201–210 of 246 posts
Hmm. I just brought that into a tech stack for a client. A 28% reduction in head count surely doesn’t bode well for the future of Prisma.
What alternatives did you consider?
"I take full responsibility" is the new "our incredible journey" of failing tech company cliches.
If he takes full responsibility then it should step down. But hell no, why would he…all these sugarcoated emails make me sick.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I take full responsibility" is always referred to the investors and shareholders. aka "I admit I have done a bad decision when I over hired and I'm correcting it". It's not a "I take full responsibility" towards the employees or customers.
Can you even take responsibility for something if you don’t face any consequences yourself? Like a surgeon killing a patient “taking full responsibility”…
You spilled coffee on the table? Clean it up. That's your responsibility. It doesn't mean you need to be "punished".
In the case of layoffs, taking responsibility might mean having to face the public and the employees with the decision and having to endure the public shaming you, etc. All on behalf of the board and shareholders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So he didn’t throw a subordinate under the bus. Big whoop. He still has a job, bonus, and golden parachute. Despite fucking up and hiring way more than needed and upending those lives. Real responsibility would be leaving in disgrace, or returning his bonus and stock, or something else along those lines.
How much were people pushed to overhire by boards and investors that are now pushing for layoffs? Why does the financial world’s mentality have to oscillate between cocaine and opium?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Lot of people sounding very personally slighted by companies trying to remain profitable (or just in business). Do you really need to make an effort to figure out why employees feel slighted for being fired without notice, and specially by an employer whose profitability is not questioned? You made it sound like only unreasonable people would be bothered by being forced out of a job while having rent/mortgage and b…
It's the same industry where it's common wisdom that you should take a new, better offer every two years and change jobs. Shouldn't come as a shock that sometimes it work the other way.
Isn’t “the other way” the norm on all US companies?
What “the same industry” taught its professionals is that loyalty should not be a one-way deal when corporate dictates that every person can and should be automatically discarded at the drop of a hat, and benefitting from a demand-driven job market is shown to be the only option that employees have to safeguard their livelihood.
I’ve lost count of the number of LinkedIn posts of veterans with >10years in FANGs being summarily fired during the night and only finding out because their access was revoked. This is exactly why people proactively switch jobs. This is the consequence, not the cause. Using these cases to justify labour abuses is victim-blaming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wish there were something more concrete we could do to support each other Unionisation would help. We don't do ourselves any favours by not unionising. Almost all job security and employment rights were won by unions and strike action. No wonder unions are a dirty word—according to corporate America. Even when the jobs can't be saved, employment rights are helpful. The Google? Microsoft? announcement basically sa…
>Even when the jobs can't be saved, employment rights are helpful. The Google? Microsoft? announcement basically said, we've already fired some of the American staff, but in other countries were are merely starting the statutory consultation process. That means a longer period of pay. The American staff are also paid decently more than other countries. Is getting a 40% pay cut worth getting a few more months of pay b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
-- you're comparing apple to orange - this is 150 person - pre revenue startup - not Microsoft --
A 150 person start-up is significantly more likely to 'pivot' in a way that makes a lot of roles or business lines redundant than Microsoft is. The size of company doesn't matter to the point anyway - I used Microsoft as a well-known example so I could say 'imagine if they stopped doing GitHub' et al. I can't do that if I pick some random small start-up that I'm familiar with. (Maybe I could have said 'if Notion went…
I'm excited to see what contributions the tech industry's workers wind up making to the union movement. That's a whole lot of big, juicy, pissed-off brains, and a whole lotta matches.
When money was cheap, you basically had to outgrow your competitors and take on as much as possible or get beat.
That rapidly reversed with inflation and now the game is efficiency
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If he takes full responsibility then it should step down. But hell no, why would he…all these sugarcoated emails make me sick.
Most startups don't survive a new CEO, so you're basically asking he dooms the company, the investors, and the remaining employees. Real smart.
Eventually growth slows down, customers are upset because the product sucks and here we are.
Who is to blame? The CEO along with the board. So a change of CEO might be the only thing saving the company.