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

Buffer Layoffs

open.buffer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 429 posts

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#131

Post by [deleted] »

whatever_dude wrote: post #127
jc4p wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so 100% on point. I think the Netflix NYT article from yesterday had a more realistic tone regarding the "family" aspect: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/magazine/can-netflix-survi... > The key concept is summed up in the 23rd slide. “We’re a team, not a family,” it reads. “Netflix leaders hire, develop and cut smartly, so we have stars in every position.” Your last sentence here is really important. If tha…

> cut smartly I actually think this is important. Working with an asshole is a big problem, and I fully admire leaders who know when it's time to let someone go because the situation cannot improve. It certainly beats working in a caustic environment because people are afraid to fire someone.

[deleted]

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#132

Post by mstade »

dave2000 wrote: post #114
compiler-guy wrote: post #36

This may be a little cynical but: "With our culture of bringing our whole selves to work and seeing team as family, with shared values we live by,..." In the American business world, you are an employee until you aren't. Confusing being an employee with being "family" is a mistake, both for the company and the employee. When times get bad, companies do what it takes to survive, including throwing employees overboard.…

"With our culture of bringing our whole selves to work and seeing team as family, with shared values we live by,..." It's moronic drivel, isn't it. Apart from being nonsensical (how can you bring less than your whole self to work, unless you've had some sort of psychotic breakdown) and the poor English ("seeing team as family") it just reads like corporate babble. It's not a family. I care about my family. I don't ca…

I agree with you. I have other reasons why I do the job I do, but would never do it if the money wasn't there. At the end of the day, the feel-good nonsense has no place in business decisions, and that really goes both ways in an employer/employee situation. You can like your job, even love it, but if you're not looking at it as a business transaction you will get screwed one way or another. Replay job and it for employee and them, and the same holds for the business. It's a mindset thing, and has everything to do with professionalism and nothing to do with touchy feel goodness. Polite but firm negotiations where both parties feel good with the outcome can be achieved no matter whether you like each other or not. (Although the friction may vary along that axis.)

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#133

Post by terrywilcox »

jes wrote: post #102
terrywilcox wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. Put him up for adoption instead.

I'm unclear as to whether this was meant to be sarcastic or not. My point is this: Children have a certain nature; part of being a child is development of the ability to regulate one's emotions. Loving, thoughtful parents will (hopefully) learn about such things, such as Dr. Porges "Polyvagal Theory" and then be able to help their children with this process. I am not suggesting that people should abandon important re…

No sarcasm at all. Child abandonment is clearly bad for the child and can see the parent thrown in jail.

Adoption is the better choice for both parties.

I think you perhaps missed the broader point though.

If you're raising children as servants to take care of you when you're old, then yes, self-interest is a good reason to keep them around. They will also likely act in their own self-interest and ditch you.

Otherwise, raising a child requires a great deal of self-sacrifice with absolutely no guarantee that you'll even get the satisfaction of a job well done. It's a total crap shoot and even the emotional return on your investment is likely to be poor.

Acting only in your own self-interest is a good way to stay single and childless though. At least you'd have plenty of time to read Ayn Rand.

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#134

Post by arbsn »

OliverJones wrote: post #121
carc wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can't just take away equity that's vested to you. And any equity that hasn't vested isn't yours.

Most stock options expire within a few months after separation. And, if the present valuation is high, the one separated will have to come up with the cash to buy the options and pay the alternative minimum tax. If the company is private and uncooperative, they can sometimes effectively prevent you from exercising your vested options.

To clarify your comment for other readers: stock options and equity are not the same, and are handled differently upon termination.

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#135

Post by baby »

dave2000 wrote: post #114
compiler-guy wrote: post #36

This may be a little cynical but: "With our culture of bringing our whole selves to work and seeing team as family, with shared values we live by,..." In the American business world, you are an employee until you aren't. Confusing being an employee with being "family" is a mistake, both for the company and the employee. When times get bad, companies do what it takes to survive, including throwing employees overboard.…

"With our culture of bringing our whole selves to work and seeing team as family, with shared values we live by,..." It's moronic drivel, isn't it. Apart from being nonsensical (how can you bring less than your whole self to work, unless you've had some sort of psychotic breakdown) and the poor English ("seeing team as family") it just reads like corporate babble. It's not a family. I care about my family. I don't ca…

> I don't care about my job, its stakeholders, its values, its products or its customers. It's just a job. I'm a wage slave so I do it for the money and for no other reason at all.

