Plaid Layoffs(plaid.com)
plaid.com
Plaid Layoffs
https://plaid.com/team-update/
340 comments
In the chimpanzee world, this would be handled differently.
In chimp world, when alpha chimp causes chaos that brings down the community, a group of beta chimps will tear apart alpha chimp limb-by-limb, then they elect a new alpha from the group of beta subversives. This also how the organized crime works - leaders get a lot of benefits, but they also get the downside accountability when they fuck up ("skin in the game").
In modern corporate america, this relationship is broken - when CEO fucks up, he just fires a bunch of people, and then collects the bonus at the end of year in the for of stock performance (layoffs are to maintain stock performance). This is why finds the half-hearted apologies to be hollow and unpalatable.
Let us bring back accountability. Apes. Together. Strong.
In chimp world, when alpha chimp causes chaos that brings down the community, a group of beta chimps will tear apart alpha chimp limb-by-limb, then they elect a new alpha from the group of beta subversives. This also how the organized crime works - leaders get a lot of benefits, but they also get the downside accountability when they fuck up ("skin in the game").
In modern corporate america, this relationship is broken - when CEO fucks up, he just fires a bunch of people, and then collects the bonus at the end of year in the for of stock performance (layoffs are to maintain stock performance). This is why finds the half-hearted apologies to be hollow and unpalatable.
Let us bring back accountability. Apes. Together. Strong.
If you think this is a sign that plaid is anywhere near their last valuation of $13bn, then I have news for you.
The real problem is inequality. Zach is facing consequences, but the drop from $1bn to $100mn (a 10x decline in wealth) is so much less impactful than $250k to $25k (illustrative of what an employee is more likely facing).
The real problem is inequality. Zach is facing consequences, but the drop from $1bn to $100mn (a 10x decline in wealth) is so much less impactful than $250k to $25k (illustrative of what an employee is more likely facing).
maybe for you, but if this person was living on a >$100mn lifestyle, then that 10x decline will actually hurt them!
No it won't!
They may feel bad about less yachts and luxury, but they are absolutely not hurting. No one is starving, no one is losing their housing, no one is unable to pay the heating bill.
Not even close to hurting. Lets not pity the $100mn-aires that just laid off 260+ people.
They may feel bad about less yachts and luxury, but they are absolutely not hurting. No one is starving, no one is losing their housing, no one is unable to pay the heating bill.
Not even close to hurting. Lets not pity the $100mn-aires that just laid off 260+ people.
is anyone working at bigtech that got laid off starving though?
bigtech pays a lot of money relative to US median; layoffs should suck for us but not be completely life-altering, especially given the severances/continuance of healthcare/etc.
i didn't say that big money ceo will be suffering, but spending more than you have always hurts when you can't afford the debt, and going down in lifestyle always sucks
bigtech pays a lot of money relative to US median; layoffs should suck for us but not be completely life-altering, especially given the severances/continuance of healthcare/etc.
i didn't say that big money ceo will be suffering, but spending more than you have always hurts when you can't afford the debt, and going down in lifestyle always sucks
Most tech layoffs are not software engineers, they’re other positions (which make far less money). All the companies that froze hiring have laid off massive chunks of their recruiting and hiring teams, for example.
Sales teams have been impacted eg at Adobe, and some companies are cutting HR and support staff.
But that’s not the point, even responsible “normal” workers can’t really be expected to save more than a few months of living expenses, maybe a year if they’re an older employee. I expect most full find a job before then, but that’s “months” away from a really tough time.
Even if they don’t starve, it can still be pretty negatively impactful - it’s expected many will draw into retirement and savings, or will need to move to a cheaper housing situation (which is hard in SF), or will struggle to pay for children’s education costs. Some will take on credit card debt to cover expenses, or move in with their parents, or whatever. Starving vs “this billionaire lost a few hundred million” still a lot of room for normal people to suffer.
Sales teams have been impacted eg at Adobe, and some companies are cutting HR and support staff.
But that’s not the point, even responsible “normal” workers can’t really be expected to save more than a few months of living expenses, maybe a year if they’re an older employee. I expect most full find a job before then, but that’s “months” away from a really tough time.
