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

141–150 of 162 posts

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

#141

Post by erichurkman »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #136
protomyth wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The crazy part is that it's virtually impossible to successfully sue for wrongful termination, but companies still go to extreme lengths to cover their asses.

I can see going to heavy lengths at certain company sizes, like Wal-Mart. A flaw in your HR policy at that scale can escalate to a class action or large case that district attorneys lust after. Wal-Mart, for instance, has paid out hundreds of millions in legal suits stemming from HR practices in the last decade alone.

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

#142

Post by sneak »

codegeek wrote: post #115
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

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…

I guess I wasn't clear.

I find straight, clear professionalism to be "nice", especially when dealing with shitty situations. Usually they're made more shitty by people getting personally emotional over what are, frankly, simply business decisions. A lot of that can be avoided by sticking to the facts and the script, making the inevitable a lot simpler for everybody. It's a matter of showing them adult respect and giving it to them straight.

I don't think they're mutually exclusive at all.

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

#143

Post by sneak »

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…

Nobody has a right to a job. Try being an employer some time.

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

#144

Post by bonemachine »

Soulless and robotic, to be sure. And eerily so.

But what else should we expect from the owners of a news portal that was, from the outset, itself nothing other than soulless and robotic, to its very core -- and whose passing almost no one is likely to mourn?

("No one", that is, except of course those who've recently found out they "no longer have a role with Patch", along with their unlucky dependents).

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

#145

Post by reqres »

dsl wrote: post #129
JonnieCache wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think anyone is debating whether taking a photo during a serious meeting is a good idea

It's wrong to unnecessarily fire someone in front of their colleagues. It destroys morale and it's essentially a form of public humiliation. A better response would have been to ask to put the camera away and remind people it's a serious meeting.

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

#146

Post by yuliyp »

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…

You can get fired for any reason except a blacklist of reasons that are illegal to get fired for. That means in order to fire someone, a lawyer will tell you that you need to be able to explain why the reason isn't in the blacklist.

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

#147

Post by znowi »

sneak wrote: post #66
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 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 can relate to "coldly professional". Up front, succinct - all good. But I can also relate to people who might have spent 10 or more years in the company. Loyal, motivated, emotionally invested. I think they wouldn't actually mind a hug in the end.

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

#148

Post by daemin »

codegeek wrote: post #122
swayvil wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am sorry but I have to eat you.

?

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

#149

Post by alttab »

reeses wrote: post #127
rizzom5000 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This. What else was to be said? Really, what else could you say? "I'm sorry" Are you though? "You are a really talented worker" like that matters?

The relationship is a business one. Don't get confused. You are gone. You care about when, your shit on their computers, and money. Why spend a week laying people off when you can do it in two minutes? I have faith in the new management yet.

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

#150

Post by atestu »

znowi wrote: post #147
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 can relate to "coldly professional". Up front, succinct - all good. But I can also relate to people who might have spent 10 or more years in the company. Loyal, motivated, emotionally invested. I think they wouldn't actually mind a hug in the end.

I agree with you but Patch was launched in December 2007 so I doubt they have these kind of employees.
Post reply on HN