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

Changes at YC

ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 562 posts

Re: Changes at YC

#301

Post by xupybd »

pcl wrote: post #76
bradleyjg wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laid off is itself a less harsh version of fired.

In the US, “laid off” has a pretty substantially different meaning than “fired”. “Laid off” usually means that the company shut down a group of roles, and the individuals happened to be in those roles and so lost their jobs. “Fired” usually means that the individual was intentionally let go because of behavior / competence / etc. of the individual, not the group.

Here we say maid redundant if someone is laid off like this.

Re: Changes at YC

#302

Post by a_bonobo »

cardosof wrote: post #266
voz_ wrote: post #46

> Seventeen of our teammates are impacted today. Never allow corporations to speak in passive, weak, blameless terms. Use direct, honest, language, and force them to do the same. "Seventeen of our teammates are impacted today." - > "We laid off 17 employees today" "I was impacted by layoffs" -> "Google laid me off" etc

I, too, prefer that companies spoke in direct, plain terms, without PR shenanigans. Does anyone know why do they do this, though? Is it to de-risk potential lawsuits or do they believe people prefer that way ("sounds professional")?

Cowardice

You fired someone? You're to blame. Someone was impacted? Sounds more like an act of nature. Nobody is to blame!

Re: Changes at YC

#303

Post by bmelton »

bradleyjg wrote: post #127
margalabargala wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not quite the same, those two terms have taken on different meanings. "Fired" has come to mean "for cause", and "laid off" has come to mean "not for cause".

My hunch is that the evolution was driven by executives, probably in the 70s and 80s, that didn’t want to say they were firing people in order to make more money. In other words the same dynamic that now leads to ‘impacted’.

Some members of my family (back in the day) used to be laid off from positions seasonally, and were then rehired the next year.

I suspect that in its early versions, it referred more to the notion that "we won't have any more work until the spring, so we'll see you then."

I don't know its etymology or when it might have been coopted by employers who didn't intend to rehire, but I suspect its intent is to signal that there's no ill will between the employer and the employee, and that it WOULD rehire those impacted persons in the future.

I'm not as sure that it means anything so specific now.

Re: Changes at YC

#304

Post by ec109685 »

npalli wrote: post #225

In case you are wondering, that is about 20% of the staff. https://techcrunch.com/2023/03/13/y-combinator-cuts-nearly-2...

I wonder what the revenue per employee of YC is. 85 employees, with 1/6 companies unicorns (though some of that is paper valuations, but still huge returns).

Re: Changes at YC

#306

Post by EngManagerIsMe »

> Unfortunately, this means we will no longer need some of the roles on the late stage investing team. Seventeen of our teammates are impacted today.

I hate this passive voice. It implies there was nothing that could be done, that this was just a force of nature. That it wasn't an active choice by YC, but rather just some eventuality.

Most of us understand the necessity of hard decisions. Own the outcomes. It's ok to say, "We fired 17 people, because their roles were no longer needed by us".

If you think that looks too bad, then don't do the thing -- find other opportunities for the people in the company.

Re: Changes at YC

#307

Post by mlyle »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #152
Ekaros wrote: post #72

So where is the bailout for these impacted people? Wasn't it just recently that YC posted a plea to bailout so that people wouldn't be fired? And then they don't do one themselves?

> Wasn't it just recently that YC posted a plea to bailout so that people wouldn't be fired? No, that never happened where did you see that? > So where is the bailout for these impacted people? Unemployment exists and I'd bet a lot they got severance pay.

> No, that never happened where did you see that?

He's referring to this: https://www.ycombinator.com/blog/urgent-sign-the-petition-no...

Re: Changes at YC

#308

Post by fnordpiglet »

Zetice wrote: post #290
riffic wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you'd be speaking about livelihoods then, not lives.

I mean... not even, right? A "livelihood" is one's ability to make money in their career, not specific to an individual job. Surely these highly qualified people will find work elsewhere. So it's really not worth getting dramatic about. It's sad, but such is life. I wish the best of luck to these folks, but I doubt they're in mourning. I'm sure the YC leadership is helping them figure out next steps as we speak.

Things like this are almost always traumatic regardless. We wrap ourselves and our identity in our jobs, especially ambitious and successful and highly qualified people. While objectively you’re right, it is still unnerving and unpleasant to have to find a new job and learn your contribution and value to the company was worth less than others. It’s also not the best job market for tech focused folk. I think it’s ok to feel sympathy for someone laid off.

Re: Changes at YC

#309

Post by winphone1974 »

300bps wrote: post #217
Kwpolska wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Death is inevitable, unexpected, unplanned, usually caused by things beyond human control. Layoffs are a planned thing explicitly done by one human to another in order to increase corporate profits.

Layoffs are often a choice between letting a small percentage go or causing the entire company to go out of business.

If they had stated this exactly as you did it would have been a lot more honest and forthright
Post reply on HN