I work for Stripe and got laid off this morning. Sucks because my manager was only told this morning, and didn't have a chance to talk about how well I was doing or take any part in the decision making. We'll at least I'll get a break. I worked nights and weekends all of October.
> Sucks because my manager was only told this morning
As a manager I find their really curious. I guess they were trying to avoid leaks. I wonder how they chose who to lay off. Most recent performance rating? Next level managers impression?
Yes, it's normal for layoffs to be planned and executed by a very small group, typically to avoid leaks or creating hysteria ahead of decisions being finalized. This in turn means less-than-perfect information is available, and so less-than-scientific cuts are made.
"Ideally", your layoff strategy dictates some cuts regardless of performance: Say we're shutting down the self-driving car division, folding up recruiting, or choosing to accept the risk that comes with getting rid of the whole security team; sadly, the performance of the individuals involved isn't really considered.
Tenure, seniority, and comp are also factors that can come into play & are straightforward to establish without lower-level involvement.
It's even more common to hire one of the big consulting firms to do most of this. Every layoff at large companies I've been involved with was done via a Bain, BCG, etc...
> Say we're shutting down the self-driving car division, folding up recruiting, or choosing to accept the risk that comes with getting rid of the whole security team.
Did you intend this to be a spit take? The sentence read about the same as “Say you’re taking a stroll around town, visit a few cafés, or decide to end the day by jumping into an active volcano.”
No, I didn’t mean it that way or in reference to a specific company - although I can see how it read that way! Your comment made me laugh.
The point was more that layoffs can take out big slugs of staff without considering the individual, in a few different ways: initiatives we can just cancel completely (self driving cars); people we will likely need later but less in the shorter term (recruiting); or places where we consciously take on added risk (losing security).
I do think that for the company that sacked their security team, the executives may very well have had a full understanding of the risks it created — but couldn’t easily say so publicly (“we chose to 10x our risk of a security incident, so we keep 1 more product initiative staffed which might save us”). Just speculation. Not a situation I think many of us would be comfortable in.
frankly, as someone who is absolutely not a security expert but who pays attention to security concerns, most security efforts provide very little business benefit.
What was it Steve Yegge said in that legendary platforms rant?
"But I'll argue that Accessibility is actually more important than Security because dialing Accessibility to zero means you have no product at all, whereas dialing Security to zero can still get you a reasonably successful product such as the Playstation Network."
Even if you get bit by a huge data leak, it's just not going to matter that much (from a business perspective) if you already managed to become a big, significant part of the world (like PSN or Equifax - they're still around today, largely unimpacted by their screwups).
If you don't manage to become a big, significant part of the world, security successes or failures just won't matter that much. You don't have a lot of value, because you don't have a huge treasure trove of data, so you're not a primary target for most attackers. You'll sit there being irrelevant, and if there is a breach someday, probably neither you nor any of your handful of customers will actually notice."
Am I content that the world functions this way? No.
But I think it's important to recognize that it does.
> , typically to avoid leaks or creating hysteria ahead of decisions being finalized
When a layoff is known to be coming, the best and most employable people will often head for the doors quickly... leaving the company with a greater concentration of less desirable employees.
If it's by surprise then you'll lose fewer of the people you wanted to keep.
I don't that's really generally true. If it seems like the company is a "sinking ship", then yes, people who can see the writing on the wall and have food opportunities elsewhere will often leave quickly.
But in this case, nobody is worried about Stripe's long term trajectory or viability. I doubt the best and most employable people are leaving Stripe.
Imagine you had a recruiter call you for this next gig at great company which has +20% salary bump. Once you hear something bad is coming in your current company and no idea if you will be caught in it or not, its much easier step to just go and accept the next offer that you would otherwise pass.
I work at a company that did layoffs recently as well, about double this size.
Our managers also had no idea until day of. The entire day was spent watching co workers google calendars and slack accounts. Once they got a meeting booked with HR, their meeting titles all turned into "busy", so we would know who is getting cut and who wasn't. It was a brutal day.
In our case I don't think they were picking people based on performance whatsoever. It seemed to just be about who was paid the best and who in the org structure could have their job removed and someone else take over. Really weird.