Even if they don’t starve, it can still be pretty negatively impactful - it’s expected many will draw into retirement and savings, or will need to move to a cheaper housing situation (which is hard in SF), or will struggle to pay for children’s education costs. Some will take on credit card debt to cover expenses, or move in with their parents, or whatever. Starving vs “this billionaire lost a few hundred million” still a lot of room for normal people to suffer.
You are wholly incorrect.
Needs are a hierarchy and the impacts along that hierarchy are non-linear.
The billionaire may complain more and often do.
Needs are a hierarchy and the impacts along that hierarchy are non-linear.
The billionaire may complain more and often do.
The problem is in real life your analogy would actually map the alphas to the ceos and the betas to the shareholders/stakeholders. The employees are nowhere in this.
Edit: as the other post said, they would be the sticks, shovels and other assorted tools…
Edit: as the other post said, they would be the sticks, shovels and other assorted tools…
I studied business in undergrad and took Organizational Behavior [1] as a class - technically, employees are stakeholders.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_behavior
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_behavior
Germany gets this balance right.
What if this is not a mistake? If you have 5 people and 10 projects, you hire 5 more to meet the need. If 4 projects go away, you fire 4 people as some would have nothing to do.
Where is the mistake?
I’m not saying it is always like this and the scenarios above is simplified to illustrate a point. However, it would be silly to assume all companies always grow in headcount, and any downsizing is the CEO somehow messing up.
Where is the mistake?
I’m not saying it is always like this and the scenarios above is simplified to illustrate a point. However, it would be silly to assume all companies always grow in headcount, and any downsizing is the CEO somehow messing up.
Just spitballing here, maybe the lesson is to not make business plans assuming "stonks always go up" and also take into account a recession.
You can't, your business strategy has to reflect stonks go up. If your funders are all thinking like stonks go up and you try to build a sustainable YoY profit generating business, you aren't producing a risk reward curve attractive in that environment, and thus won't get funded.
Maybe funders need to stop expecting interest rates would stay low forever.
What if the business plan reads something like this: When stonks go up, we hire, and when stonks go down, we fire. That does not seem stupid.
It still sucks to be fired. But the alternative world where we avoided firing at all costs, would mean not as many people getting hired when stonks go up.
It still sucks to be fired. But the alternative world where we avoided firing at all costs, would mean not as many people getting hired when stonks go up.
Overhiring right before a recession/tightening of the money supply is not exactly 'bringing chaos to the community'. With the 20/20 benefit of hindsight, its a mistake, but its not a malicious mistake.
Also, I'll remind you that the Fed is actively trying to increase unemployment. Do you think that's going to happen without people... Losing their jobs?
Also, I'll remind you that the Fed is actively trying to increase unemployment. Do you think that's going to happen without people... Losing their jobs?
I don't understand the concept of overhiring tbh. Especially for pretty level-headed services like Plaid or Stripe who have very concrete products and do not engage in pie-in-the-sky metaverses. Surely well-run fintechs can plan their work better without wasteful and dramatic swings?
> Surely well-run fintechs can plan their work better without wasteful and dramatic swings?
No, because it's really, really hard. During periods of economic upheaval, nobody can reliably predict where all of the inputs into their business, and the demand for outputs of their business are going to be six months from now.
(If they could, they should shut down all the 'productive' parts of their business, and just run an investment fund instead.)
No, because it's really, really hard. During periods of economic upheaval, nobody can reliably predict where all of the inputs into their business, and the demand for outputs of their business are going to be six months from now.
(If they could, they should shut down all the 'productive' parts of their business, and just run an investment fund instead.)
Not everyone is interested in doing investment fund things.
You have the analogy wrong though. The other apes in the corporate world are the shareholders, not the employees. The employees are the sticks the chimps use to dig up termites.
But the employees are faaaaaaaamily …
…until they’re inconvenient. Then we give them some supplies and dump them at the local fire station.
…until they’re inconvenient. Then we give them some supplies and dump them at the local fire station.
What is your solution? Burn trough money by paying some people that you don't need and then leave everyone unemployed? They are not inconvenient they are not needed anymore. At least they get some supplies. Most of the world don't get jack.
What does "don't need" mean?
The solution is to have employees at least have some seat at the table for this process. How are layoffs chosen? How are severance benefits chosen? We are currently seeing generous severance benefits at most of these companies, but absolutely nothing guarantees this. The solution is that when the CEO wants to lay off 15% of the company they go to the employees and say "okay, we need to lay off 15% of the company, let's work together to find the best way to do this."
