Live data from Hacker News

Fired

zachholman.com

381–390 of 410 posts

Re: Fired

#381
post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely agree, it's just that it doesn't always happen. I tell every new boss that I'll be completely upfront w/ them regarding my thoughts on how things are going, if I'm thinking of jumping ship, etc - but in return I expect them to do the same. Ideally both sides are on the same page at any point of time as to what the situation is.

Wow. I would never say I was going to jump ship until I had my plans set out. In the past I've given 6 weeks notice when it was asked for but I just wouldn't put myself in a situation where they might fire me before I fund my next gig.

There's a difference between saying "I'm jumping ship" and "I'm thinking about looking around in the next few months". The former is implying it's definitely going to happen, the latter is saying that it's a fungible situation.

I'd like to think (and try to only work for) people would be professional enough on both sides to realize that not everyone (either side) is going to be happy 100% of the time but a) both sides can work on it to make it better and b) if it doesn't work out, try to be supportive of each other so that both come out stronger overall.

Re: Fired

#382

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.

I’m not amazed, but I also do a fair amount of due diligence on jobs before I take them. As a development manager, I also clearly talk about my philosophy of teams to people who are interviewing with me so they know exactly what they are getting with me. That said, you cannot always predict things that will be mistakes until they’ve passed—and sometimes you have no clue how good the dog and pony show was until you’re in it. Well, probably not you, but pretty much everyone else in the world.

When you lose a job, there is always a gut punch. Hell, even if I’ve decided to move on, there’s always a gut punch. These are people you’ve worked with and have come to respect to some degree (sometimes greatly).

I called out the loss of two of the three jobs as “no great loss”. I’m not going to pretend that I wasn’t hurt by it, or that I wasn’t panicked. In both cases, I had started the jobs relatively recently (about six weeks in the first case and three weeks in the second), so yeah—the reality is that at the time I was panicked.

In the first case, it was for a relatively large consulting firm (no, I’m not naming them or the client I was at) with a number of work sites. The people who did the recruiting for consultants were not the people who ran the work sites. The recruiters made a number of statements about the way that the company worked that the site manager contradicted. I also had a friend from a previous job start with the same consulting firm and provide me a positive review of the place. He ended up at a good work site with a good manager. I ended up at a good work site with a micromanager. It was the (bad) luck of the draw—and I was far better off not working for a company that would make promises with one hand and let other people take them away (and yes, the site manager “warned” me about my behaviour and did not appreciate it when I pointed out that these were conditions that I had been recruited under and that the client was ecstatic about my working arrangement—but then again, the site manager just cared about his power over others and not the work or the quality of work for the client). It was “no great loss” to not work with those people anymore. Especially since I was able to “fall up”.

The second one was a little more nuanced, and again was a “hindsight” situation. I interviewed with the team and with the executive sponsor in the company. I knew exactly what I was going to be doing, what would be expected of me, and the role I was going to play. There was exactly one warning sign that the owner of the company (it is privately held) was a total moron, but I wasn’t going to be working with him or even be affected by the policy (no working from home) because the workplace was fifteen minutes from my house. The project was also really interesting. The dog and pony show—and all of the answers—were really good and I figured it would be good for at least a year of work.

What happened next was completely beyond my control. The team lead/architect had special privileges that he had negotiated in the job related to that aforementioned policy—he lived 90 minutes away by car and there was no effective transit for him. He abused those privileges in the three weeks between when I accepted the job and when I started. He was caught• the week after I started and fired pretty much immediately. The executive sponsor was fired the very next day. This is when I finally met the owner of the company and he demonstrated that he was a control freak, a micro manager, and an utter moron (he thought that, just because a webpage I was reading had art on it, I was playing a game and slowing down the entire network—which couldn’t have happened with our team anyway because we were all behind a single access point with limited bandwidth).

In the end? Losing that job early was better for me than it would have been if I had lost it later, or felt that I had to leave because the owner’s idiocy would have shown up sooner or later. I was ultimately able to go back to the other firm that I had negotiated with and start there with only a little lost time.

In both cases, the job losses were “no great loss” because the short term pain was far less than the long term pain of staying at the job would have been, but that long term pain was not visible during the recruitment process. In the case of the second job, if the team lead had not been stupid, there’s a chance the long term pain never would have been present at all because the executive sponsor was the one in ultimate charge of the project and he was doing everything right—keeping the owner out of the details of the project.