Is it "really weird," though? Layoffs, especially when you start talking about entire teams, divisions, products, etc. is about revenue, profitability, and righting the ship (or safeguarding the ship so you don't have to right it 6 months from now). Whether Jim got "exceeds expectations" or "greatly exceeds expectations" is irrelevant when an EVP needs to trim $12M off their budget and Jim's department lost $9M last year.
A common sentiment you see on the internet (especially from younger people who haven't experience a tough labor market) is that only the low performers get laid off. So I can see how they think it's really weird if managers aren't involved.
Low performers always 100% of the time get dropped during layoffs. It's the one window that companies can mostly let go of employees without being sued. (Though, if they lay off too many people in a protected class, still can get sued). What's interesting about a lot of the division or sector-downturn layoffs, that you end up seeing solid performers, and, when you are dropping a good portion of your division - very good performers let go. Most companies try to make a play for keeping their 10x developers - but, I've been in layoffs (Browser Division, Netscape, 1997sh) - where just absolutely everyone was dropped, regardless of performance.
> Low performers always 100% of the time get dropped during layoffs.
This is totally not true. Usually they make jobs redundant not people. If there's a pool of people doing the same job and that headcount is reduced then it will often be the lowest performers that go however some places have done LIFO or cut the most expensive.
However if you're doing layoffs and you reduce your frontend team the it's likely low performers from the backend team get to stick around.
I've been through 18 layoffs since 1996, about 12 of them while in management. I can only speak to the Bay Area - practices may be different outside. You are correct, that lots of times positions/jobs are made "redundant" as part of the layoffs - but speaking as someone who both observed, and participated in the process - those "redundant" positions were quickly backfilled after the layoffs if there was any need.
The one exception might have been when the entire browser division was dropped back in Netscape - everyone was chopped there - but I can't say with certainty whether low-performing Server Division people were impacted (though IT and HR positions were chopped). So - fair, when a division or operating group is cut wholesale, low-performers in other divisions might not be dropped - but knowing the mindset of management - they really like to take advantage of a layoff as a "get out of jail free" card to let someone go. Much less stress, and way, way less paperwork.
When I saw layoffs at a small company (i.e., you could know all the engineers in the company) you could have probably guessed who they would have been by how well they seemed to perform. When I saw it in a big company, not much rhyme or reason tbh.
Which "makes sense" since companies usually try to keep the team deciding who to lay people off very small for fear of leaks. So the n people at a small company making the decisions might know everyone but the same n people at a large company might barely even know the names of all the middle-managers much less all the individual contributors and how well they are each doing within their role.
Everyone is in a protected class because everyone has a nationality, immigration status, ethnicity, sex, sexuality, etc.
The EEOC investigates workplace discrimination, so if you suspect it, it would help to file a complaint with them. They can gather evidence to determine if discrimination took/takes placr and hold the employer accountable.
One of HRs jobs is to track % of people who are > 40. If you are a company of 1000 employees, and you are 25% of each age group 20+,30+,40+,50+ and you do a 100 person layoff, and 100% of them are 40+ - you will be sued and they will almost certainly win.
I was part of lay offs some years ago. Managers didn’t know until the day of, and it wasn’t based on performance. All the performance reviews were already done months before. Some people were even due for promotions.
If layoffs are occurring, companies or managers are going to want to cut poor performers or trouble employees at that time.
So if younger employees are saying it's cutting low performers, and the rest are left as the younger and lower paid workers to pick up the slack, where senior levels are cut indiscriminately or based on salary, because they are higher paid and the goal is to cut expensive workers.
Assuming perfect information, Jim's skill being transferable, and Jim's performance eval being objective, you'd expect that the company would profit from transferring Jim and other top performers to their profitable products, and cutting the worst employees from those projects (after all, even a department making profit is likely to have some employees on the low end of the performance bell curve).
Of course that isn't as easy because of morale, team cohesion, performance evals rarely being comparable across teams, and people being not as fungible as the above suggests. Not to mention all the work this takes, in a time when you probably have other worries. So maybe it's not "really weird", just "not immediately obvious"
I feel like pc86 was just being straightforward about how those decisions are made. They can speak for themselves though.