The solution is to have employees at least have some seat at the table for this process. How are layoffs chosen? How are severance benefits chosen? We are currently seeing generous severance benefits at most of these companies, but absolutely nothing guarantees this. The solution is that when the CEO wants to lay off 15% of the company they go to the employees and say "okay, we need to lay off 15% of the company, let's work together to find the best way to do this."
And employees would come back and say "okay we decided there are no layoffs, for us it's better for you to pay us money till company is burned down"
I think the chimpanzee analogy works pretty well in the corporate world too. If the CEO fucks up, then board fires the CEO. They usually don't dismember the CEO, but I don't think it's a pleasant process for anybody. However, everyone involved in this process is compensated very well, so there's no need to feel sorry about it.
Tired: effective altruism
Wired: agAPE
Wired: agAPE
Are you advocating for mob violence against CEOs for laying people off?
Is this pearl-clutching, or do you honestly believe GP was suggesting we should become literal Chimpanzees and mobsters?
GP is using violent analogies.
I am advocating for accountability.
Understand: accountability has a way of manifesting itself one way or another. Today, we complain on the internet. Next week, we see more riots where people tag walls with "eat the rich." Next year, the guillotines come out. [1]
[1] This is a loose analogy that is not meant to be taken literally.
Understand: accountability has a way of manifesting itself one way or another. Today, we complain on the internet. Next week, we see more riots where people tag walls with "eat the rich." Next year, the guillotines come out. [1]
[1] This is a loose analogy that is not meant to be taken literally.
The CEO will be held accountable by the board and shareholders.
and they'll be sentenced to live out the rest of their days in parasailing from the golden chute. Such accountable!
I mean you could say the same for SV engineers. They could completely fuck up their job, eventually get fired and live fat on their equity.
Sure it's not the same amount of money, but you seem to be suggesting we should claw back compensation if someone doesn't do their job.
You really want to open that can of worms?
Sure it's not the same amount of money, but you seem to be suggesting we should claw back compensation if someone doesn't do their job.
You really want to open that can of worms?
Parent may not be advocating it, but one would have to be willfully blind not to see a tremendous spike in related chatter online ('eat the rich' comes to mind ). If it is not addressed, it will only fester. Open discussion is a way to release some of that pressure.
If it ever came down to eat the rich I’m sorry to say, but the tech crowd, including employees would be the first up against the wall.
Hilarious how employees who make a salary 3-4X the US median somehow think they are the proletariat.
Hilarious how employees who make a salary 3-4X the US median somehow think they are the proletariat.
Revolutions are usually led by members of privileged classes, backed by the angry masses.
Nobody here is saying they desire that type of violent unrest, they're saying it's a likely outcome unless we change course, because as bad as it is for tech workers right now it's so much worse for those less privileged.
There's also the realisation that if even the most highly skilled workers in society can be treated so cavalierly and have not have enough certainty of employment and success then the system is broken.
Nobody here is saying they desire that type of violent unrest, they're saying it's a likely outcome unless we change course, because as bad as it is for tech workers right now it's so much worse for those less privileged.
There's also the realisation that if even the most highly skilled workers in society can be treated so cavalierly and have not have enough certainty of employment and success then the system is broken.
I think the issue is that the lower classes look at the average tech worker and consider them a part of the problem.
When they start lining people up claiming you’re “middle class” making $400k per year isn’t likely going to work.
When they start lining people up claiming you’re “middle class” making $400k per year isn’t likely going to work.
Sure, but I don't see how that contradicts what is being said here. You're assuming that commentators are welcoming a violent uprising because they think it would benefit them, but they're not. They're warning that one is likely if this continues, and even though it would be justified it wouldn't be pleasant. Least of all to people in more privileged positions.
The social contract is out of whack, and just because a lot of people struggling might look at tech workers as part of the problem (and not be entirely wrong, given tech's role in automating away jobs), doesn't mean those of us in the industry ought to then side with billionaires and the ever more concentrated concentration of capital. It means we should be doing our best to make sure the system becomes more equitable.
The social contract is out of whack, and just because a lot of people struggling might look at tech workers as part of the problem (and not be entirely wrong, given tech's role in automating away jobs), doesn't mean those of us in the industry ought to then side with billionaires and the ever more concentrated concentration of capital. It means we should be doing our best to make sure the system becomes more equitable.
