approached by a recruiter with the same line for Patch about 6-8 months ago. Listening to this conference call, I am so glad that I did not take it seriously.

Re: Patch's new owner lays off staff in 1:39 conference call

#129

Post by dsl »

JonnieCache wrote: post #93
wlll wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that Abel was part of Patch and Tim Armstrong is CEO of AOL. This second call was from some time last year and not related to the OPs link other than it's the same set of companies, and another dubious action made on a conference call.

I see that, let me rephrase: was abel being fired anyway, or was he literally fired for the impudence of taking a photo? I guess it must be the latter, or the clip wouldn't be so interesting.

He was fucking around and not taking the meeting seriously.

If I was a CEO trying to get the house in order and at that very second Instagram is more important to you... you're gonna have a bad time.

Re: Patch's new owner lays off staff in 1:39 conference call

#130

Post by gaius »

arethuza wrote: post #116
Gracana wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so. As I understand it, they wished things had worked out better for him because he was a founder/exec and a bunch of layoffs means it's already going down the drain.

What happened was that post acquisition there were 3 or so rounds of lay offs each removing about 50% of staff until there was maybe a dozen of us left from the original acquired team. In an attempt to save the team we pitched a new product, which actually had customer interest, to the CEO of the acquirer and he promised he would think about it and come back with an answer. On the day when we got the call from the CE…

I think in your situation I would have made HR do their own dirty work.
Post reply on HN