When I was part of a mass lay-off, it was big enough to trigger CA state law where they had to detail everything. You could clearly see that it was strictly based on who was paid the most (below the managerial level).
>The 'righting' came because of shitty financial decisions made from top-down. The top should be fired first and foremost. The company wouldn't be in the position its in if management were doing their fucking jobs.
Should but rarely, if ever, happens. Some even get a larger bonus when meeting next quarter targets or some other short-term indicator.
> it was strictly based on who was paid the most (below the managerial level)
The "(below the managerial level)" part is the problem and the reason it is outrageous to people invested in a company but not in a position of power (such as the actual developers/engineers, even in a tech-centric company, at least once it has grown to a given size).
A lot of times what you'll see done is structured more as a reorg than just a straight layoff, where if they need to trim $xM from the budget, they'll start shrinking and eliminating teams at the IC level until they reach .7-.8 of that figure, then see how many "extra" managers they have and start trimming there, typically just based on seniority rather than pay. Rinse and repeat until you're at .9-1.1x depending on how many people you think will resign after the layoffs.
When you want to do broad company-wide layoffs, you have to adopt some broad strategies, otherwise it'll be way too much work to find 15% of the company. It's like trying to do surgery with a scalpel when you really need a saw to amputate an arm.
Imagine the mechanics if they involved every single low-level manager in decision making. You'd never find 15%. Everyone would justify where a person on their team or their team as a whole deserves to be saved. So you apply broader rules (eg certain products, certain types of jobs, performance based). The upside is that you can avoid people-specific favoritism. The downside is that you lose good people in those areas as you're not distinguishing good from bad.
My current company did a layoff, not quite 15%, but in that ballpark. They went down as far as the directors and gave them a number. I.e. pick X people to lose. This was in addition to some specific cuts where they axed the entire product and all teams associated with it.
It definitely allowed management to cut a few people that had been on their short list for a while.
I have a number of friends who all work at Stripe and this was definitely a secret circulating among the staff for at least the last week or so, like well beyond the "I wonder if we'll also have layoffs" rumors going around at almost every tech co right now.
I have a friend who worked at Stripe unit last year. He recently warned me that things are not going well, and he has heard rumors and I should avoid interviewing there. So I think they had some idea that something is going on.
> As a manager I find their really curious. I guess they were trying to avoid leaks.
That's something I don't quite get. This adversarial relationship between employees and employers and management is stupid. Why not tell the workforce you have to cut costs, so if you're thinking of changing careers now is the time. Whoever is left presumably wants to stay.
Like the court system being adversarial, it’s that way because it’s the only thing that scales, for a number of reasons. The longer a company can avoid it/bigger they can be without it, the better everything is. At some point however, it’s inevitable.
To answer your second question, because the ones who leave are often the ones with the most options and lowest risk to themselves if they are unemployed, which highly correlates with those who are the ‘best’ (in most hiring managers minds).
So it’s pretty common for all the ‘high performers’ to bail (happens anyway, but to a lesser extent on it’s own the moment ‘growth’ isn’t the first thing on peoples minds), and the folks left behind to be those that don’t feel comfortable finding another position.
Either because they have a mortgage hanging over their heads, or don’t feel confident in their skills, or are preoccupied with other responsibilities (kids, older parents, etc) and have less free time/are less interested in doing extra hours, or just hate interviewing, etc.
It’s basically the equivalent of a hot/pretty boyfriend or girlfriend. They are able to find other options easier, so tend to be the first to bounce if they stop getting what they want.
If you’re a manager, that’s obviously not great. Especially if you’re shallow.
> To answer your second question, because the ones who leave are often the ones with the most options and lowest risk to themselves if they are unemployed, which highly correlates with those who are the ‘best’.
Maybe, but some of these "best" people might just leave after a round of layoffs anyway right? And now you're even more short-staffed than you wanted to be.
Though the issue they are trying to solve appears to be having too many staff (overall).
Understaffing is almost always a local/team level concern.
