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

Why top firms fire good workers

rochester.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 263 posts

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#81

Post by jonahx »

unmole wrote: post #63
jonahx wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes sense that caste would amplify this effect, because unequal treatment is already a cultural norm. In the US, even in most corporate cultures, truly egregious credit stealing is harder. Not to say it never happens, just that people are generally slier about it.

Yeah, no. The white-collar workforce is almost entirely made up of people from the so called upper castes . The idea that caste has anything to do with the toxic behaviour in corporate India simply doesn't hold up.

India scores high on the Power Distance Index: https://clearlycultural.com/geert-hofstede-cultural-dimensio...

Seems like that would influence the behavior we're talking about. Maybe it's culturally independent of the caste system, but it feels like it would be connected. I don't have much personal experience here so I may be wrong.

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#82

Post by VirusNewbie »

idiotsecant wrote: post #65
autoexec wrote: post #56

> The firm starts to underpay those better workers who kept their jobs, akin to making them pay for being “chosen.” Consequently, profits do not decline and may even increase. > “Firms now essentially can threaten the remaining employees: ‘Look, I can let you go, and everybody’s going to think that you’re the worst in the pool. If you want me not to let you go, you need to accept below market wages,’” This is exactly…

For whatever reason collective bargaining is wildly unpopular on HN, which is ironic because tech workers are exactly who should be organizing their labor.

There are software engineer or tech unions, you're welcome to go work at one of them and reap the "reward" of far less money, vacation, perks, and more than if you'd work at one of the non union big tech companies.

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#83

Post by II2II »

tomnipotent wrote: post #35
rustystump wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ur clearly not the top performer… In all seriousness they mentioned India not mango fango. That said, my xp has been the same as you. Only time top performers get nixed is if a whole arm gets nixed and they get caught in the crossfire.

OP said "do well", not top performer. Thinking you're a top performer isn't the same as the company thinking you're a top performer. I've never seen someone put on a PIP that didn't deserve, even if they thought differently. Most people struggle just to keep their head above water nonetheless come up with elaborate conspiracies of sabotaging other peoples careers. No one is thinking about you that much.

I suspect the root of the problem is an unwillingness to take ownership for their action (or inaction). I've never been on a PIP. Even when I've given my employers reason to give me a verbal warning, their response has been: "that's not like you, don't let it happen again," and it hasn't happened again. I suspect that is true for most of those who have never been on a PIP.

Now I'm on the flip side, in a place where I may have to put someone on a PIP. What can be done has been done. There is only so much support and positive guidance that can be offered before you have to provide them with a plan backed with consequences for not following through. It is an employee that I don't want to lose because of their contributions, but it is also an employee that I can't afford to keep because (without changes) they are a liability. Unfortunately, previous interactions suggest that I will have to cut my losses. Yet the ball lies entirely in their court at this point because they are the one who has to take ownership for the issues they create.

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#84

Post by gedy »

idiotsecant wrote: post #65
autoexec wrote: post #56

> The firm starts to underpay those better workers who kept their jobs, akin to making them pay for being “chosen.” Consequently, profits do not decline and may even increase. > “Firms now essentially can threaten the remaining employees: ‘Look, I can let you go, and everybody’s going to think that you’re the worst in the pool. If you want me not to let you go, you need to accept below market wages,’” This is exactly…

For whatever reason collective bargaining is wildly unpopular on HN, which is ironic because tech workers are exactly who should be organizing their labor.

I can only speak for myself, but I think there is a naive idealist view of (modern, American) unions that gloss over the tradeoffs. I don't want another bureaucratic layer that tells me what to do, and run by yet more HR admin-types. We aren't working in the coal mines or steel mills here in the 1920s. Sorry I'm not interested in that for office jobs. I'm glad they still work in some countries and cultures.

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#85

Post by nrhrjrjrjtntbt »

oceanplexian wrote: post #41
anovikov wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this is how it should be. Very best of the best start their own startups. Second best, start their own consultancies. Next on, work independently. Next on, are principals in small firms - they are the irreplaceable singular employees that the owner of a small firm wholly depends on. And then the mediocre and the bad ones, that work in largest firms. This is how it's always been.

It's not that way in practice, and I've worked at a lot of startups. IMO successful founders are street smart, cunning, and good at relationships and understanding the business. Most of the really wealthy founders I've met are incredibly ordinary or above average, not "best".

Not sure what we are even measuring anymore in this discussion!

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#86

Post by esseph »

zwnow wrote: post #75
consp wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of IT jobs pay pretty meager here. There are some exceptions but not that much. You gave to be "manager" to get any decent pay most of the time.

Hmm most people I know earn well above median and whenever I look at my regions statistics it confirms that... Joining an union would mean cuts to these people. I am a fan of unions for low pay jobs but not in tech.

Unions of low wage jobs have extremely limited bargaining power compared to a much smaller group of people with far more specialized skills that are in demand.

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#87

Post by blindhippo »

gedy wrote: post #84
idiotsecant wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For whatever reason collective bargaining is wildly unpopular on HN, which is ironic because tech workers are exactly who should be organizing their labor.

I can only speak for myself, but I think there is a naive idealist view of (modern, American) unions that gloss over the tradeoffs. I don't want another bureaucratic layer that tells me what to do, and run by yet more HR admin-types. We aren't working in the coal mines or steel mills here in the 1920s. Sorry I'm not interested in that for office jobs. I'm glad they still work in some countries and cultures.

I don't care what kind or style of job - if the balance of power in any labour relationship is overwhelmingly on the employer side, collective action is the only way labour can regain a modicum of negotiating power. To think that the style of job has any bearing on this relationship is naive.

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#88

Post by zwnow »

melvinroest wrote: post #79
zwnow wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tech salaries are too high for people to do that. At least in Europe. Having an union will fuck with peoples salaries.

What companies are they working for?

In Europe you can make a lot of money in consulting given you also work a ton. With a regular 40h/w job it usually comes over time or with leadership roles. But entry level jobs are often well above median already. Not 6 digit silicon valley numbers but more than enough for my locals cost of living. Pretty company independent in my experience.

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#89

Post by kimixa »

palmotea wrote: post #70
Denote6737 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tech attracts the radical independent types.

> Tech attracts the radical independent types. No. I think it's a combination of: 1) HN being associated with a startup incubator, and thus attracting a large contingent of people who see themselves as the boss doing this, not the workers affected; 2) tech attracts a certain kind of gullible person who's easily seduced by tidy little systems like the pop-capitalism of libertarian tracts; and 3) tech workers (until re…

I kinda disagree with #2, even ignoring the adversarial wording - at most it's an extension of "HN isn't All Of Tech"

From people I've spoken to personally, I've seen it as primarily #3 - "Why do we need collective bargaining when we have negotiating power from being in high demand with lower supply?" - despite IMHO that is when you should be using that power for such, as that power will never last forever.

Don't need politics/a "type of person" to be only looking at the short term, and thinking the current status quo will last forever. It seems pretty much a constant in every demographic.

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#90

Post by zwnow »

esseph wrote: post #86
zwnow wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm most people I know earn well above median and whenever I look at my regions statistics it confirms that... Joining an union would mean cuts to these people. I am a fan of unions for low pay jobs but not in tech.

Unions of low wage jobs have extremely limited bargaining power compared to a much smaller group of people with far more specialized skills that are in demand.

Doesn't seem like tech jobs are in demand given the current job market.
Post reply on HN