Fired • Hacker News Board

Re: Fired

#361

Post by bobofettfett » Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 10:38 AM UTC

halostatue wrote: post #61

I’ve been fired three times. The first time was early in my career. A site manager decided to impose working hours that (a) were in opposition to how I was recruited and (b) not what the client wanted, but (c) didn’t matter anyway because the site manager had the power to do that. This was no great loss. I was better off out of there than working under those circumstances. I had a new job a month later paying 50% mor…

Not sure why you started at a company where getting fired is "no great loss" to you. Why did you start there in the first place? How was your due diligence?

When hiring I'm always amazed how little candidates ask real questions about their work, workplace, how people are rated, what 'excellent' means, who there boss is, who there colleagues are, etc.

Re: Fired

#362

Post by rdl » Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 11:35 AM UTC

ghiculescu wrote: post #349

trhway wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...why should the taxpayers cover your mortgage? because as a taxpayer i have been covering mortgage of somebody unemployed. So i expect (due to social contract of safety net) that if i happen to be unemployed than some other taxpayer(s) will cover my mortgage.

That's obviously true, the question was why should you have to cover someone else's mortgage?

Encouraging labor mobility is a general social good. Whether or not the government does this, it is definitely something we want in the economy. People moving to the jobs for which they are best suited, which changes with the individuals and the firms as they change, is a huge benefit to everyone.

Re: Fired

#363

Post by zhte415 » Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 11:44 AM UTC

aturek wrote: post #178

jghn wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is the one thing I really don't like about the whole fire fast mentality that is starting to pop up, particularly the extreme examples of "fire for any reason as soon as the person isn't a perfect fit, regardless of overall quality". I'm fine with that, but make sure that I know it's likely coming well in advance. Make sure I understand that I'm not pulling my weight. Make sure I understand that the company is m…

This is a great rule of thumb for employees and managers both: neither side should ever be too surprised. Whether it's performance evaluations or firing/quitting decisions, let the other side know if you're unhappy, and talk about it regularly (at least, one-on-one). Every time I haven't talked to managers about this sort of thing, I've regretted it. If you're leaving a company, you might not have told the manager th…

> If you're firing an employee, they should have known (almost as long as you've known) that there was some culture mismatch, or that their performance wasn't meeting expectations, or whatever.

>> there was some culture mismatch, or that their performance wasn't meeting expectations

I had trouble reading this: culture, or performance. If their performance was good, but they didn't match the 'culture' then it is arbitrary in the greatest order. If 'culture; is important, as I agree it is but in qualifiable ways, so culture is qualifiable, and if an organization cannot put 'culture; into its performance expections, it is likely doomed or very very young, but likely doomed.

Re: Fired

#364

Post by MrBuddyCasino » Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 11:46 AM UTC

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.

Exactly. There are quotes about this, maybe they seem familiar:

    Stay hungry, stay foolish

and

    Only the paranoid survive.

If your commandos are all gone, so has your competitive edge.

Re: Fired

#365

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 12:15 PM UTC

saraid216 wrote: post #324

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 think that what this really misses is that companies aren't necessarily monolithic entities. You need different groups of people doing different things. "Commandos" are useful as skunkworks groups, trying out completely out-of-band ideas to see what sticks. "Infantry" to take the things that do stick and develop them into something stable. "Police" to receive the hand-off and maintain oversight. In other words, if…

I think it really misses that business isn't actually war.

If you have a culture where everyone thinks they're either commandos, infantry, or police, it's possible you're going to have some customer relationship issues.

Who's the enemy in this model? If people don't fit, do they become traitors?

Language and metaphor matter, and IMO this is a dangerous and rather dumb metaphor.

I can understand why it's going to be popular with certain kinds of business people, especially the kind who like simple stories that make them feel more important than they really are.

But over time I think it's as likely to cause as many problems as it solves.

Re: Fired

#366

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 12:17 PM UTC

brianpgordon wrote: post #339

rdtsc wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm fine with that, but make sure that I know it's likely coming well in advance What's missing from the equation is what it does to others. Sure one person got fired, bam! easy peasy. Well not so easy because everyone else in the company witnessed that. It becomes a message to everyone else. "As soon you hit the first bump, or maybe you are sick, or have a family emergency we'll throw you under a bus". Everyone pa…

And, on the other hand, when managers are flexible they can be rewarded with loyalty worth many times the value of any lost productivity: > Erik Wolpaw, a writer at Valve fell ill (diagnosed with ulcerative colitis) in 2004. He knew he couldn’t fulfil his duties at work and made the choice to leave Valve. Erik tried to quit, Gabe refused to accept his resignation and said “Your job is to get better. That is your job…

This. I know someone in a similar situation. The company said 'Get better as soon as you can - we'll wait.'