As long as nothing important implodes after the cuts, it’s working as intended from their perspective.
The line and middle managers are the ones who always get really screwed in these situations, as they’re the ones responsible for figuring out how to keep who they need and keep things running (and growing!) while having the rug pulled out from under them staffing wise (and probably in other ways too).
This is when you figure out what (if any) power they have, how well they can prioritize, and what their personal character really is.
Will they level with people, cut things that don’t matter (as much), even if it’s a hard decision, give people flexibility where it matters, go up to bat for folks who it’s important that be done?
Or will they deflect, throw people under the bus to avoid making hard calls, and emotionally manipulate who’s left to keep things afloat while burning them out and underpaying them?
This is a crazy approach. It signals the company is on trouble so the first to go will be your best, who all have lots of options. Anyone half decent will immediately start risk diversification by looking for other opportunities. Meanwhile nothing will get done by anybody and in the end your left with the dregs.
Far better for everyone involved to do it quick rather than perfect. Those getting let go shouldn't see it coming and those staying shouldn't find out before it's all been done.
The tell in advance approach is common place in countries with strong unions. The company might need to announce layoffs half a year in advance of the actual layoffs.
In effect noone will lose their job quickly unless there is a bankruptcy.
There is probably way less confusion in that way since you know that security guards wont escort you out any minute ...
You may not get the number of volunteers you need, so you still have to do layoffs. Except now, more people have been stressing about it for a longer period of time.
The "low performers" who will have a hard time finding a new job elsewhere are unlikely to voluntarily leave. So you offer a buyout package to derisk the decision for them. But then the "high performers" who you'd rather retain might decide that yeah, it's easy to get a new job, so they'll take a sack of cash and go do something new.
Yes, there's stress associated with possible layoffs, but buyout packages and knowing it's not going to happen for, say 6 months, means there's loads of time to make the necessary adjustments. I think a big part of the stress is the suddenness of it all. Something like 50% of people are living paycheque to paycheque, so of course a sudden round of layoffs would be crazy stressful because there's a chance that your life is about to implode. Knowing you have 6 months to figure something out would not be nearly so bad.
So what I'm suggesting is that you announce ahead of time and let people who were considering a change go ahead.
Then when that deadline is reached, you offer those buyout packages to the low performers or others you don't want, until you reach your target.
I'm open to the idea that there might be some employees who would find this more humane.
However, I think a lot of people really struggle with uncertainty. During these six months, especially in a large corporate environment, there would be a lot of horse-trading. Employees will seek assurances they won't be fired. They may avoid projects or people they think are likely to get cut.
At the same time, the business likely has an idea of where they want to go. The "in" managers will navigate their preferred people to safe projects. But there isn't room in the boat for all of their employees -- after all, the business has announced the target for layoffs.
This was my experience when I was at Microsoft during their horribly ill-conceived layoffs in 2009. They basically announced that there would be 3 rounds of layoffs tallying up to 5,000 people over the next several months. It was... incredibly demoralizing.
I still remember one fellow on my team who got fired in the 2nd or 3rd round. He took it poorly (understandably!) and then ripped into the people who didn't get fired (also understandable, but still really shitty).
I don't really know that the advance warning helped him. I think he knew he was likely to get fired when layoffs were announced. Being a dead man walking... not very good for anyone, really.
I think you're saying that if you were being fired, and you were given a choice of:
(1) you're fired immediately, with 3 months severance pay
(2) 6 months notice, at the end, you're fired with no severance pay
you'd prefer the second choice?
That's reasonable!
The uncertainty I was describing in my comment applied not only to the fired employees, but to the ones who were being kept. From the company's perspective, there's value in providing clarity to those employees. That's why they'd rather pay 3 months severance (and get no labour from the employee) vs paying 6 months notice (and, theoretically, getting 6 months of labour from the employee).
that'd cause an org wide panic, and you might lose key personel in your actually profitable business units. cutting costs at this scale is not just reducing employees, it's getting rid of employees who are working in areas you need to cut. the secrecy lets management retain control.
> cutting costs at this scale is not just reducing employees, it's getting rid of employees who are working in areas you need to cut.
