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

Fired

zachholman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 410 posts

Re: Fired

#231

Post by [deleted] »

AceJohnny2 wrote: post #209
josu wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with your advice to not take it personally, I disagree with your reasoning. For a company you are just a small gear that can be replaced, relatively easily most of the time (even Steve Jobs was successfully replaced). But for you, your job is 30%-60% of your conscious time. While replacing a worker will barely ever disrupt the operations of a company, losing a job will certainly destabilize you.

> even Steve Jobs was successfully replaced Some would argue about that :)

[deleted]

Re: Fired

#232

Post by jghn »

matwood wrote: post #212
geweke wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YES. Everybody deserves this. As a manager, I try extremely hard to make sure this happens. The way I think of it is this. On the day you are fired, when you get called in a room, if I ask you, "why do you think you're here?", you'd reply: "I think I'm getting fired". Because I want us to have had so many conversations about it, and been so direct, that the actual firing is incredibly unsurprising. I think any manage…

The new fire fast mentality being pushed is not for performance though. It is you are a rockstar at X, but now we need X+1, you're fired. Basically companies are starting to treat full time employees as contract employees without paying the increased contract rates.

Exactly my point, and I'm ok with that if they're up front about it and they give me some lead time on when X+1 is happening.

Personally I'd prefer a place where I could do X and X+1 so it'd be a bit of a negative in choosing where to go, but I can live with it. OTOH I'd be extremely pissed if I walked in one day and was told "we think you're awesome, but you don't konw X+1 so see ya later"

Re: Fired

#233

Post by nvarsj »

maxsilver wrote: post #214
BuildTheRobots wrote: post #190

This is probably a stupid question, but could someone explain what it means to be fired in the USA? Here in the UK (especially after you've been employed for over two years and/or you're off "probation") it tends to be the last step in a long process of verbal then written warnings where you're repeatedly doing things you're getting told off for. Relatively few things are actually "bad" enough to get you instantly di…

> From what I'm reading, in the US it seems to be a case that you could loose your job, with no notice at any time for any reason? Yes, exactly. In many states, US employers can terminate an employee at any time, for (almost) any reason, or for no reason at all. It's often called "At-will employment" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment Note that while it technically works both ways, realistically it onl…

> Note that while it technically works both ways, realistically it only works to the employers benefit. The employer is allowed to fire any employee at any time, for no reason, with no recourse.

I don't agree at all. In this market it benefits technology workers to be at-will. You can get a great job offer and literally leave your job the next day. This drives salaries up overall and means companies need to work harder to keep people.

Compare that to the UK, where it's standard practice for a senior dev to be stuck with a 3 month notice period. I had a hell of a time getting out of a bad situation when I first moved here as a result.

Re: Fired

#234

Post by chris_wot »

_bfhp wrote: post #49
crazypyro wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we just stop speculating about this? He didn't come out and tell us, meaning anyone that isn't close to him will never find out. This over-analyzing of the reason (wasn't even an important point in the article) is just off-topic and more importantly, completely without evidence.... (Its not just you, but everyone is trying to play internet detective. Just stop. We don't need to dig into this guy's work life....)

My comment explicitly didn't speculate on any particular reason, it pointed to language that could easily be politician-grade rhetorical defense. Did you read my whole comment? People can speculate about the reasons if they can point to relevant historical record. Why not? This man isn't sacred, is he?

So in other words, you speculated that the language used is a rhetorical defence that he was fired for a criminal offence.

Re: Fired

#235

Post by omegaham »

makeitsuckless wrote: post #213
davidu wrote: post #41

There are people who were at OpenDNS in the early days who were incredible, and as we grew, became less and less incredible, largely because the things that made them incredible actually started to be really frustrating as the company grew and they didn't want to change those things. So they had to leave. Usually it was a series of conversations about how the person, their peers, and the company were all unhappy, and…

> people are fired all the time No, they're not. In the Western world, this is mostly an American thing. In most Western countries, there's a major responsibility for the employer to prove there is no other way before getting permission to fire someone. Now there are all kinds of downsides to that, and it's far from ideal especially for start-ups, but I do like the way it doesn't tolerate the immature, irresponsible…

I think that we get a really skewed view of things because we're on Hacker News, a site that focuses much more on startups. If we were on Factory Manager News or Corporate Retail News, there would be much, much less talk about firing. The practices of these startups are very different from established companies. I can't imagine IBM, Intel, or Microsoft engaging in this sort of behavior, for better (refraining from firing people for stupid, immature reasons) or for worse (not being able to get rid of shitty people).