I guess that's what a decade of bad management and shitty start-up/big-corp work does to you. Personally, I'm happy that some people have an optimistic enough view of "the work" to want to change that reality, and make it a positive and good experience when enough money is involved to do so. If you read more into Buffer you will see that it is indeed not your typical company.

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#136

Post by OliverJones »

> Leo and I are committing $100k each in the form of a loan at the lowest possible interest rate, with repayment only when Buffer reaches a healthy financial position. Savings: $200,000.

Oops. This isn't savings. It's high-priority debt. Investors really want to invest in the future of the company, not the past. If these guys want to serve their company, they'll

(a) write this off their personal books, considering it an unrecoverable cost.

(b) convert it from debt to some kind of warrant giving them the right to recover it from profits at some point in the future.

Who's advising these guys?

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#137

Post by justinzollars »

harryh wrote: post #50
justinzollars wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most money I ever made was with a group of fellow startup friends, who I considered my family. Being a career warrior might work for you, but that idea worked for us.

I'm glad it worked out for you. That's great. But what would you have done if one of those friends had stopped coming to the office. Or just did bad work. Would you have let them stay on forever or would you eventually have fired them? That's the difference between family and a team.

let me point out too many people have the down vote. This place is turning into stackoverflow.

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#138

Post by ryanobjc »

beachy wrote: post #67
jes wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say no relationships, including family relationships, should be maintained if they aren't in the long-term self-interest of all parties. In other words, every relationship is a trading relationship, and the currency of the realm isn't always, or even often, monetary in nature.

Perhaps true, in a real super rational techy view of the world, as long as by long term you mean the entire life of all the family members. But not a particularly useful observation, just as the concept that "giving to charity is an act of selfishness, since people only only do it to feel better about themselves" might be true but is not useful.

Not even, you know that some families aren't so functional and actually very destructive. Children and parents "break up" all the time. Ask anyone who is LGBT for example (especially older and trans).

Also many families have that "one uncle" (or whatever) who is somewhat estranged and isn't invited to stuff.

All without a "super rational techy" view of the world.

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#139

Post by vox_mollis »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #109

I'm curious as to why they had 94 employees. That seems like an insanely high number for a company that does something pretty basic (not dumping on the product, I like it and have used it in the past). What are all of those people doing?

Par for the course. TWTR has nearly 4000 employees. Twitter.

Human organizations always scale to accommodate available resources, not required functionality.

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#140

Post by jes »

plainOldText wrote: post #118
jes wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say no relationships, including family relationships, should be maintained if they aren't in the long-term self-interest of all parties. In other words, every relationship is a trading relationship, and the currency of the realm isn't always, or even often, monetary in nature.

Judging by the downvotes, it looks like your comment is controversial. I actually agree with you. In a relationship we trade constantly, something for something else: love for love, company for company, or any combination. They are like constant bi-directional streams. As long as both parties are happy with what they receive and give, they will maintain the relationship; when that's not the case, well, that's when we…

I appreciate the comment. If downvotes facilitate thoughtful discussion and inquiry, I'm cool with them.

I don't know if I see much of a difference between strategies that work in business, as against strategies that lead to successful, long-term relationships.

If you're in a job where your manager ignores you, rebuffs your efforts for honesty in your communications, and generally treats you poorly, should you maintain that relationship, or break it off?

Is it any different outside of work? If you have a partner who cheats on you, or is sarcastic all the time, or is indifferent to you, I'd say that's another relationship that should be broken off, if it's clear that it cannot be saved.

I agree with flexibility and balance. I also believe in gently confronting people who treat others poorly, trying to correct the situation if possible, and if it cannot, then disengaging.

At 56 years of age, I've come to realize that I do not have infinite time to waste on less-than-strong relationships.

Thanks again for an interesting comment.

Post reply on HN