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

At Netflix, Radical Transparency and Blunt Firings Unsettle the Ranks

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 335 posts

Re: At Netflix, Radical Transparency and Blunt Firings Unsettle the Ranks

#321

Post by sleepybrett »

setr wrote: post #240
maxxxxx wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what you get when you have fixed quotas for firing people, e.g. bottom 10%. After a few rounds you have some very good people left and either you fire good people that are hard to replace or you hire people to fire them. I don't understand how the top guys don't see that dynamic.

That's only true if the population is static: if you fully replenish, and then discard the bottom 10%, on repeat, then your overall quality should be going up. If you only make new bad hires, the 90% good population will stay the same, and the newly hired 10% will be fired. If you make n good hires, such that that they're better than some peer in the previous 90% population, then the worst n peers will be shifted int…

The problem is that they take an org wide "cut 10%" and pass it down to every team and say "cut 10%". That mean any team that is a well oiled machine is going to loose some pretty important gears.

Mean while team B which is full of fuckups will just lose their least popular fuckup.

Re: At Netflix, Radical Transparency and Blunt Firings Unsettle the Ranks

#322

Post by sleepybrett »

taurath wrote: post #78
dunpeal wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Money, of course. If they are such solid performers, they can get jobs in other FAANGs who pay just as well. Netflix pays well, but does it pay so much better that I should put up with this BS? I doubt. In fact, by keeping up this abusive charade, Netflix is guaranteeing that many of the best candidates will never apply. So my guess would be that their employees aren't the best, but perhaps the best candidates will…

> Netflix pays well, but does it pay so much better that I should put up with this BS? To the FAANG employee with a PHD who's been "hanging out" making widgets a 1st year programmer could build, the appeal I think is to invite people who want to show off the fire in their belly to do something. And then they make 1st year programmer widgets, but with LOTS of passion and arguments and being told they can be fired at a…

No one at netflix is changing the world.

Re: At Netflix, Radical Transparency and Blunt Firings Unsettle the Ranks

#323

Post by woolvalley »

dunpeal wrote: post #320
woolvalley wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix has taxable free uber rides for commuting employees, so I would say they definitely have benefits.

Or maybe they have that (dirt cheap) benefit so folks would assume they have great benefits. How costly and valuable are a few Uber rides per year (that are also justified as a business expense)? Now compare that to a decent 401k matching program...

It's not dirt cheap, you can take 2 1hr $50 uber X rides a day if you so feel, and I don't think there is a limit? It's actually fairly generous.

Your still paying tax on it although, but it still would cost the company $2000 per month.

A company can also just give you more money without a 401k condition behind that matching program, and you can decide to put the money in. They don't have a large retail staff, so they can also probably do things like the mega backdoor roth too.

Re: At Netflix, Radical Transparency and Blunt Firings Unsettle the Ranks

#325

Post by greenyoda »

Multicomp wrote: post #12
ricopags wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First time seeing Outline. How in the heck is that legal/welcome in Chrome Web Store? Hm, are you just violating their TOS and they're putting the onus on WSJ to ask them to take down your link: https://outline.com/dmca.html

I didn't use the Chrome Web Store (or Chrome), I used outline.com I learned of its existence through other users pasting similar links with articles that involve paywalls. Previous instances of posting outline links to get around client-side only paywalls have not been fussed at, so I interpreted that to mean acceptance of the practice. Someone educate me?

The HN FAQ says that workarounds for paywalls are OK:

Are paywalls ok?

It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.

In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html

Obviously, outline.com wouldn't work unless WSJ explicitly allows them to bypass its paywall. (I have no idea why WSJ does this.) If it's OK with WSJ, I don't see why people should have ethical problems with it.

Re: At Netflix, Radical Transparency and Blunt Firings Unsettle the Ranks

#326

Post by strangerlands »

woolvalley wrote: post #311
strangerlands wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, they sometimes exchange dignity for money. In fact, it is not-my-wild guess that the probability of stopping a homicide steeply decreases with the amount of money given to look the other way. For some, even their sister's. Go figure for a job in tech.

So if they were nicer would they reduce their employee costs then? They justify their culture with I'm guessing handy-wavy justifications of business success?