Sure, but if people are going to leave after cost cutting is announced, then you can often shuffle people from those areas into other areas without dealing with whole hiring rigamarole.
Apologies for the throwaway account but it's for obvious reasons.
I work at one of the mega-cap tech companies and manage a large team of engineers. It's extremely clear to me based on various pieces of information that I have access to that we'll be having a significant round of layoffs sometimes in the next quarter or two, yet I have zero involvement in the process. I suspect that at some point I'll be officially "told" that it's happening; perhaps the morning of?
Give it some time. I've been the manager of multiple engineering teams that had to undergo cuts, and in most cases I found myself in a situation similar to yours: it was obvious it was coming within months or weeks, but nobody was consulting me (which of course led me to believe I was being cut too).
But in every case, I was either consulted for input, or at least given a courtesy heads before the actual layoffs occurred.
In one case I was looped in a few weeks out and asked to help narrow things down. In another case I was simply shown a list of names the night before and offered a token opportunity to object. The list was sound, and I'm pretty sure my boss was doing me a solid on that one by sparing me the hardest decisions.
Line managers aren't always looped in for a few good reasons. Mainly, to prevent leaks. But also I think it can go a long way towards maintaining morale in a post layoff environment. There are countless anecdotes in these threads with people claiming their managers had no idea. Those same employees are now far less likely to be resentful of their managers for laying off their friends.
Best of luck. I don't envy being in your position.
There's an ongoing leak about layoffs just about for any company on Blind at any given time whether it will happen or not. Too much trolling to be ever reliable.
Sorry you're going through this and hope you don't have too much stress. I also echo the sentiment about needing a break, I wish I got laid off today. I'm not sure I can handle the Stripe culture that emerges from this.
I also wish I got laid off today. Stripe is a good company. But the Covid boom really fucked a lot of things up. I genuinely, no exaggeration, not felt my job was safe for a single day working here for over a year, and the worst part is even after this 1000 person layoff I still don't feel safe! It does not feel safe having a job that is so intimately linked to consumer spending.
The things I would have done with 14 weeks paid vacation + bonus + equity vest....
yeah it's hard for me to wrap my head around this. I'm very well paid and have a lot of money in the bank but grew up poor so the moment i'm unemployed all i can think of is the wolves will be at the door any minute. A break or like the sabbaticals people take because of "burn out" seem like an unacceptable risk to livelihood. Again, i think it just comes from growing up poor but if i'm not working i get really really scared that i'm two steps away from living in a shelter no matter how much is in savings/investments.
I don't intend to come across as trite, but based on my reading of this comment I'm sure you'll find another satisfactory job soon. Relax and enjoy the time to reflect.
I don't work at stripe, but in general after a big layoff there's still the same amount of work to be done but now you have less people to do it. It's not just the people that were laid off that are gone, but others will leave after the layoff occurs fearing more layoffs to come. Leading to even less people to do the work. It can become a downward spiral for those who are left.
At that point you really want to quit. At least until it gets to the point where the company is trying hard to keep employees That’s when they start handling out raises again
This appears to be a trend. A while ago my project owner's role went "poof" and he was notified of this via email the same morning.
The weird bit is that company policy is to award a generous notice period during which... you're not allowed to do anything.
It's been half a year now - most of the benefits of that period(like salary) are gone. He still appears to have access to the office, but nothing to do there.
I don't understand how a company which has such a program for laid off people doesn't bother to notify them in advance.
That’s actually never how it worked at Yahoo! there was a tonne of notice that redundancies were happening and further to that more notice once your job was marked at risk. Seems particularly brutal that there doesn’t seem to be a clear process or reasoning - presumably some metric in GitHub that removes all context about what the employee was doing…
Sorry to hear that. My company went through a similar deep cut in May 2020 and I also wasn't informed which of my direct reports were getting laid off. After I was informed, I fought for the new hire who joined a couple of weeks earlier who was let go over one of the underperforming engineers (who has since improved a lot after getting feedback and working with me on their issues). The new hire was already contributing more and it was clear they picked up on both technical and non-technical concepts very quickly.