You're assuming that commentators are welcoming a violent uprising because they think it would benefit them, but they're not.
I see a lot of people talking like they’re on the same side as labor while lamenting their equity only returned 50% and not 300% like last year.
I see a lot of people talking like they’re on the same side as labor while lamenting their equity only returned 50% and not 300% like last year.
The vast majority of workers in tech don't get equity, and certainly not at those scales, to be fair.
Most are labor, as properly defined. They may earn less, but it's the same business relationship.
Most are labor, as properly defined. They may earn less, but it's the same business relationship.
They’d be called kulaks. “Wealthy” farmers.
Not every reaction against entrenched capital is a carbon copy rerun of the Bolshevik takeover.
I am concerned that you are not seeing the point parent listed and default to forcing the Russian revolution analogy even though it does nothing for the point itself. I guess I will try rephrasing it a little bit in an effort to hopefully clear it a little.
Few here would not recognize their privileged position in US society ( edit: come to think of it, almost any society today; even in North Korea, hackers are deemed useful if I remember correctly and fare better under that regime than rest of the population; still, I wanted to focus on US ). And I think most here know that a mob won't be particularly inclined to ask multiple choice questions or introspection to determine your social status ( as you indicated with kulaks example.. just having a farm will be enough ) and allegiance to the cause.
The issue is, however, that system is indeed broken. Just the other day I had a conversation with business owner, who claimed WFH is bad, because a chat with a person isn't fast enough ( implication being if I can't yell at you in person, it does not count ), things are delayed/wrong ( because of WFH ) and I will either return and comply or be replaced. The interesting thing about it is that he was actually trying to restrain himself as I was not his employee ( but the guy was angry ). He stopped talking to me once I asked if he thinks that it seems like the communication is the issue to solve here. But the guy was not interested in a solution. He ran that business for decades now. This is just how he operates and does not want to adjust. And that is ok, but I get a distinct feeling this is how managers across US are feeling.
They want to be able to just issue vague layoff threats to get people in line. I am almost certain that I wrote this here before, but as one overheard manager bemoaned 'I had to throw my entire toolbox away for Covid.' Manager class does not want to change what they had and see now as an opportunity to re-establish pre-covid power structure, which was already out of whack. They had a good tool and covid ruined it.
From manager's perspective, the issue comes from the fact that knowledge workers are not as easily located to be replaced. There is simply less of a pool of desirable candidates. Even for relatively easy ( and popular now ) things to learn like Python, it is hard for multiple reasons including one, where HR and sometimes even hiring manager does not know much about.
FWIW, I buy that there is some level of resentment from lower middle class ( even though I do perceive myself as a part of middle class now, which gives you an idea of how easily distorted concept is is - maybe we should start talking about income brackets; that would maybe open some eyes ) and below.
My main point stands though. There is anger. It has to be addressed. When stuff like that is not addressed, bad things happen ( usually across the board including eventually to the mob if French revolution is any indicator ). HN crowd may well be 'kulaks' in today's society ( although I would dispute that comparison ), but it does not change the validity of previous sentence.
Few here would not recognize their privileged position in US society ( edit: come to think of it, almost any society today; even in North Korea, hackers are deemed useful if I remember correctly and fare better under that regime than rest of the population; still, I wanted to focus on US ). And I think most here know that a mob won't be particularly inclined to ask multiple choice questions or introspection to determine your social status ( as you indicated with kulaks example.. just having a farm will be enough ) and allegiance to the cause.
The issue is, however, that system is indeed broken. Just the other day I had a conversation with business owner, who claimed WFH is bad, because a chat with a person isn't fast enough ( implication being if I can't yell at you in person, it does not count ), things are delayed/wrong ( because of WFH ) and I will either return and comply or be replaced. The interesting thing about it is that he was actually trying to restrain himself as I was not his employee ( but the guy was angry ). He stopped talking to me once I asked if he thinks that it seems like the communication is the issue to solve here. But the guy was not interested in a solution. He ran that business for decades now. This is just how he operates and does not want to adjust. And that is ok, but I get a distinct feeling this is how managers across US are feeling.
