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

Cloudflare lays off new hires

i.imgur.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 276 posts

Re: Cloudflare lays off new hires

#131

Post by BugsJustFindMe »

tptacek wrote: post #129
BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume this is done to dodge WARN Act requirements. I can't think of any other reasons that make any kind of sense. I mean, honestly this doesn't make sense either, it's just all I've got.

Doesn't the WARN act just come down to paying severance that covers at least the notice period? Sometimes I feel like comments here are premised on WARN being a magic spell that prevents arbitrary termination.

> Doesn't the WARN act just come down to paying severance that covers at least the notice period?

Yes, but is she being offered severance?

> Sometimes I feel like comments here are premised on WARN being a magic spell that prevents arbitrary termination.

It's not that. I just honestly cannot think of any reason for Cloudflare to do this. What good reasons are there to lie to an employee (and presumably therefore also to that employee's future potential employers) about their performance?

Re: Cloudflare lays off new hires

#133

Post by nixgeek »

eganist wrote: post #91
neom wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yikes on that second link, I seriously hope she told them she was recording the call or she may run into some two-party consent issues.

The replies beneath you are likely wildly off base if the other end of the phone call was based in a two party consent state like California. If both ends of the call were in Virginia or another one party consent state, the recording is probably fine. But that also doesn't rule out the applicability of the cloudflare NDA. (Not a lawyer)

So, this one seems quite complicated, California is an "All Party" consent state. There's precedent from the California Supreme Court (Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95; 2006) that when someone in a one-party consent state records a conversation with someone from California, the stricter condition applies, meaning they need all parties to consent.

At the Federal level, it's seemingly mostly a one-party situation and so it also isn't incredibly clear that someone would find it easy to bring a case in California against an individual based in Virginia. Multi-jurisdictional crime is complicated, People v. Brown 69 Cal. App. 2d 602 was a California appelate court decision saying California can only prosecure crimes occurring in California. Perhaps you would argue the person on this call from California was a wronged party if they didn't consent, but United States v. Anderson - 328 U.S. 699 (1946) concluded “the locus delicti must be determined from the nature of the crime alleged and the location of the act or acts constituting it", which does very little to conclude California would be able to prosecute a Virginian for recording a call with a Californian, even despite the other ruling?

If the participants in the conversation weren't based in California but were based in other states which still require more than one party to consent, I don't think many states other than California have settled precedent on whether the stricter condition applies.

(I am also not a lawyer).

Re: Cloudflare lays off new hires

#134

Post by davexunit »

whalesalad wrote: post #8
sneed_chucker wrote: post #3

I wonder if the US will ever get first-world tier labor laws that prevent companies from screwing people over like this. Doesn't seem likely any time soon, but it's so insane how healthcare and everything is tied to an employer and in most places they can just fire you on a whim and not offer severance or anything.

You’re not entitled to a job. It’s a fair market. I for one would not want this kind of environment. Healthcare is a different story.

[flagged]

Re: Cloudflare lays off new hires

#135

Post by willcipriano »

neom wrote: post #53
KyleSanderson wrote: post #2

Plenty of these on LI today unfortunately. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/skoroleva_opentowork-techsale... https://twitter.com/BowTiedPassport/status/17451497589921956...

Yikes on that second link, I seriously hope she told them she was recording the call or she may run into some two-party consent issues.

I've seen hundreds of comments like this.

I've never heard of a single person who had a problem.

Re: Cloudflare lays off new hires

#136

Post by davexunit »

forward1 wrote: post #73
davexunit wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup individual employees are definitely on equal footing with companies and health care is very affordable when purchased individually. The free market is very good and fair and everything is going just fine!

You are free to create your own asymmetrically powerful business entity to rebalance the odds, if you find them unfair.

Do you read your own writing?

Re: Cloudflare lays off new hires

#137

Post by DeepYogurt »

joecool1029 wrote: post #115
frfl wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read the layoff threads from the last 24 hours a few common reasons are theorized - Investors pressuring for profits, cut costs (too many people hired during Covid, total salary bill too big to justify right now). One company does it, other companies may be pressured to drive up stock prices - Money is expensive, - Section 174 possibly, companies can't write off entire salaries for engineers as easily to offse…

I wonder if antitrust litigation/regulation has some effect here as well? Axe divisions/workers on things that could appear to abuse market position.

Cuts seem to be broad based so I would think not

Re: Cloudflare lays off new hires

#139

Post by SamoyedFurFluff »

forward1 wrote: post #69
sneed_chucker wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Employees are equally free to "screw over" companies by terminating their employment at any time; at-will is a two-way street. Wow. I guess that might seem like a convincing argument if you totally ignore the power imbalance between a terminated employee who loses the ability to pay for basic necessities vs a company that loses the labor of a single person.

The inability for an individual to guarantee payment for necessities cannot be the fault of any company. Each capable adult must be held accountable and responsible for themselves in this world.

Nah I’m pretty comfortable blaming a company for jerking around a new hire, thereby putting their financial status and healthcare needs at risk. That’s shit behavior and deserves to be called out.

Re: Cloudflare lays off new hires

#140

Post by Aurornis »

aestetix wrote: post #84

I don't understand why Cloudflare can't just be honest and say the reason she got laid off, instead of making up some garbage about her performance. That was her main complaint, and I side with her completely. She was not asking to keep her job, or asking unreasonable questions. If they just explained that it was because the company overhired, or because they needed to reduce costs to keep the company afloat, that wo…

> I don't understand why Cloudflare can't just be honest and say the reason she got laid off, instead of making up some garbage about her performance.

In the video she says she was hired August 25th, or 4.5 months ago.

She also says she hasn't "closed anything officially", or in other words zero sales.

I understand this is an emotionally charged topic, but the unfortunate reality is that being past your ramp-up period with zero sales is not a good place to be when a company is downsizing. I feel very sorry for her, but I also don't think it's entirely fair to conclude that performance wasn't a factor.

It's also not really fair to conclude that Cloudflare was withholding information when the call starts at 0:26 and she cut's them off with "I'm going to stop you right there" at 0:47 (21 seconds later). They offer to schedule a followup call to go over the details, but she was in such a rush to talk over them and start lodging accusations before they had a chance to talk that I can't blame them for trying to de-escalate on the call.

Post reply on HN