Sorry to hear that. No matter what it's always tough.
But I'll share that I've been on the other side - months and months of talk of layoffs, then 6 months later announcement that layoffs will be rolled out over 3 months. Then finally hearing almost a year after rumors started.
I'll say getting it over with has a certain appeal.
Hey thunkle. Sounds like a tough spot to be in, but as you said, there's always a bright side, and who knows what lies ahead. What would be a good way to contact you?
The culture is the product of many personal decisions. If I was working nights and (especially) weekends at my current employer (another big tech company), I would be told to stop.
The pressure is there if someone on your team works nights and weekends, especially if they are senior to you. They may not even realize they are pressuring you! But it is impossible to avoid.
Something to remember, especially if you have anyone working under you - your work level will be seen as the minimum for your team members, not the exception.
I agree with the overarching sentiment, which is to lead by example (even if you're not explicitly in a leadership position).
At the same time I can accept some nuance here, e.g. working nights and weekends because you're taking some time back during the day in the week.
Similarly with remote working, if there's a wide enough timezone difference you might shift your routine to maximise overlap with the team.
I'm strongly in favour of maintaining harmony between work and life such that you're able to comfortably do both, but would not insist on a hard and fast rule.
If someone even further up the ladder says X does nights and weekends, so should the rest of the team, then the buck stops with that person, and they are contributing negatively to the culture.
It seems unreasonable to dictate the way your colleagues work because it doesn't match your own value system. If the culture of the company/team is fast paced or long hours, maybe it isn't the right fit for you.
Generally speaking though, companies should value output and results over hours. Easier said than done. Additionally, value should be placed on what one commits to do and delivers on. So if somebody is constantly having to pull late nights to complete work, they may be overcommitting. It's also possible a manager will consistently push people to overcommit: this is a problem because that can indicate poor boundaries, bad planning, poor resourcing, and so on.
> If the culture of the company/team is fast paced or long hours, maybe it isn't the right fit for you.
Sure. And if the culture of the company/team is working 40 hours a week max and calling people out when they work more than that, then maybe it isn't the right fit for you.
In Germany that is required by law (if your employer sees you working when ill, working too long, working too much - they have to force you to stop).
If not by law, then because almost noone is happy working 60-70h and it puts pressure on others who feel like they also need to work similar hours. Additionally the efficiency gets worse as the weekly hours increase.
If some % of people are doing it then everyone will eventually be pressured to do it, otherwise they'll be at the bottom of the performance list. (Unless they are very good)
Due to the recent news of other tech companies making their employees work nights and weekends before laying them off, it is easy to interpret your earlier message such that Stripe did the same.
> recent news of other tech companies making their employees work nights and weekends
Are there any companies aside from Twitter that would fall under this? Because that's the only one I've seen mentioned in the news that way, but you make it sound like there are plenty others. So I was curious if I simply missed something.
Startups. If they do the math and the trendline doesn't seem good, they'll make their teams go through a grind before layoffs. It's not necessarily to eke out a bit of productivity, per se, but they're essentially throwing hail marys in the hope that something will happen.
Of course, when it inevitably doesn't they axe a few and the rest go back to work.
But in doing so were you not influencing the culture? Depending on how promotions etc work others might feel they need to keep up with that one guy working in the weekend.
Don’t worry. Online forums are always like that. They’ll pretend like they’ve never had a high pressure job that paid out handsomely if you applied yourself and hence motivated you to work harder. To them, they think everyone should have work life balance from the age of 23 just because they’ve discovered its importance at 32 years of age.
Young people have to work hard. I don’t expect my reports to work on any evenings or weekends and if they even suggest it, I tell them not to and give them more lead. At the same time, if they override my decision and work through the evening, I am ready to answer questions over IM if I’m free too. I’m not going to say “why are you working evenings?”.
I just reached my 30s, and have pretty good WLB. Good WLB is just part of the picture though. You can work 5 hours a day and be miserable, and you can work 12 hours a day and be happy. It's also nice to have flexibility and independence I think. Being forced to work 12 hours always sucks over voluntarily working 12 hours.