They want to be able to just issue vague layoff threats to get people in line. I am almost certain that I wrote this here before, but as one overheard manager bemoaned 'I had to throw my entire toolbox away for Covid.' Manager class does not want to change what they had and see now as an opportunity to re-establish pre-covid power structure, which was already out of whack. They had a good tool and covid ruined it.
From manager's perspective, the issue comes from the fact that knowledge workers are not as easily located to be replaced. There is simply less of a pool of desirable candidates. Even for relatively easy ( and popular now ) things to learn like Python, it is hard for multiple reasons including one, where HR and sometimes even hiring manager does not know much about.
FWIW, I buy that there is some level of resentment from lower middle class ( even though I do perceive myself as a part of middle class now, which gives you an idea of how easily distorted concept is is - maybe we should start talking about income brackets; that would maybe open some eyes ) and below.
My main point stands though. There is anger. It has to be addressed. When stuff like that is not addressed, bad things happen ( usually across the board including eventually to the mob if French revolution is any indicator ). HN crowd may well be 'kulaks' in today's society ( although I would dispute that comparison ), but it does not change the validity of previous sentence.
There's 'Eat the rich' in the sense of 'They are taking way too much of the pie for themselves', which is a perfectly reasonable conversation to have.
And there's this sense of 'Eat the rich', which is trying to find a scapegoat for a... Company whose operations depended on access to cheap credit is laying people off... In an environment where the Fed is actively trying to create unemployment, by raising the cost of credit.
And there's this sense of 'Eat the rich', which is trying to find a scapegoat for a... Company whose operations depended on access to cheap credit is laying people off... In an environment where the Fed is actively trying to create unemployment, by raising the cost of credit.
To Powell's credit, after the initial pushback, he toned that rhetoric down a little so that it is now a lot more benign. And, it seems for now, rates will not be raised as rapidly. I guess only time will tell.
[deleted]
The equivalent of our behavior in chimp world would be layoffs turning to execution, not removal from a job.
I'm sure someone educated enough to use the internet can argue in good faith and relativate what the human world equivalent of chimp behavior would be.
I'm sure someone educated enough to use the internet can argue in good faith and relativate what the human world equivalent of chimp behavior would be.
He mentioned organized crime. He is hinting at violent responses to layoffs.
I think mob violence against individuals is pretty bad. However, it would probably be a better system than the brutal precarious system we have now
I asked ChatGPT and it was close.
> Write a letter from the CEO of a company called Floof where employees are called Floofernistas about the lay off of 5000 employees.
<<<
Dear Floofernistas,
It is with great sadness that I must announce that Floof will be laying off 5000 of our beloved Floofernistas. This decision was not made lightly, and it is with a heavy heart that we must part ways with so many valued members of our team.
Please know that this decision was not a reflection of your hard work and dedication to Floof. Each and every one of you has contributed to the success of our company, and we are grateful for your contributions.
Unfortunately, external factors have forced us to make this difficult decision. Rest assured that we will be providing severance packages and job placement assistance to help you through this transition. We are committed to supporting you during this difficult time.
Thank you for being a part of the Floof family. We will always be grateful for your hard work and dedication, and we wish you the very best in your future endeavors.
Sincerely, [CEO of Floof]
> Write a letter from the CEO of a company called Floof where employees are called Floofernistas about the lay off of 5000 employees.
<<<
Dear Floofernistas,
It is with great sadness that I must announce that Floof will be laying off 5000 of our beloved Floofernistas. This decision was not made lightly, and it is with a heavy heart that we must part ways with so many valued members of our team.
Please know that this decision was not a reflection of your hard work and dedication to Floof. Each and every one of you has contributed to the success of our company, and we are grateful for your contributions.
Unfortunately, external factors have forced us to make this difficult decision. Rest assured that we will be providing severance packages and job placement assistance to help you through this transition. We are committed to supporting you during this difficult time.
Thank you for being a part of the Floof family. We will always be grateful for your hard work and dedication, and we wish you the very best in your future endeavors.
Sincerely, [CEO of Floof]
And BTW, I take full responsibility for everything, which means nothing.
In the words of Gavin Belson:
“Make no mistake, though they are the ones leaving, it is I who must remain and endure the heavy burden of their failure.”
“Make no mistake, though they are the ones leaving, it is I who must remain and endure the heavy burden of their failure.”
