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

311–320 of 410 posts

Re: Fired

#311

Post by markcampbell »

vhodges wrote: post #148
vhodges wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak to what Europeans have, but as a Canadian I can. It's not all it's cracked up to be. In BC MSP (Medical Services Plan) is $54/Month for an individual and it's mandatory whether you're employed or not. The amount is probably different in other provinces as medical is a provincial concern (and indeed, coverage varies from province to province). Employers usually offer extended medical, covering things lik…

Oh and I forgot, if you're fired with cause, you don't qualify for EI. You only get EI if you're laid off for lack of work.

Being fired for cause in this case refers to misconduct at the job, which is quite different from just being not good enough at your job.

I won't repost the list, but you can find the definition and the most common list on their website here:

http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/ei/information/misconduct...

Re: Fired

#312

Post by nikanj »

I feel weird parallels between the job market and the dating scene recently. Nobody is good enough, you can be tossed out at any point for not being an absolute perfect match, and everybody is complaining about how impossible it is to find love/talent.

Re: Fired

#313

Post by markcampbell »

bshimmin wrote: post #221
timjahn wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are you paying off the mortgage in 1/5 of the time?

By paying off five times more a month than the bank really wants you to when they gave you the money. (How is he able to do that? By working like a maniac, I guess.)

He/she would only have to pay 3.28 times his normal payment in order to pay it off in 1/5th of the time. It's paid off more quickly because by paying more, you reduce the amount of interest that accumulates.

On a $100k 20 year loan at at 5.7% (I know, example), interest paid would be around $67k (so total $167k). By paying 3.28 times more per month ($2300 per month versus the $700 normal rate), the interest paid ends up being only around $12k.

Re: Fired

#314

Post by bmelton »

Jare wrote: post #287
bmelton wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point isn't that the taxpayers should cover his mortgage, but that the unemployment benefits should be more commensurate with how much one has paid in. Anecdotal, but one of my older buddies was laid off. He's been earning north of $250k for over 30 years. He had savings, but assuming he didn't, his max withdrawal would be $698 a week, and only for 6 months, which is a max withdrawal of ~$18k, which is right arou…

>If he shouldn't be able to profit off of the state, then the state shouldn't be able to profit off of him That's not how "social safety nets" work. They tend towards being zero-sum in monetary terms, which means that some people will "win" (those worse off, hopefully) and some will "lose". The idea is that such devices help balance and stabilize society, which means we all actually win.

No, I get that, but at the same time, everybody's paying in to unemployment, and even in a down economy, where we have something like 10-12% unemployment, that means that 88% are paying in.

If the caps are so short and arbitrary, unless I'm missing something, the state is pocketing a ton. Perhaps that's okay, because it does definitely defend against the "everybody's out of work" scanario that we haven't really had in awhile, despite the recession. Or maybe it just means that there are more people who need it more than I'm envisioning, or that it disproportionately favors the lower incomes, or any other number of factors.

The point though, which I've perhaps done a poor job of illustrating, is that it still behooves the state to ensure that earners with high wage potential aren't made homeless as a result of those caps.

If the higher wage earners get less benefit from the system, then so be it, but that means that the system needs them more than they need it, and as a result, should probably not be bankrupting those with high income potential, just because "we shouldn't be debt servicing their assets".

Re: Fired

#315

Post by analog31 »

robbyking wrote: post #194
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…

This may be a matter of semantics, but aren't you describing being laid off and not being fired? I've been laid off a couple times when the company I was working for shifted directions and my skill set no longer met their needs; with smaller/younger companies (especially in our industry) it's to be expected from time to time. To me, though, being fired is what happens when an employee fails to perform their job satis…

In most of the US, "employment-at-will" eliminates the distinction. A company doesn't need to show a cause in order to fire someone. Where it becomes important is that if someone is fired "with cause," then they are not eligible for the company's typical severance benefits or unemployment compensation.

This, in turn, creates a perverse incentive for employers to fabricate a cause, or even to provoke the employee. Fortunately not at my present employer, but I have seen this happen and have also seen managers brag about it.

Re: Fired

#316

Post by JulianMorrison »

> This isn't the case with love, to choose a cliché metaphor. If you break up with somebody, it just wasn't meant to be is the catch-phrase used rather than yo you must have been a shit partner to not have forced that relationship to work out.

You'll find they say that a lot, actually. Just mostly to women.

Re: Fired

#317

Post by tsotha »

jghn wrote: post #271
tsotha wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO Fire fast is a mistake, even from a purely green-eye shades perspective. It takes time to bring a new employee up to speed, and while they're coming up to speed they need attention from other people who are supposed to be working on their own projects. Beyond that it creates a morale problem. People who work together form social attachments and get upset when a coworker disappears. People who are in no actual dan…

I probably shouldn't have said "the one thing" - I totally agree that I think it is a silly policy and not the right to be doing at all. I guess I meant "the one thing that bothers me from the perspective of someone who might be fired at any moment" :) - I could survive in a fire fast iff they were open about everything, although I probably wouldn't choose to work there in the first place, if that makes sense.

Why would anyone work at a place like that? Even if you were somehow special in that they couldn't fire you, the whole thing would be inefficient and depressing.

Re: Fired

#318

Post by zeeshanm »

Great post, Zach. Just wanted to say back in the day when I was getting into web dev good-tuorials.com was probably one of the reasons I got hooked. I got inspiration to create stuff by learning from tutorials posted to good-tutorials and make a site like yours. Great stuff!

Re: Fired

#319

Post by jonsterling »

davio wrote: post #282

I figured out on a Friday that I was getting laid off/fired/downsized on Monday. Over the weekend I decided I would act like a zen master. I walked in like I was getting a promotion, acted gracious the entire time, thanked the people and let them know I was sorry they had to do this and then walked out like I just got promoted. I actually talked to the HR lady at a later day and she confided how the director and her…

Really? Might also say, “I have no spine”... There's a tricky line to walk between two different kinds of cringe--the kind that happens when someone sees you let someone walk all over you, and the kind that happens when you freak out and air your grievances.

Re: Fired

#320

Post by duderific »

mason240 wrote: post #296
JDiculous wrote: post #92

Why is this on the front page? Because he worked at GitHub? What was the point of this?

I was actually let go from my job this morning; I'm so glad I came across this today.

Sorry about that. I got laid off twice in 2013, it really sucks. Good luck to you!
Post reply on HN