I'd not recommend 23yo to stay chill in job, particularly if they have some ambition. At the same time, don't devoid yourself of other experiences in life if possible. Honestly, there is plenty of time in a day. If we have good discipline and prioritize correctly, lot can be done. That's what I struggle with personally.
Yes. Typically the guy who is working harder also happens to have varied interests. I’ve yet to see a work drone without an outside life who is doing 24/7 work. If I see them, I’d definitely limit them from work. I was the same 23 yo. I had an active social life and all the troubles of finding love etc. I did all right. Maybe a little worse than some of the folks I see today.
Unless you are born disabled, you’d better be born in a society that values hard work. At least until we reach self sustaining societies where no one needs to work, the dynamics of which are not worth speculation from our current standpoint in history.
> At least until we reach self sustaining societies
We are beyond 'self sustaining society'. We are throwing away food to protect market prices, we have planned obsolescence that makes perfectly fine devices to be thrown away to force people to buy new devices, we have more empty houses than the number of homeless.
The existing scarcity is artificial. Not something real.
Again this is incorrect. The only thing we have is artificial food security where we have issues with transport despite manufacturing enough to end global hunger. There isn’t enough housing to accommodate everyone. If you mean there are enough buildings, that is a cruel joke to the homeless.
Lol the best part though is thinking we are post scarcity. I thought this place had more brains than reddit or other idiotic forums.
It could be as well that it's an European thing. At least over here work is just work (9 to 5, or less if possible), so we prefer to spent life with friends and family. Yeah, we don't earn $500K/year, but that's alright.
Yeah exactly. I don’t think of a worker who wants to stick to 9-5 as worth less until appraisal. I may still give them a full rating but not as much in bonus. You’re already paid plenty just to do your daily job. If anyone is going above and beyond in meaningfully productive ways, they get paid more.
Maybe because you'd have to go the extra mile to outdo competition and gain a majority market share.
It isn't just the 9-5, but the idea that your job stops when you leave the office. If people see it as a transactional relationship only, it means there's less investment in the product
That is so willingly naive. A culture that allows something which grants an advantage eventually requires you do that thing by implicit force. Don’t fool yourself. This is 101 stuff and anyone who doesn’t understand this concept shouldn’t be in charge, because it doesn’t just lead to overwork but also to more pernicious evil things, see MeToo and others.
This is nonsense. You want to muzzle a hard worker because you think the rest of the workforce will not match up? What I count is the output, not if people are working evenings and nights or during the workday. Work output is capped by what I require so I hold all the cards and I’ll pay the guy who wants to work more.
So you chose to undermine your colleagues and a somewhat decent culture, to gain a lead in a race to the bottom? That's even worse than enabling a company that's already shitty.
Stripe is a competitive company with not great WLB from reviews, maybe he enjoys a fast-paced busy environment. He gets paid for it. If people at Stripe don't like that culture they can very easily leave and get a more relaxed job.
This is probably good for re-normalizing behavior.
The corporation is not your friend, and it can quickly turn on you. The bigger the corporation is, the less your realistic impact above replacement is. You may think you can climb the pyramid but it is very difficult to do so in a meaningful way at the mega corps.
If you want to work nights and weekends, do it for yourself or a small company where you can make a difference in outcomes.
Layoffs do sometimes happen this way. I was an EM at a company with layoffs where line managers were not told at all about layoffs or included in deciding who to lay off: all discussions happened at the director level and up.
I know it's true this happens because in a recent round of layoffs, my manager not only found on the very same day, but got fired himself.
During mass layoffs, your immediate manager is often not told in advance in order to stop leaks and also because he/she may be one of the people laid off. (You cannot tell only some managers and leave others out, because managers of the same level talk among themselves. The ones left out would know why).
When firing 14% staff like more than 1000 and decisions are made by handful of people it’s not about who performed better or worse it’s about firing whom will have more impact on reducing spendings and less disruption in software delivery.
I know few highly paid engineers survived twitter lay offs. They were very good in their domain, and have been working for more than 10 years at twitter.
Cost of keeping talented high performing, highly paid engineers is lesser than letting go low performing engineers.