So she did, and they did.

Guess how committed she is to working there now.

Re: Fired

#367

Post by knweiss » Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 12:24 PM UTC

NateDad wrote: post #124

cylinder wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have mandatory unemployment insurance which pays pretty well. These are well-paid white collar professionals, they should be saving up emergency funds. I'm more worried about the safety net for low- and mid-income workers, as well as the fact that health insurance is tied to your employment.

Uh, have you been on unemployment? There's a max. In Massachusetts it's $698 / week (with no taxes taken out). That would only barely cover my mortgage, let alone car payment, food, health insurance, etc. And yes, people should have emergency funds... but when you were a few years out of college, did you have 3-6 months of salary saved up? I certainly didn't.

> but when you were a few years out of college, did you have 3-6 months of salary saved up? I certainly didn't.

Actually, I did and it was a top-priority for me.

Re: Fired

#368

Post by solid_steel » Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 12:42 PM UTC

nvarsj wrote: post #233

maxsilver wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 hard…

I second this opinion. I know people who have gotten out of really bad jobs really fast thanks to this as well as people who were able to join their dream job without having to wait 3+ months.

This is anecdotal: I have a little less than 1.5 years of experience and I've had 3 jobs. My first job payed me 46k/year, my current job pays me 78k/year. In all cases outside circumstances forced me to quit, but looking back, I got to work with a ton of incredible people, learned tons, and my salary skyrocketed.

The at-will system if far from ideal, but it definitely doesn't benefit just the employer, I guess it changes a game of chess to a game of blitz chess.

Re: Fired

#369

Post by engendered » Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 1:03 PM UTC

sib wrote: post #259

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.

This simply isn't true. People who are terminated at Microsoft or Amazon or Google or others for poor performance (either during annual performance review or other times) are not laid off - they are terminated for poor performance.

Everyone who is "laid off" is terminated.

http://www.businessinsider.com/microsofts-employee-review-sy...

Laid off. Done en masse. I could do this for every company and it is exactly the same. No, they don't say "your performance sucks! You're fired!" In fact that would be a legal quagmire because "cause" is somewhat capricious when the reasoning is "doesn't fall in the top 90%". Which is why they settle with nice departure agreements.

Are there some people around here who were laid off and are trying to feel good about it? The reality of lay offs in most situations is that someone intentionally put you in a situation where you would be laid off. It wasn't just accident.

Re: Fired

#370

Post by hussong » Sat, Mar 07, 2015, 1:04 PM UTC

cylinder wrote: post #170

NateDad wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, have you been on unemployment? There's a max. In Massachusetts it's $698 / week (with no taxes taken out). That would only barely cover my mortgage, let alone car payment, food, health insurance, etc. And yes, people should have emergency funds... but when you were a few years out of college, did you have 3-6 months of salary saved up? I certainly didn't.

...why should the taxpayers cover your mortgage? I don't think "debt service on assets" is a universal human right. And why would someone have a mortgage just out of college if they can't even save 3 months first? Either way, $698/week is a lot. Do you know how much these European countries and Canada pay under their "safety net?" It's probably closer to $1500 per month. They certainly don't give a shit about anyone…

That's not entirely correct, at least for Germany.

ALG1 comes out of the mandatory unemployment insurance (that you and your employer have paid for every month) and they will pay you 60% of your previous take-home salary + health insurance for half of the timespan that you'd been employed. That comes out to 1500-2000€/m in your pocket and insurance taken care of, which is really not so bad (a lot of people working full time make less than that). Can be more if you made north of 50K a year. Unless you have a crazy mortgage, you can make things work for a while. Also, if you hadn't had a pretty solid job for years, you wouldn't have gotten a mortgage anyway.

After 24 months max and still no job you would fall back to ALGII though. That's is taxpayers' money and essentially rent for a cheap place, health insurance and 400 € in your pocket, which sucks. Plus you have to liquidate any assets you may have left (including life insurance) first and they will make you take a shitty job.