Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

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.




You are correct I was just saying what typically does happen, not what should happen.

And when someone responds with so much misguided anger it's not even worth the effort to respond.


> 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.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: