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

Why top firms fire good workers

rochester.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 263 posts

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#121

Post by kamaal »

windex wrote: post #43
nsoonhui wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't make sense to me, if the manager is promoted, wouldn't he want to bring good talents along, so that they can help him to promote further?

Let me explain. Case 1: You're a high performer, one year into the role. A colleague, who's been around longer but struggled, gets promoted not necessarily on merit, but on their ability to manage up. Your early contributions are quietly absorbed into their promotion case. Once they step into a managerial role, the dynamics shift. Unless you stay quiet and compliant, you’re suddenly less welcome in the team. Case 2:…

>>You're a high performer, one year into the role. A colleague, who's been around longer but struggled, gets promoted not necessarily on merit, but on their ability to manage up.

Its honestly mostly like a queue, you can't see why people who came before should get a early exit. But those people had people before them too, and thought the same. Now that you arrived, you think your specific case be prioritised above them for merits you think count above theirs and not necessarily their place in the queue.

As much as we all think we are special, we mostly aren't, time and queue position plays a huge role in most things in the society.

Its pointless to fight the queue system, most events in life happen in an order, and its pointless to fight cause-effect sequences. Some exceptions to this absolutely exist, but this is the general rule.

>>At year-end reviews, client recognition turned into a liability, not an asset.

    Do not outshine the master - 48 laws of power
Remember the system is a part of the game, if you threaten someone you will take their job, its in their interest now to see through the end of you.

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#122

Post by kamaal »

SanjayMehta wrote: post #36
cbdhdjdjd wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This definitely explains why India is so dysfunctional.

Yes and no. The real cause of our dysfunctional system is the debris of nehruvian socialism (he was a covert communist masking himself as a Fabian socialist). He didn't reform the British divide and control mechanisms but continued them and in fact made them worse. If you think your bureaucracy is bad, wait till you see ours. These are "one exam wonders." They clear one exam, and with zero life experience at the age…

>>The real cause of our dysfunctional system is the debris of nehruvian socialism (he was a covert communist masking himself as a Fabian socialist).

It has been 50 years since his time. And most of what he did now has largely faded out to nothingness. OTOH, his time wasn't all that bad either. Even till 2000s cities in South India were very liveable, with decent quality of life.

Most of Indias problem come from a brutal zero sum game society, where population is too large, and there isn't enough affluence going around.

Everyone, every community and sub group, down the individual has to do anything in takes to snatch, hoard and then deny as many resources they can. Even if it means wrecking everything that exists to get there.

Nothing good comes out of these things.

To begin with fixing India, you must work towards having affluence of a few decades atleast. A generation or two need to live through this to wash away behaviours of a scarcity game.

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#124

Post by ta12653421 »

jholdn wrote: post #59

My experience with consulting firms is there are two paths for high performers. Either you move into a sales/relationship focused role (which there are fairly limited slots for) or you move client side and probably buy from your old employer. The good workers do well either way (when I say move client side, I mean to high level positions - importantly one with control over a budget to afford consultants) and the cons…

This: If you want to climb the ladder, the no1 way to becoming a partner is .. SALES .. SALES .. SALES, regardless what you selll: As long as you bring in money to justify your business unit/cluster, everybody is fine. Just sell more hours - thats the only goal.

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#125

Post by palmotea »

ChadNauseam wrote: post #110
vincnetas wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why do you think maximising profit for company is ok and everyone is cheering about that, but when employee tries to maximise profit then "oh noes the society will collapse "

I don't have an issue with an employee maximizing profit. I do have an issue with employees banding together and bargaining collectively. Exactly the same way I don't have an issue with a company maximizing profit, but I would have an issue with companies banding together and negotiating collectively. A difference is that there's not necessarily an inherent size limit on companies while there is an inherent size limi…

> I don't have an issue with an employee maximizing profit. I do have an issue with employees banding together and bargaining collectively. Exactly the same way I don't have an issue with a company maximizing profit, but I would have an issue with companies banding together and negotiating collectively.

One flaw in your logic you seem to thing "an employee" and "a company" are peers. They're not. A company is an equivalent level of "banding together" as a union. A company and an employee union are peers, an employee and a company are not.

> However, that's why we have the whole system of antitrust to say when a company gets too big, as soon as we can show that it's having some kind of negative effect on consumers, we split it up.

And you're mixed up here too:

1. The employee-company relationship is entirely different than the customer-company one. Talking about consumer prices in the employee-company context is nonsense.

2. You're neglecting that all companies have certain interests in common as employers. So even if you break them all up, you're not going to solve the problems a union solves.

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#126

Post by palmotea »

tarsinge wrote: post #116
lynx97 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point 2 is such a condescending take. I read it as: "Everyone who does not think the same way as I do is gullible and has been seduced, because I am obviously right and they must be weak." This kind behaviour convinces me even more that I dont really trust union people.

To me (and it’s my personal experience) I read it as tech people have a bias for systemic thinking, and usually lack skills and/or experience in human social dynamics, especially when young, which makes laissez faire capitalism / libertarianism attractive. I’m a bit on the spectrum and to me it has a video game like quality (e.g. humans that are robot like rational actors) that was appealing and reassuring when tryin…

> To me (and it’s my personal experience) I read it as tech people have a bias for systemic thinking, and usually lack skills and/or experience in human social dynamics, especially when young, which makes laissez faire capitalism / libertarianism attractive. I’m a bit on the spectrum and to me it has a video game like quality (e.g. humans that are robot like rational actors) that was appealing and reassuring when trying to make sense of the world.

That is exactly what I meant.

Also tech people are often intelligent (in a way) and identify as such, but then let that get to their head and get really overconfident about whatever clicks with them.

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#127

Post by jusssi »

ChadNauseam wrote: post #110
vincnetas wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why do you think maximising profit for company is ok and everyone is cheering about that, but when employee tries to maximise profit then "oh noes the society will collapse "

I don't have an issue with an employee maximizing profit. I do have an issue with employees banding together and bargaining collectively. Exactly the same way I don't have an issue with a company maximizing profit, but I would have an issue with companies banding together and negotiating collectively. A difference is that there's not necessarily an inherent size limit on companies while there is an inherent size limi…

> I would have an issue with companies banding together and negotiating collectively

Use of "would" implies you believe they don't.

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#128

Post by ljf »

alkonaut wrote: post #120
ljf wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While they cannot stop something like that (a Union never gets to control the business), they can at least negotiate good terms for the departing employees, and help ensure everything is in order.

> a Union never gets to control the business This varies. e.g. Sweden: if there are over 25 employees, the union gets a seat in the board. https://bolagsverket.se/en/foretag/aktiebolag/startaaktiebol...

A seat at the board is great, but that won't stop a company making major changes like those described.

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#129

Post by lynx97 »

baq wrote: post #114
lynx97 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point 2 is such a condescending take. I read it as: "Everyone who does not think the same way as I do is gullible and has been seduced, because I am obviously right and they must be weak." This kind behaviour convinces me even more that I dont really trust union people.

If you felt personally attacked you’ve let your biases win over rational thought. Tech obviously does attract libertarians (see bitcoin maxis for a single example of a significant cohort). Libertarianism is also blind towards the obvious failure mode of an organized group overpowering the egoistic as a virtue libertarians. (Think barbarians… or HR.)

I don't feel personally attacked. However, I find the particular wording of the post I initially replied to condescending and reeking of elitism. Calling someone--or a group--gullible and seduced is not going to win them over. Besides, while we are at wording. I dont usually pull that card, but... I am blind, in a literal sense. Seeing my disability being used in a rhetorical way makes me sometimes sad. It kind of shows--on a meta level--that inclusion will never happen.

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#130

Post by instig007 »

vincnetas wrote: post #105
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And when has a union ever stopped a multinational company from just closing shop and opening up overseas? If a company making physical things can do it, how hard do you think it would be for a software company?

sweden has unions and sweden has software companies. could it be that reasonable approach that benefits both parties can be achieved?

Sweden isn't famous for good tech salaries and stock grants though, even among the best/high profile engineers.
Post reply on HN