• Rule 1: if you have special privileges, don’t abuse them. Rule 2: if you are going to abuse them, don’t do something stupid that will get you caught, like having the company pay for your cellphone service so that they can see that you are not, in fact, in town when you said you would be.

Re: Fired

#383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’m not amazed, but I also do a fair amount of due diligence on jobs before I take them. As a development manager, I also clearly talk about my philosophy of teams to people who are interviewing with me so they know exactly what they are getting with me. That said, you cannot always predict things that will be mistakes until they’ve passed—and sometimes you have no clue how good the dog and pony show was until you’re…

Very long answer.

I have no clue who you are. So my impression is just from your words.

I would not hire you. It seems you had problems with several managers, then call a former employer a 'total moron' on a discussion board and a teamlead 'stupid'. "Losing that job early was better for me" - a lot of the comments is about you.

Two long comments and everyone was wrong but you. To me this signals no introspection and being a finger pointer. Sorry to sound harsh.

Re: Fired

#384
post #233

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 have seen multiple cases where shitty or ill-informed managers tried to pressure salaried employees into "committing"—commit to another project cycle, another quarter, another year, whatever. "We're trying to do strategic planning, I need to know if you intend to stay... yada yada yada."

As part of HR, part of my job was to remind managers and employees that that's all bullshit. As at-will, you can "commit" to staying and then quit the very next day. If you're a good manager, you very likely have some sense of your staff's intent to stay without needing passive-aggressive conversations about commitment/engagement. If you do not have a contract and you're under at-will employment, use it to your advantage whenever the fuck you can.

(That said, I do agree with maxsilver that at-will employment is still tilted to the employer's benefit overall.)

Re: Fired

#385

I come from Europe, where "getting fired" seems to have a slightly different weight for people, and I really need to ask this. Please assume I'm a total ignorant in this regard, and explain this to me like you would to a young teen. Why getting fired is seen as so bad? What's the difference in your view (in terms of perception) between being fired and being laid off? How can a company know that someone has been fired…

I think the way the terms are used is that laid off means the company no longer needs anyone in your position, while fired means they still need someone to do your job, but it's no longer you. The implications of this are clear, I think - if you're fired, it's your fault; if you're laid off, it's either the fault of your company (not enough money, perhaps) or of the market (robot does your job).

Also has implications for the social safety net in the US: if you resign or are fired, you can't collect unemployment checks; if you are laid off, you can. A lay-off also means the company can't immediately turn around and hire for that position because, supposedly, the position is not needed, or is needed but can't be funded (as you said). Companies can easily circumnavigate this by creating a new position with a slightly different title and slightly different responsibilities, then just hire for that.

Re: Fired

#386
It's hard to have a good initial reaction to someone getting fired, as it means something has been broken. But I agree with the post, a broken relationship may just happen because things change in a way we can't avoid.

Re: Fired

#387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

In my first write of that post, I automatically substituted "trailblazers" for "commandos". Then I realized I didn't want to figure out another metaphor.

Some sibling comment mentioned "settlers" as a metaphor, which I can get behind.

Re: Fired

#388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

The enemies are entropy and your competitors. And if you fail to overcome them, you will cease to exist. The pervasive war metaphors didn't come about for no reason.

Re: Fired

#389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not amazed, but I also do a fair amount of due diligence on jobs before I take them. As a development manager, I also clearly talk about my philosophy of teams to people who are interviewing with me so they know exactly what they are getting with me. That said, you cannot always predict things that will be mistakes until they’ve passed—and sometimes you have no clue how good the dog and pony show was until you’re…

Very long answer. I have no clue who you are. So my impression is just from your words. I would not hire you. It seems you had problems with several managers, then call a former employer a 'total moron' on a discussion board and a teamlead 'stupid'. "Losing that job early was better for me" - a lot of the comments is about you. Two long comments and everyone was wrong but you. To me this signals no introspection and…

If that anecdote about the owner thinking he was playing a game is not a complete fabrication, then I would guess that he (?) is correct in his assessment. Sometimes the boss just really is stupid, and you know it, and there's no point beating around the bush being "introspective" about it, except to wonder how you keep getting caught up with people like that.

Re: Fired

#390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

"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." It's basically a court case to fire someone, which makes it very easy for employees that should be fired to keep their jobs. "The cop-out of "this isn't working out, you're fired" borders on infan…

There is a reason the US is also one of the worst places to be a working person, which most people are. In other words, we decided to structure our society to benefit a small elite group of people instead of the vast majority.
Post reply on HN