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

Bitpanda said no mass layoffs, three weeks before axing one-third of staff

theblock.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 95 posts

Re: Bitpanda said no mass layoffs, three weeks before axing one-third of staff

#21

Post by r053bud »

gnicholas wrote: post #10

What are the appropriate or possible responses to being publicly asked if you're going to do a layoff, in the case that: (1) you are definitely going to do a layoff (2) you have not yet decided but are considering it (3) you are definitely not doing a layoff In the past, HNers have mentioned that if you admit you're going to lay people off, then your best performers will leave. Is that true? If so, what should compan…

I will always want honesty from the company I work for. If they pull something like this, trust is completely lost and I’ll be looking elsewhere. If I were in charge, I’d admit our mistakes (we over hired, didn’t foresee economic conditions, invested in the wrong areas) which caused the need for layoffs. I’d never tell my employees that there would be no layoffs unless I was 100% certain of it.

Re: Bitpanda said no mass layoffs, three weeks before axing one-third of staff

#22

Post by imglorp »

killingtime74 wrote: post #2

If your company so as mentions layoffs, even (especially?) if they deny it, they are coming. Just like a Pip, if it gets mentioned, start looking for another job

Bailing early sacrifices some benefits in exchange for you deciding the timing.

If you are laid off in much of the US anyway, you are eligible for unemployment in case that's needed. That might help someone with less assets in a protracted dry spell.

Also very common, you give up severance pay if you quit. If you can afford some timing risk, IMO it's best to have your scope up and be looking just in case, then wait until pushed. The severance will basically be a bonus if you're rehired quickly since you should have some leads lined up.

Re: Bitpanda said no mass layoffs, three weeks before axing one-third of staff

#23

Post by gnicholas »

bombcar wrote: post #19
gnicholas wrote: post #10

What are the appropriate or possible responses to being publicly asked if you're going to do a layoff, in the case that: (1) you are definitely going to do a layoff (2) you have not yet decided but are considering it (3) you are definitely not doing a layoff In the past, HNers have mentioned that if you admit you're going to lay people off, then your best performers will leave. Is that true? If so, what should compan…

Probably being open from the beginning is the way to go, but if your top performers are going to leave because they hear layoffs are coming, they will still leave after layoffs have arrived. Most likely won't.

So is this part of the reason why Zuck would have framed FB's impending actions as being focused on low-performers? That way, people who believe themselves to be high-performers wouldn't bail.

Re: Bitpanda said no mass layoffs, three weeks before axing one-third of staff

#25

Post by skeeter2020 »

gnicholas wrote: post #10

What are the appropriate or possible responses to being publicly asked if you're going to do a layoff, in the case that: (1) you are definitely going to do a layoff (2) you have not yet decided but are considering it (3) you are definitely not doing a layoff In the past, HNers have mentioned that if you admit you're going to lay people off, then your best performers will leave. Is that true? If so, what should compan…

IME it's not that top performers leave with any pre-announcment, but after layoffs, IF they think their mid-to-longer-term incentives (options, profit sharing, raises, etc) will be cut dramatically. The biggest immediate impact is that productivity goes to negative eleven from the time the first person learns about upcoming lay-offs until well after the act FOR EVERYONE.

Company credibility is shot when you do any lay-offs, but individual credibilty can survive one round. There is no way to maintain faith and trust in the organization AND do lay-offs, so you should give no notice until preferably after the fact.

Re: Bitpanda said no mass layoffs, three weeks before axing one-third of staff

#26

Post by skeeter2020 »

r053bud wrote: post #21
gnicholas wrote: post #10

What are the appropriate or possible responses to being publicly asked if you're going to do a layoff, in the case that: (1) you are definitely going to do a layoff (2) you have not yet decided but are considering it (3) you are definitely not doing a layoff In the past, HNers have mentioned that if you admit you're going to lay people off, then your best performers will leave. Is that true? If so, what should compan…

I will always want honesty from the company I work for. If they pull something like this, trust is completely lost and I’ll be looking elsewhere. If I were in charge, I’d admit our mistakes (we over hired, didn’t foresee economic conditions, invested in the wrong areas) which caused the need for layoffs. I’d never tell my employees that there would be no layoffs unless I was 100% certain of it.

Looking for honesty from a company is kind of silly when you think about it... it's a pathological, amoral entity with a single, well-defined legal purpose, afforded some notion of human rights. Executives are legally obligated to serve it. They can provide honest analysis after the fact but early notice is a mistake, even if it means lying to you.

Re: Bitpanda said no mass layoffs, three weeks before axing one-third of staff

#27

Post by skeeter2020 »

hourago wrote: post #9

> Bitpanda’s chief product officer, Lukas Enzersdorfer-Konrad, told employees via a Slack message there would be no mass layoffs, weeks before the company cut its workforce by a third. If they knew of the layoffs and lied Bitpanda must be punished for it. Many employees may have made decisions based on that lie.

They've already covered this, lie or not by stating AT THE TIME the statement was made it was believed to be true, with a lay-off decision only made a few days before it was executed.

Re: Bitpanda said no mass layoffs, three weeks before axing one-third of staff

#28

Post by colesantiago »

skeeter2020 wrote: post #24

That photo of the founders(?) displays maximum turtle neck. Is that because of some Jobsian influence or is it an esoteric coffee house theme? Either way, it would have got my spidey-sense tingling.

it's becoming extremely c r i n g e.

Re: Bitpanda said no mass layoffs, three weeks before axing one-third of staff

#29

Post by jenny91 »

skeeter2020 wrote: post #26
r053bud wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will always want honesty from the company I work for. If they pull something like this, trust is completely lost and I’ll be looking elsewhere. If I were in charge, I’d admit our mistakes (we over hired, didn’t foresee economic conditions, invested in the wrong areas) which caused the need for layoffs. I’d never tell my employees that there would be no layoffs unless I was 100% certain of it.

Looking for honesty from a company is kind of silly when you think about it... it's a pathological, amoral entity with a single, well-defined legal purpose, afforded some notion of human rights. Executives are legally obligated to serve it. They can provide honest analysis after the fact but early notice is a mistake, even if it means lying to you.

There are plenty of societies where the people hold companies up to standards other than just maximal exploitation for shareholder value. It doesn't have to be that way.

Re: Bitpanda said no mass layoffs, three weeks before axing one-third of staff

#30

Post by Xylakant »

danaris wrote: post #20
gnicholas wrote: post #10

What are the appropriate or possible responses to being publicly asked if you're going to do a layoff, in the case that: (1) you are definitely going to do a layoff (2) you have not yet decided but are considering it (3) you are definitely not doing a layoff In the past, HNers have mentioned that if you admit you're going to lay people off, then your best performers will leave. Is that true? If so, what should compan…

If you're doing layoffs, then generally one of three things is true: 1) The company is in bad shape, and the layoff is a Hail Mary play to try and delay the inevitable long enough for a miracle to happen 2) The company is in fine shape, but for whatever reason, has done an honest self-assessment and determined that they've got more people working there than are necessary to continue operating (and, if they're really…

There’s also 4) the company is overall not in a good shape, but some parts are and others not. Closing down the loss-generating chunks and shrinking to concentrate on the actual profitable sectors can be a successful way out.
Post reply on HN