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

Fired

zachholman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 410 posts

Re: Fired

#281

Post by shostack »

crpatino wrote: post #146
shostack wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, if the fired employees manager hasn't been giving them feedback that pretty clearly spells out where the current path is heading, that is a major failure of the manager. But some companies aren't great at feedback, particularly young ones where the mechanisms for regular, structured feedback aren't really in place yet. That said, I was laid off once at a company that was not doing well and had to make cuts…

Not that major management failure is ever punished, is it?

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. If a manager has to fire a lot of people under them, and there is consistent feedback that it is a surprise, etc. that signals two things to that manager's bosses:

1. This person is having to fire a lot of people, something is up that needs to be investigated.

2. People are surprised, this person may not be the best manager.

The specific details are everything in this case, so it really depends. It can definitely come back and screw the manager though if it is indeed their own fault. Often times it may not be theirs alone though.

Re: Fired

#282

Post by davio »

I figured out on a Friday that I was getting laid off/fired/downsized on Monday.

Over the weekend I decided I would act like a zen master. I walked in like I was getting a promotion, acted gracious the entire time, thanked the people and let them know I was sorry they had to do this and then walked out like I just got promoted.

I actually talked to the HR lady at a later day and she confided how the director and her were both impressed with how I handled it.

Since you can't change the outcome at that point anyways, I think it's best to try to go out as a 100% class act.

Re: Fired

#284

Post by MCRed »

jghn wrote: post #232
matwood wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The new fire fast mentality being pushed is not for performance though. It is you are a rockstar at X, but now we need X+1, you're fired. Basically companies are starting to treat full time employees as contract employees without paying the increased contract rates.

Exactly my point, and I'm ok with that if they're up front about it and they give me some lead time on when X+1 is happening. Personally I'd prefer a place where I could do X and X+1 so it'd be a bit of a negative in choosing where to go, but I can live with it. OTOH I'd be extremely pissed if I walked in one day and was told "we think you're awesome, but you don't konw X+1 so see ya later"

The problem is, these companies are being run by people who can't tell the difference between X and X/10, let alone X and X+1.

But they think they can because they got VC money and they are high on their own fumes.

Fire fast if someone is clearly not a right fit, but "Fast" should be after giving them plenty of warning.

Re: Fired

#285

Post by MCRed »

davidu wrote: post #41

There are people who were at OpenDNS in the early days who were incredible, and as we grew, became less and less incredible, largely because the things that made them incredible actually started to be really frustrating as the company grew and they didn't want to change those things. So they had to leave. Usually it was a series of conversations about how the person, their peers, and the company were all unhappy, and…

If you fire your commandos, that means that you've settled on your one business and are no longer needing the people to innovate.

That doesn't reflect well on you.

Your company should always be innovating-- and the people who got you there should be rewarded, not fired for it.

Re: Fired

#286

Post by davidu »

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #197
davidu wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I think they would work for me again. And yes, I am saying I was not a capable manager. Not that I have nothing left to learn, but I think I am more or less at the point of being able to diplomatically handle and resolve 99% of the issues that come up in a way where all parties feel like they are being considered thoughtfully and treated fairly. I have a good mentor network and corporate counsel who help me with…

I'm not sure how to interpret "I have a lawyer just in case" as part of your answer to that question, but it's nonetheless there and I suppose I should acknowledge it. Thanks for your answer, at any rate, though I'm left with more questions than I had when we started.

I had another paragraph explaining the mentor/lawyer comment that I deleted. Oops. :-)

What I meant is that I have a really good lawyer who has seen a ton of situations before, and usually when something is new and unique to me, it's not new to him or his partners, and I can lean on their decades of experience to help me navigate what represents a new situation for me. It's not about CYA, or "lawyering up" (quite the opposite). It's about having them tell me how they've handled things in the past. Just like a mentor. Good corporate counsel is all about conflict resolution and avoidance. :-)

Re: Fired

#287

Post by Jare »

bmelton wrote: post #257
cylinder wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...why should the taxpayers cover your mortgage? I don't think "debt service on assets" is a universal human right. And why would someone have a mortgage just out of college if they can't even save 3 months first? Either way, $698/week is a lot. Do you know how much these European countries and Canada pay under their "safety net?" It's probably closer to $1500 per month. They certainly don't give a shit about anyone…

The point isn't that the taxpayers should cover his mortgage, but that the unemployment benefits should be more commensurate with how much one has paid in. Anecdotal, but one of my older buddies was laid off. He's been earning north of $250k for over 30 years. He had savings, but assuming he didn't, his max withdrawal would be $698 a week, and only for 6 months, which is a max withdrawal of ~$18k, which is right arou…

>If he shouldn't be able to profit off of the state, then the state shouldn't be able to profit off of him

That's not how "social safety nets" work. They tend towards being zero-sum in monetary terms, which means that some people will "win" (those worse off, hopefully) and some will "lose". The idea is that such devices help balance and stabilize society, which means we all actually win.

Re: Fired

#288

Post by skwirl »

abalone wrote: post #279
skwirl wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, it is a very American way of doing business. But you haven't put forward any argument against it, other than basically saying that it makes you feel icky. We have a very individualistic culture in America. It has its positives and negatives. But most of the people here (software developers in America) have greatly benefited from that culture - we have a tremendous amount of opportunity in a field we enj…

> We are the center of the startup world and our big tech companies disproportionately dominate world markets. You're making a logical leap that this is because of firing people. Other small factors might include, for example, billions of dollars of U.S. government funding in high tech research, sustained over many decades, the fruits of which are directly transferred to Silicon Valley companies to bring to market. I…

I was actually referring to our culture (see the previous paragraph for context), which leads to both the increased firings and increased business success. Can you have less firings with the same success? It may be possible, but right now in America they are symptoms of the same thing.

I also disagree with your assessment of our academic sector, which at the institutions that are leaders in research, is as cutthroat and competitive as anywhere in industry... actually, much more so.

You make it seem like tenure is the same thing as European employment protections, which couldn't be further from reality. At the research universities you are talking about, it is very hard to get hired, easy to get fired, and once there, tenure is only granted after years of high stress, intense work, and proven success.

Re: Fired

#289

Post by abalone »

Zach has been an articulate and charismatic voice on a set of nouveau working styles and policies, such as remote work, unlimited vacation and a very high degree of employee self-organization.

Without violating anyone's privacy, if that's possible, I would like to know whether these contributed to his firing.

I ask simply because I'd like to better understand whether this is a siren song for startups that doesn't scale well. Would he have benefited from more structure, a performance plan, etc.? Does this degree of freedom lead to chaos and arbitrary decisionmaking as a company scales?

Hope he writes more about it.

Re: Fired

#290

Post by MichaelBurge »

NateDad wrote: post #124
cylinder wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have mandatory unemployment insurance which pays pretty well. These are well-paid white collar professionals, they should be saving up emergency funds. I'm more worried about the safety net for low- and mid-income workers, as well as the fact that health insurance is tied to your employment.

Uh, have you been on unemployment? There's a max. In Massachusetts it's $698 / week (with no taxes taken out). That would only barely cover my mortgage, let alone car payment, food, health insurance, etc. And yes, people should have emergency funds... but when you were a few years out of college, did you have 3-6 months of salary saved up? I certainly didn't.

Don't you have reserve money to get a mortgage in the first place? My bank was hesitant to loan without 3 months of mortgage payments in reserve.
Post reply on HN