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

201–210 of 276 posts

Re: Cloudflare lays off new hires

#201

Post by BugsJustFindMe »

Aurornis wrote: post #152
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…

> 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 everyon…

> She says she was hired 4.5 months ago and

She also says that every 1:1 she's had with her manager has been positive.

I would expect in a circumstance where an employee is actually underperforming that they would not have been told otherwise during their regular performance meetings.

Re: Cloudflare lays off new hires

#202

Post by evilduck »

whstl wrote: post #130
candiddevmike wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe a benefit of sales layoffs will be a real pricing page! Hard to "Contact Sales" when there isn't any.

I really really really hate this. As a decision maker, I have SEVERAL times recommended or chosen specific products because the price was available vs a competitor that had a "contact sales". I'm too old for this shit.

Contacting sales is literally subscribing to spam and being hassled by a desperate salesperson from that point onwards. I mean, that already happens with cold-contacting, but getting flagged as a MQL in a CRM makes it even worse.

Re: Cloudflare lays off new hires

#203

Post by SantalBlush »

forward1 wrote: post #198
SantalBlush wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you're welcome to address what I just wrote, instead of trying to dictate that I use an argument you find more convenient for your position.

Frankly, it is difficult to "address" a subjective opinion without having been given the criteria for a satisfactory answer. But I will try: being a responsible adult includes contributing to national defense.

Your original statement, that "Each capable adult must be held accountable and responsible for themselves in this world," is a subjective opinion--unless you meant it merely in the sense of a truism--and you did not give me any criteria for a satisfactory "counter-argument".

Regarding this: >being a responsible adult includes contributing to national defense

you are equivocating between two separate definitions of the word "responsible." Being a responsible adult is not the same as being an adult who is responsible for their own defense or healthcare, for example. They can be correlated, but they have different meanings.

But honestly, this form of internet debating you started that derails from the topic and gets into quasi-logical nitpicking is uninteresting and makes me feel like I'm in a high school, so this will be my last comment. Please feel free to reply, and I will read it. But please make the reply have some substance.

Re: Cloudflare lays off new hires

#204

Post by stemlord »

LVB wrote: post #107
bamboozled wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When hiring, I'm suspicious of qualified people with low income expectations, I don't think this is a winning strategy personally and I'd take this advice with a grain of salt.

Suspicious of what, exactly? If someone needs work and aren’t landing the jobs, is there another approach they should be taking?

That they won't stick around long enough

Re: Cloudflare lays off new hires

#206

Post by no_time »

>(…) if you want to build. better internet and world, start with your employees and treat them with respect

Ironic coming from someone who works for a 3 letter front company operating the largest (known) MiTM attack in the history of the internet.

A better internet and world would come about if CF ceased all operations.

Re: Cloudflare lays off new hires

#207

Post by guleblanc »

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 knew someone once, in the middle eighties, who got hired, got laid off with 6 weeks severance pay a week into his tenure there, got hired a second time a week later and got fired a second time, again with severance pay. This last time it seemed to have stuck. In the first two cases the companies folded.

Re: Cloudflare lays off new hires

#208

Post by firecall »

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…

People really need to watch the TikTok video before commenting! :-)

Re: Cloudflare lays off new hires

#209

Post by infamia »

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…

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

Who shows up to fire someone without any specifics at all? That is utterly incompetent and completely unprofessional, even for a very large company. Who shows up this unprepared and 100% scripted? HR knows good and well that after being terminated that almost no one will want or will have time for such a follow-up call.

edit: I would also note, that when a company gives an employee positive checkpoints like her manager did throughout, and then you lay that person off, you should expect them to react strongly -- cos said company messed up very badly. Do better Cloudflare.

Post reply on HN