Startups are the Wild West when it comes to employment. Their nature means that many of the people running the show have never actually hired and managed employees before, and they have no good role models for doing so. Sometimes it works out well, and sometimes it works out atrociously.

Re: Fired

#236

Post by nekopa »

0xdeadbeefbabe wrote: post #175
smacktoward wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In his classic book Accidental Empires ( http://www.amazon.com/Accidental-Empires-Silicon-Millions-Co... ), Robert X. Cringely wrote that if you think of a market as an invasion beach you can think of three kinds of employees at tech companies: commandos, infantry, and police. Commandos are people who love challenges and hate structure. They'll happily take on missions that other people think are crazy or impossible,…

I feel like this story ignores something important, something about the market being the same in spite of changes in the company.

Off the cuff, doesn't a company being in a market change the market? Especially if they're doing well, i.e. Apple changed the smartphone market...

Re: Fired

#238

Post by gfody »

pbowyer wrote: post #203
smacktoward wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In his classic book Accidental Empires ( http://www.amazon.com/Accidental-Empires-Silicon-Millions-Co... ), Robert X. Cringely wrote that if you think of a market as an invasion beach you can think of three kinds of employees at tech companies: commandos, infantry, and police. Commandos are people who love challenges and hate structure. They'll happily take on missions that other people think are crazy or impossible,…

Simon Wardley has an alternative terminology for the same idea: Pioneers, Settlers and Town Planners ( http://blog.gardeviance.org/2012/06/pioneers-settlers-and-to... ). He also posits that as organisations evolve from left to right, they still need teams in the previous states for the business to work effectively. Sometimes these are outsourced, sometimes they're not done at all.

Harlan Mills has a much better metaphor that captures how different roles match with different personality types and doesn't insist that people be fired as if the company "out grows" certain engineers. (http://javatroopers.com/Mythical_Man_Month.html#Chapter_3)

If companies outgrow anyone it's executive leadership that for whatever reason can no longer motivate and inspire their workforce.

Re: Fired

#239

Post by engendered »

gaius wrote: post #225
engendered wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aside from the fact that many people use the term interchangeably, getting "laid off" often means "you got fired at a company that doesn't actively fire individually, but rather fires en masse". Being "laid off" from a company like Microsoft is equivalent to being outright fired at many other shops.

No, thats not even remotely true. Look at their mobile division.

Most organizational "lay offs" start by identifying the most expendable, the least valuable, the people with the worst performance reviews, etc. This is especially true in the technology industry. I'm not saying this as an objective "it is thus justified", but rather a simple reality that the same criteria by which some shops might say "you're not working out, so I'm sorry I'm canning you" is the same criteria that companies like Microsoft use to chop the "bottom" 10% or so.

It's actually a little ironic that this conversation is happening because you're trying to load the term "fired". Fired never meant "because you stole" or "because you sabotaged the PCs". It just means you had your employment terminated, often if not usually for banal reasons of lack of fit or suitability. Life goes on.

Re: Fired

#240

Post by chris_wot »

_bfhp wrote: post #71
crazypyro wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So we get a sort of intellectual dishonesty we see regularly from politicians: deep philosophical musings to surround a quick sweep-under-the-rug of the actual issue. You are speculating here that he is pushing the issue under the rug. You also speculated that the reason he was fired was somehow related to the humorous reasons he gave. I think its a bit much....

For the first thing, I am noting the actual possibility. Whether he is, I don't know, but he in fact could be, and if he were, a lot of people wouldn't catch it unless it was pointed out. I did no such thing as the second thing you're saying I did.

speculation: the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

You wrote:

For the first thing, I am noting the actual possibility. Whether he is, I don't know, but he in fact could be, and if he were, a lot of people wouldn't catch it unless it was pointed out.

You have a theory that he added a paragraph about embezzlement that might be a rhetorical defence, but you have no firm evidence. You're speculating.

Post reply on HN