The matter is not being nicer for the sake of it, but more not being a bunch of cultish, indoctrinating, out-of-touch-with-the-world, fake-no-nonsense people. I also tend to judge very negatively people who are "nice" or "not nice" depending on the economic benefit they get from their conduct.

Re: At Netflix, Radical Transparency and Blunt Firings Unsettle the Ranks

#327

Post by joshuamorton »

jhall1468 wrote: post #308
dunpeal wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there's no vesting period ; it's dependable, there's no weird dips because an investing firm got spooked; it's liquid, you can spend it at the bar tonight, right now; taxes are straight forward. For the most part, these are all benefits of RSUs at a company like Facebook or Google. They're totally liquid. They "vest", but in short order. This isn't startup equity. It's very much real money.

They are "totally liquid" after 6 months which isn't totally liquid. And those 6 months are subject to the stock market so they inherently carry more risk than base (and higher potential rewards). You seem rather... aggressive with how much you want to downplay the differences and your entire contribution to this thread has been attacking "Netflix apologists" and defending any argument for cash-based salaries. It's f…

My stock vests monthly and is automatically immediately sold at market price. It's a lot more cash like than you believe.

For a senior engineer, their stock will vest monthly or maybe quarterly. At Google at least, there is no cliff, so you begin vesting your first or second month.

Re: At Netflix, Radical Transparency and Blunt Firings Unsettle the Ranks

#328

Post by joshuamorton »

jiveturkey wrote: post #309
jlawson wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on, be fair. There are tons of administrative tasks that HR takes care of that have nothing to do with liability.

sure. those are the incidental parts of their job.

Deciding on compensation structure, recruiting/hiring, and handling things like leave, benefits etc. Can all, depending on the company, fall under the purview of HR. None are primarily to protect the company from liability.

There are certainly some parts of the job primarily about avoiding liability but, as go said, that's true for many swes too.

Re: At Netflix, Radical Transparency and Blunt Firings Unsettle the Ranks

#329

Post by Shorel »

I wonder if this model would work better with a little bit of gamification.

Let me explain it: You get fired for not performing. And the gamification part is you can get hired again in that same company, even same position, let's say, three or six months after you were fired.

You get your old salary, benefits everything. And the mental relief that being laid of is not permanent.

Then you work different this time, with the experience of having done this job before and the experience of being without a job too.

It would benefit Netflix a lot more than firing people in a permanent basis, IMO. And with these ultra high salaries, people would go back there.

Re: At Netflix, Radical Transparency and Blunt Firings Unsettle the Ranks

#330

Post by omegaham »

ck425 wrote: post #279
omegaham wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that tech, and especially the tech examined on Hacker News, is an outlier in American business. If this were Civil Engineer News or Actuary News, you'd see a very different attitude toward hiring and firing. Startups are quick to hire and fire because hiring exactly the right person is important, and hiring the wrong person can cripple the company. Everyone who applies for a position at a startup knows how this…

Even then why is such culture legal? Over here you're legally required to let someone know they're under performing and give them a minimal time (I think 6 months in the UK?) to improve before you can fire them.

> Even then why is such culture legal?

In general, Americans see this protection as none of the government's business. If the business wants to provide it, or unions want to demand it, that's fine, but it's not going to be applied as a blanket policy.

Many businesses do apply some sort of lengthy process for firing people, for the simple reason that experienced talent is valuable and removing it capriciously is a terrible idea, but it's not required.

In my experience, however, even these processes are just drawn-out kabuki dances. By the time that you've been formally notified that your performance is deficient, the decision has already been made to fire you and nothing will change their minds.

---

As for whether this attitude is a good idea, I'm mixed. On the one hand, it allows businesses to take a risk and hire inexperienced or otherwise dubious prospects without fear that they'll be stuck paying a useless body for months after it's been found that they're a bad fit. On the other hand, it allows shitty managers to be thundering assholes and capriciously fuck with people's livelihoods.

However, I'd assert that the American attitude toward employment is critical to startups. A BigCo can be indifferent to keeping a shitty employee around for months. A startup has much, much less margin for error.

Post reply on HN