Live data from Hacker News

Buffer Layoffs

open.buffer.com

391–400 of 429 posts

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#391
post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree 100%. I've worked for multiple companies that say "we're a family", then lay off people with no warning or remorse. Businesses are not families.

They're families when it benefits the business. And businesses are cutthroat capitalists when it benefits them. All that family nonsense is just to talk employees out of looking after their own interests. Your relationship with your employer is inherently antagonistic, and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you some BS. That doesn't mean you can't work well together, but sometimes your interests align with the…

Notably, handing out options does not fix this. All it does is give employees conflicting interests, which softens (but doesn't alter) the blow if there comes a moment that firing them is the best thing for their options.

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#392
post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you've asked some good questions. So, I think children should be disturbing the peace, and perhaps frequently. I see children as being engaged in absolutely critical work, which is trying to build up a set of abstractions, or concepts, that will allow them to succeed in the world as adults. To do this, I think they have to do lots and lots of experiments. It may look like horsing around to us, but I don't thi…

What happens when a child is psychotic or has a chronic health condition that causes them to struggle to communicate or 'give back' to their family in a way the family can understand? What happens if the child becomes suddenly ill, or is accused ofa crime that will take a lot of money to resolve? I feel that family is hard to view add a business transaction because there are these edge cases.

> What happens when a child is psychotic or has a chronic health condition that causes them to struggle to communicate or 'give back' to their family in a way the family can understand?

Sometimes what the family gets out of it is a sense of moral correctness, and self assurance that what they are doing is correct. People use cost benefit analyses for everything, it's just that we often don't take into account some aspects (such as how we feel about an action,or how it affects our self image) when trying to rationally weigh those costs and benefits mentally.

If cutting off ties with your child makes you feel extremely guilty or like a horrible person, to the degree where you can't stand it, then obviously you weren't correctly weighing the impact that action would have on you.

Note, in the case of children, it's a bit more complicated, because IMO you've essentially contractually obligated yourself to your child for at least 18 years, but generally for much longer. By bringing that person into the world, you bear some of the responsibility for their outcome. Often this doesn't feel much like responsibility because our strong emotional connection and need to protect and help subsumes it, but if those are removed, responsibility does remain.

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#393

I'm curious as to why they had 94 employees. That seems like an insanely high number for a company that does something pretty basic (not dumping on the product, I like it and have used it in the past). What are all of those people doing?

Par for the course. TWTR has nearly 4000 employees. Twitter. Human organizations always scale to accommodate available resources, not required functionality.

WhatsApp famously has 55 employees and over a billion monthly active users. That should be the role model for today's startups!

I think it's conceivable the reason you don't see much innovation from Twitter for years now, is that they have the organizational equivalent of traffic gridlock. It's simply impossible to get anything done with that many stakeholders.

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#394
post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've experienced, I'd like to see both "The Prince" and "The Art of War" banished from the world of business.

Art of War is only useful in a short list of highly competitive scenarios. Most business is surprisingly not that zero-sum. And The Price is mostly useful dealing with the father/son business dynamic. Not that relevant otherwise.

Not so.

The Prince is relevant in any organization where a strict hierarchy needs to be maintained. Which is why it was relevant here to the question of how a CEO who needs to implement a painful decision (in this case big financial cuts including laying people off) should go about it.

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've experienced, I'd like to see both "The Prince" and "The Art of War" banished from the world of business.

I want to be sure I understand your central objection to these books. I take it that your objection isn't that trying to succeed is bad. You also probably wouldn't say that the particular advice in these books is bad, though that's an interesting discussion if you do. I'm also guessing you don't have an objection to old books in general, or to business advice in general. Is your objection that these books give advice…

The Prince in particular is full of advice that runs counter to nice things we wish to believe about ourselves. That is where the phrase "Machievellian" comes from.

For example who among us wants to believe that once we come to power we should distrust those who got us there, and look for our best allies among those who had opposed us? Yet again and again in actual organizations those who think they are owed will try to take advantage of the situation, while those who have reason to fear that they never can be trusted will overcompensate for that.

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not understand devs who justify low salaries this way. Why make 50% of your potential?

What do I have to sacrifice to earn 100% more money? There's a lot more money in doing harm than doing good, and I will gladly take less money to do good.

In this case, you maybe don't have to sacrifice much at all. There are plenty of good reasons to go work at a large software organization, e.g. stability, and most startups will work you harder for less tangible benefit.

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#397
I'm sorry if I haven't read all the comments, but this post basically tells me that the company should remove both founders and have a real CEO to do the right decisions from the beginning of the growing, 34 to 94 it's 3 times the size and having retreats and perks like those mentioned are not worth it specially for such a small/young companies

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#398

I'm sorry if I haven't read all the comments, but this post basically tells me that the company should remove both founders and have a real CEO to do the right decisions from the beginning of the growing, 34 to 94 it's 3 times the size and having retreats and perks like those mentioned are not worth it specially for such a small/young companies

They're doing something very different from the run-of-the-mill kind of startup, funding, salary management and various other things.

I'm sure thousands of people have been thrilled with Buffer growing and thriving and see it as a breath of fresh air in a climate filled with bean counter CEOs who think anything and everything boils down to a number that can be turned like a set of knobs to change outcomes (and of course, most of them fail and jump to another job with a nice golden parachute). I personally think the executive compensation disparities that traditional CEOs bring in and how they deal with things are very damaging to all the humans who work with them. As a society, it doesn't forebode well at all to continue with the traditional model.

Regardless of how Buffer ends up faring in the next year or so, it will always be remembered for being different and doing things differently than most other companies. I feel bad for all the Buffer employees that they had to face this - letting go of a significant percentage of the workforce in a small company (or even a small division in a large company) can be really upsetting for everyone involved. The best that they can do, which they seem to be doing, is making sure that these people who're laid off get a decent enough job elsewhere. One can't really hope for that in many other companies.

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#399
post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> earned nearly double that for being merely "senior" Not as a base salary. No way. They earn that, but ~50% comes from equity.

What's the difference? Equity in a public company is cash. You can even lock in what your RSUs will be worth when they vest with some options contracts.

Because it's apples to oranges. You take a larger chunk of illiquid stocks/options at a private company in exchange for the risk that it won't go public one day. That's an active tradeoff people are making whether they know it or not, so you can't compare salaries at a private company and illiquid equity to salaries + liquid equity at a public company.

Re: Buffer Layoffs

#400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> cut smartly I actually think this is important. Working with an asshole is a big problem, and I fully admire leaders who know when it's time to let someone go because the situation cannot improve. It certainly beats working in a caustic environment because people are afraid to fire someone.

alas, usually in cutting environments like this the caustic assholes are the ones who stay and the ones who haven't presented their output in the best way are the ones who will be cut.

Of course people have to be smart about cutting, and things are not going to go right if the leaders are themselves unable to identify actual negative net influencers.

But in my own experience, I've worked at one specific place that was very very good about identifying people who plainly didn't help and letting them go. It helped immensely over time: the culture was really good (people were really invested in their job, and loved working as a team) and the retention rate was about 6x higher than most places in the same field.

They didn't use bogus metrics or anything, it was always a "feeling" kind of thing. If several people said someone was not helping, they were most likely right. It was arbitrary I admit, but rarely wrong.

There's books about it (e.g. https://www.amazon.com/Asshole-Rule-Civilized-Workplace-Surv...) but personally haven't read them yet.

Post reply on HN