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

151–160 of 276 posts

Re: Cloudflare lays off new hires

#151

Post by Aurornis »

aestetix wrote: post #143
Aurornis wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 perio…

If that's the case, then they should just say that.

They did. They said it was for performance reasons and offered to book a longer, second call to talk about it.

Did you watch the video? She cuts them off several seconds into the call and doesn't let them even speak before she starts talking about her situation (hire date, no sales closed). They didn't even have a chance to say anything.

Once someone reaches this level of intensity (cutting people off, not allowing them to speak, cursing, making accusations before the other party has even spoken) it's better to slow down and reschedule a follow-up meeting after some time to cool off.

I know this is a difficult topic for HN, but this video is a good example of a TikTok performance designed to maximize engagement and outrage. I'm surprised to see TikTok outrage videos working their way into HN comments and that people are taking the situation as presented without stopping to listen to the facts.

Re: Cloudflare lays off new hires

#152

Post by Aurornis »

el_benhameen wrote: post #128
pc86 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does it matter? If they say they overhired, you have people in here asking why the CEO (or the board) doesn't get fired for that decision. If they say their investors are demanding better returns (e.g. higher stock price, higher profits, wahtever that means for the particular business) you have people in here saying it's greed. There is no answer Cloudflare could give her or anyone else that would make folks go…

In the case of the video, the implication is that she was told she’s being fired for performance, which seems unreasonable as she appears to have just finished training. I think the days of HR giving references with any information are long gone, but I still wouldn’t want to chance having something in my “file” about being let go for performance if that wasn’t the real reason. That and it’s just common decency to not…

> In the case of the video, the implication is that she was told she’s being fired for performance, which seems unreasonable as she appears to have just finished training.

She says she was hired 4.5 months ago and that her ramp-up quota period was 3 months long. That's not quite "just finished training".

In sales, once your ramp up period is over you're expected to be held to the same performance standards as everyone else. Ramp up periods do provide some cover for not hitting quota, but not closing a single deal during the ramp-up period and in the months following (albeit over holidays, which is tough) is not a good sign.

It could be pure bad luck, but the reality is that having zero closed sales and being past your ramp-up period is going to put you at the top of the layoff list.

Re: Cloudflare lays off new hires

#153

Post by spamizbad »

grepfru_it wrote: post #39

Hey this is very similar to my story 2 years ago! (different company) It's only going to get worse, but protip: if you don't want to deal with the interview circuit like I did, set your salary expectations hilariously low and at least you will still collect income. Good luck to everyone in our shoes!

This is what I did when I entered the workforce in the fallout of the dotcom crash. I worked as an independent contractor for $35/hr ($58/hr in today's money).

Easier to pull off when you have zero salary expectation, no lifestyle to maintain or family to feed and just want to build experience.

Re: Cloudflare lays off new hires

#154

Post by aestetix »

Aurornis wrote: post #151
aestetix wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's the case, then they should just say that.

They did. They said it was for performance reasons and offered to book a longer, second call to talk about it. Did you watch the video? She cuts them off several seconds into the call and doesn't let them even speak before she starts talking about her situation (hire date, no sales closed). They didn't even have a chance to say anything. Once someone reaches this level of intensity (cutting people off, not allowing t…

That's not entirely true. She did cut them off when they were giving out corporate speak. She asked for details, and they didn't have any details for her. I would have expected them to have a list of specific reasons, possibly prepared by her manager, and if she wanted to challenge them, then schedule a follow up meeting. But the "follow up meeting" is often just a way to make the complaint go away, rather than addressing it.

Re: Cloudflare lays off new hires

#155

Post by Arainach »

IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #125
piva00 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So why even bother giving one? Decency? Honesty?

Knowning when to apply honesty is also important. If you tell an ex you left them because they are (fat?), is it honest or is it cruel ?

Awful analogy. It's far more cruel to tell someone a layoff for non-performance reasons is their fault.

It's particularly obnoxious with theoretically prestigious companies that "hire the smartest people" and then blatantly lie to us as if everyone inside and outside the company doesn't see right through them.

Re: Cloudflare lays off new hires

#156

Post by nlh »

Sorry, I am likely missing some context here -- I didn't watch the video that's apparently floating around I'm just reacting to this imgur/LinkedIn post.

This sounds like a salesperson was let go (or several salespeople). I don't see anything about a layoff.

THE deal in lower-level sales (and an AE is lower-level sales) is that the jobs are fleeting and ruthlessly performance-based. People are hired and fired all the time. Sometimes you're let go before you've even made it out of training. Sometimes you're let go if you miss a single week's quotas. It can be quite vicious.

I am not in sales, am not good at it, nor do I ever want to be in that world, but everyone's I've spoken to who is says they know this is how it works and this is the deal, and therefore there aren't (or shouldn't be) hard feelings if you're cut from the team.

Please correct me if I've missed something!

Re: Cloudflare lays off new hires

#157

Post by superb_dev »

andsoitis wrote: post #141
el_benhameen wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case of the video, the implication is that she was told she’s being fired for performance, which seems unreasonable as she appears to have just finished training. I think the days of HR giving references with any information are long gone, but I still wouldn’t want to chance having something in my “file” about being let go for performance if that wasn’t the real reason. That and it’s just common decency to not…

> having something in my “file” about being I would check your assumption here. What is this "my file" you imagine exists. What is it? Who is the custodian? Is there just one copy, if not, how are they kept in sync, etc.?

Presumably HR would keep some record of you after you're fired?

Re: Cloudflare lays off new hires

#158

Post by neilv »

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…

That video. The firedee did a good job on the call, considering, IMHO. (Posting the video is a different question, and hopefully won't come back to bite her, legally or professionally.)

On the corporate side of the call, it's exactly what you'd expect. From a stereotypical big stodgy corporation that totally doesn't care. Just having the executioners follow a script, and fall back to usual corporate politic language.

Re: Cloudflare lays off new hires

#159

Post by fleshdaddy »

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 think it complicates matters with her being in sales. It’s a much more cutthroat area in companies the size of Cloudflare from what I’ve seen. If you don’t perform you get cut loose really fast. I have a family member in tech sales and it blows my mind how easy it is to get fired.

Re: Cloudflare lays off new hires

#160

Post by Aurornis »

aestetix wrote: post #154
Aurornis wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did. They said it was for performance reasons and offered to book a longer, second call to talk about it. Did you watch the video? She cuts them off several seconds into the call and doesn't let them even speak before she starts talking about her situation (hire date, no sales closed). They didn't even have a chance to say anything. Once someone reaches this level of intensity (cutting people off, not allowing t…

That's not entirely true. She did cut them off when they were giving out corporate speak. She asked for details, and they didn't have any details for her. I would have expected them to have a list of specific reasons, possibly prepared by her manager, and if she wanted to challenge them, then schedule a follow up meeting. But the "follow up meeting" is often just a way to make the complaint go away, rather than addre…

> She did cut them off when they were giving out corporate speak.

She cut them off after 21 seconds and then went into a heated complaint, including calling what they're doing "bullshit"

> She asked for details, and they didn't have any details for her.

Once someone becomes this heated, the only real option is to reschedule a followup call after the person has had time to cool down. Nothing good would have come from delving into details of her performance, even though she already admitted and acknowledged that she hadn't closed any sales.

I don't think anything will make HN commenters happy, but what would you actually have wanted to hear? If they had instead said "We're cutting you for no good reason" the comments section would be complaining about that instead.

Post reply on HN