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

Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 329 posts

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#41

Post by sidlls »

cfltlayoffs wrote: post #20
scarface74 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t get this mentality. From a meta level, Confluent isn’t profitable. In this environment, what would you have Confluent to do? The second point, a job is always transactional, you exchange labor for money and at any given time, either party can stop that transaction Also, if you are a tech person in any major city in the US, you are more than likely making at least twice the median wage in that city. If others…

Based on the people I know who work at Confluent, the messaging at all hands meetings has been that the market conditions didn't affect staffing plans. Employees make decisions based on the expectation of ongoing employment - if the CEO keeps says "we won't do layoffs" and then you buy a house and get laid off, that seems like detrimental reliance. It's also worth noting many places enshrine in law protections for la…

One should never assume anything about his employment status other than that it can end at any moment. Companies’ management might have empathy, but as a rule they absolutely don’t care about employees.

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#43

Post by lanternfish »

f6v wrote: post #23
voytec wrote: post #3

The real question is: does the CEO take full responsibility?

I mean, it’s a funny joke. But this attitude only upsets people who thought jobs were not transactional. Kind of reminds me of stories by people who paid for sex and found out the sex worker didn’t want to cuddle afterwards.

Someone could have an entirely transactional understanding of their job but assume that - alongside many implicit elements of that transaction - there's a component of through-line longevity.

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#44

Post by PLenz »

We're well into the cargo cult layoffs. CEOs need to look good to their bosses and your job is a sacrafice they are willing to make. I'm sure there are some who will make their decisions based on real data and analysis - but they'll make thier decisions independently of other firms actions. Seeing all this clustered behavior suggests little analysis is really being done here.

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#45

Post by PuppyTailWags »

scarface74 wrote: post #7
voytec wrote: post #3

The real question is: does the CEO take full responsibility?

I don’t get this mentality. From a meta level, Confluent isn’t profitable. In this environment, what would you have Confluent to do? The second point, a job is always transactional, you exchange labor for money and at any given time, either party can stop that transaction Also, if you are a tech person in any major city in the US, you are more than likely making at least twice the median wage in that city. If others…

should be able to save enough to weather a brief storm is a huge assumption. What do you do if you have dependents or complex medical needs personally? What happens if you have a personal emergency during your job search? What do you do if you have existing debt from a previous emergency, medical crisis, etc?

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#46

Post by brazzledazzle »

andsoitis wrote: post #31
juujian wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you should get your sarcasm detector checked. He was referring to the recent surge of empty CEO statements built around the "full responsibility" cliche.

Sure, but when you look at the history of comments around this theme (CEO, layoffs), it seems pretty clear that people want a CEO to take responsibility in some other way that laying off staff.

I can't speak for everyone else but a lot of what I've seen is mockery of a meaningless statement that would have been better left unsaid.

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#48

Post by unity1001 »

scarface74 wrote: post #7
voytec wrote: post #3

The real question is: does the CEO take full responsibility?

I don’t get this mentality. From a meta level, Confluent isn’t profitable. In this environment, what would you have Confluent to do? The second point, a job is always transactional, you exchange labor for money and at any given time, either party can stop that transaction Also, if you are a tech person in any major city in the US, you are more than likely making at least twice the median wage in that city. If others…

> The second point, a job is always transactional

Precisely. Corporations made jobs always transactional. Now the employees and the public are making corporations transactional by affording them no sympathy or loyalty whatsoever.

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#49

Post by WhatsName »

mtnygard wrote: post #30
mcv wrote: post #24

I really get the feeling that many companies are just blindly doing whatever other companies do. One starts large layoffs, and suddenly everybody is doing it. At other times, when one goes on a hiring spree, they all go. One tries to reduce salaries, they all do. One pays enormous bonuses, and they all do. It's like CEOs aren't really thinking for themselves, just copying whatever the market does.

I can’t comment on whether this is blind following or not. But it’s a real fact that the market will punish you less for layoffs when others are doing it too. It’s like how the best time to reveal a scandal is after someone else has revealed a bigger scandal.

That's wrong. If everyone is doing something irrational that is a big inefficiency in the market and whoever does the opposite eg. hiring will get better outcomes as opposed doing it when all do.

Re: Tell HN: Confluent laying off 8% of staff

#50

Post by slantedview »

mtnygard wrote: post #30
mcv wrote: post #24

I really get the feeling that many companies are just blindly doing whatever other companies do. One starts large layoffs, and suddenly everybody is doing it. At other times, when one goes on a hiring spree, they all go. One tries to reduce salaries, they all do. One pays enormous bonuses, and they all do. It's like CEOs aren't really thinking for themselves, just copying whatever the market does.

I can’t comment on whether this is blind following or not. But it’s a real fact that the market will punish you less for layoffs when others are doing it too. It’s like how the best time to reveal a scandal is after someone else has revealed a bigger scandal.

It's not just that the market will punish you less. Companies are hoping that the market will actually reward them for layoffs. Unfortunately, these moves can and will be damaging to long term prospects at some companies. But long term thinking isn't something markets generally care about.

It's up to companies to push back against market pressure to maintain long term progress, but it's a tough balancing act to do that while avoiding being punished by investors.

Post reply on HN