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

Googler... ex-Googler

nerdy.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 1001 posts

Re: Googler... ex-Googler

#211

Post by switch007 »

physicsguy wrote: post #13
sangeeth96 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adam was a very prominent Chrome DevRel and top voices of the web platform. I personally owe to his content (blog, snippets, podcast, talks, youtube, social media etc.) to stay up-to-date on things. It’s a bit of a shock to me that he of all people is getting laid off and that too in such an ugly way.

DevRel is unfortunately something that’s going the way of the dodo though now that interest rates are up. A position that doesn’t directly contribute to the bottom line of a company, so it’s easy to justify getting rid of.

And Chrome has an insanely dominant position now. Devs need Chrome, not the other way around

Re: Googler... ex-Googler

#212

Post by bitpush »

hnfong wrote: post #205
Ferret7446 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens if your company supports billions of dollars in economic output, and a few employees decides to go rogue and sabotage some systems that then causes an international loss of billions of dollars, and possibly property damages and loss of life? If you were the CEO, would you take criminal/financial responsibility for that?

It's not like there aren't disgruntled employees before layoffs. If a single employee could cause billions of dollars in losses, then the company already has a big problem regardless of layoffs. It's very interesting how so many people in upper management seem to think that they can trust employees not to sabotage and cause billions of dollars in losses by paying them like 100k a year.

There's a difference. An employee going rogue is different from a non employee/ex-employee doing malicious things.

Only one of them would be seen as negligent.

Re: Googler... ex-Googler

#213

Post by bow_ »

Ferret7446 wrote: post #181
abdj8 wrote: post #110

Layoffs are a difficult thing for employees and their managers. I have seen people (one was a VP of Engineering) escorted out of the building, sent in a cab to home along with a security guard (this was in India), not allowed access to computer or talk with other employees. But, recently have had a very different experience. The current company I work for announced 30% layoffs. The list was made public within one hou…

What happens if your company supports billions of dollars in economic output, and a few employees decides to go rogue and sabotage some systems that then causes an international loss of billions of dollars, and possibly property damages and loss of life? If you were the CEO, would you take criminal/financial responsibility for that?

Right. Because only laid-off employees can cause such a damage of course (/s).

This is a twisted way to look at the risk.

Disgruntled employees have more reason to wreak havoc. All the more reason they should be treated as humanely as possible in a difficult period that in most cases is inflicted by the company itself.

Re: Googler... ex-Googler

#214

Post by ErigmolCt »

abdj8 wrote: post #110

Layoffs are a difficult thing for employees and their managers. I have seen people (one was a VP of Engineering) escorted out of the building, sent in a cab to home along with a security guard (this was in India), not allowed access to computer or talk with other employees. But, recently have had a very different experience. The current company I work for announced 30% layoffs. The list was made public within one hou…

This is such a huge contrast to the usual cold, corporate layoff horror stories. Honestly, this is how it should be done if layoffs are truly unavoidable - with transparency, respect, and basic human decency.

Re: Googler... ex-Googler

#215

Post by varenc »

hnfong wrote: post #205
Ferret7446 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens if your company supports billions of dollars in economic output, and a few employees decides to go rogue and sabotage some systems that then causes an international loss of billions of dollars, and possibly property damages and loss of life? If you were the CEO, would you take criminal/financial responsibility for that?

It's not like there aren't disgruntled employees before layoffs. If a single employee could cause billions of dollars in losses, then the company already has a big problem regardless of layoffs. It's very interesting how so many people in upper management seem to think that they can trust employees not to sabotage and cause billions of dollars in losses by paying them like 100k a year.

The big difference is liability exposure.

If a current employee causes damage, that's one thing. But if a recently laid-off employee who retained full system access causes billions in losses, the CEO and board would face severe consequences legally and reputationally, since it would be perceived as an obvious security lapse.

Re: Googler... ex-Googler

#216

Post by ErigmolCt »

sudomateo wrote: post #116

> But I was also immediately ripped away from my calendar, docs, code, and more. Layoffs are never easy. I've been through a few myself and it really takes the wind out of your sails. That being said, this sentence made me pause a bit. None of these things mentioned are actually yours. They are the property of Google. One thing that helped me immensely in my career is understanding that my relationship with a company…

Companies will always remind you it's "just business" when it suits them - so it's healthy to keep that same energy in return

Re: Googler... ex-Googler

#217

Post by ErigmolCt »

mystifyingpoi wrote: post #137

> Relationships that took me years to cultivate… mostly going to be gone too. I don't want to sound condescending, but if being forced out of the job means end for your relationships built for years, maybe these relationships weren't built as they should. They should have been built with the people as people, not coworkers, and definitely not using company as the communication ground.

I get where you're coming from, but I think it's a little more complicated than that.

Re: Googler... ex-Googler

#218

Post by noisy_boy »

neilv wrote: post #158
h4ckaerman wrote: post #45

> Googler... Whole things reads like someone leaving a cult. It's ok to be sad about leaving a job but your identity shouldn't be so tied up in it that you're crying in a blog post online. We all lose jobs and we all get on with it. Obviously they're talented and will land fine somewhere. I'm not trying to be mean but it's bad that a person can get upset to this point around a job. The corp isn't caring.

You're criticizing people for caring so much because you think the best that employment can be is transactional money in exchange for competent work? Wouldn't you want to hire and nurture people who cared so much about what they were working on and who they worked with, as the author seemed to be? (Not that you'd want them to be upset if it ever had to end, but you'd want the goodness part to happen? Better to have l…

> Wouldn't you want to hire and nurture people who cared so much about what they were working on and who they worked with, as the author seemed to be?

From the companies perspective: absolutely! If I can get people who will put in 10x for 1x of pay, nothing like it!

From employees perspective: Care for your work like a good construction worker does. They don't cut corners, speak-up when they spot issues and put in their body and mind. But they don't come back to the site at 11PM to take one more look at it (I do sometimes because solving the programming problem is fun, not because my corporate overlords will pat me on the back). It is indeed important to make sure that the building is strong but remember that you don't own it.

Re: Googler... ex-Googler

#219

Post by qmmmur »

asadalt wrote: post #182
BlobberSnobber wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Always someone with a horrible opinion to give in this hellsite

i have had to avoid hiring excellent candidate(s) from EU, just because they would become unflushable if it comes to that.

If your business is contingent on the behaviour of one employee then you have failed to hire properly or build a resilient business...

In many cases problematic employees can and are removed from EU companies.

Re: Googler... ex-Googler

#220

Post by lnsru »

apexalpha wrote: post #167
michalstanko wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really depends on the people you work for, it's not like Europe is some kind of paradise in this matter. I was working as a contractor for a company in Germany, after a few years working together, they cut me off from one day to the next (the new manager decided to start saving money), even though my contract included a clause about a one-month notice period. They didn’t even bother to pay the invoice for the work…

Yeah but that's kinda the point of being a contractor, no? Here in the Netherlands contractors are also 'at will employed' as the Americans say. But they pay you more so...

Sounds like a case every lawyer in Germany would like to take. 500€ for first letter to send to the manager reminding the contract conditions. It is enough for most companies not to go further with shady activities. As a contractor one should know how to deal with the clients.
Post reply on HN