"Goodbyes are always hard, especially when I am the one saying goodbye. Today, effective immediately, I, Gavin Belson, founder and CEO of Hooli, am forced to officially say goodbye...to the entire Nucleus division.
But make no mistake, though they are the ones leaving, it is I who must remain and bear the heavy burden of their failure. It is my fault, I trusted them to get the job done, but that is the price of leadership."
Incredible writing by Mike Judge and co, it's satire that's literally too real sometimes.
But make no mistake, though they are the ones leaving, it is I who must remain and bear the heavy burden of their failure. It is my fault, I trusted them to get the job done, but that is the price of leadership."
Incredible writing by Mike Judge and co, it's satire that's literally too real sometimes.
"Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make." - Lord Farqaad.
Narcissists think the worst punishment in the world is having to admit they were wrong about something.
Not cleaning up their messes, of course. That’s still on everybody else. They’re too busy contending with this harsh reality of not being right all the time.
Which means if anyone says they take full responsibility, they’re either saying “I’m a big fat narcissist” or that they imprinted on narcissists, so all of their mentors were.
Not cleaning up their messes, of course. That’s still on everybody else. They’re too busy contending with this harsh reality of not being right all the time.
Which means if anyone says they take full responsibility, they’re either saying “I’m a big fat narcissist” or that they imprinted on narcissists, so all of their mentors were.
> Which means if anyone says they take full responsibility, they’re either saying “I’m a big fat narcissist” or that they imprinted on narcissists, so all of their mentors were.
Kind of a stretch, no?
Kind of a stretch, no?
Grandparent talks about how taking responsibility means nothing. That’s what I was referring to. When’s the last time you saw someone actually take responsibility?
When it’s a teen pregnancy or injuring a pedestrian, we know what “taking responsibility” means. For layoffs there are no actions, no alteration of life paths. Even the money for severance really comes out of someone else’s pockets. It means nothing for the person saying it. Everyone else suffers the consequences, not the speaker.
Claiming you’re to blame is the only penance. That only makes sense to people who won’t normally do that. Which is people who think in narcissistic personality traits are normal. IE narcissists and people they groomed.
When it’s a teen pregnancy or injuring a pedestrian, we know what “taking responsibility” means. For layoffs there are no actions, no alteration of life paths. Even the money for severance really comes out of someone else’s pockets. It means nothing for the person saying it. Everyone else suffers the consequences, not the speaker.
Claiming you’re to blame is the only penance. That only makes sense to people who won’t normally do that. Which is people who think in narcissistic personality traits are normal. IE narcissists and people they groomed.
To be clear, _saying_ that one takes full responsibility without further action means nothing.
Responsibility for a bad thing means that you are ultimately to blame, so if you take responsibility, you should either step down or present a detailed action plan. Otherwise you're saying "I messed this up and I also don't know how to fix it but I don't intend to stop being the leader"--which is (ironically) a very irresponsible stance.
Responsibility for a bad thing means that you are ultimately to blame, so if you take responsibility, you should either step down or present a detailed action plan. Otherwise you're saying "I messed this up and I also don't know how to fix it but I don't intend to stop being the leader"--which is (ironically) a very irresponsible stance.
[deleted](1)
>>Kind of a stretch, no?
Nope. Not unless there are actions to backup the words. Some kind of actual sacrifice that helps actually cleanup the mess.
E.g., do the CEO & Execs give back all bonuses and substantial salary for the past X years these bad decision were made, and keep working for $1/year until they are fixed? Do the CEO & Execs personally make calls using their own personal & professional capital to find new jobs for those they are firing?
If not, it is just performative bullshirt.
Nope. Not unless there are actions to backup the words. Some kind of actual sacrifice that helps actually cleanup the mess.
E.g., do the CEO & Execs give back all bonuses and substantial salary for the past X years these bad decision were made, and keep working for $1/year until they are fixed? Do the CEO & Execs personally make calls using their own personal & professional capital to find new jobs for those they are firing?
If not, it is just performative bullshirt.
Strangely Steve Jobs did in fact work for $1 a year. A couple others have as well. Might be why he’s one of the most highly regarded narcissists. He was smart enough to intellectually understand why was better off delaying his gratification to build morale, even if intuition and empathy didn’t tell him this instantly.
To me it means something. To write to the world that you made a mistake and you were responsible takes courage.
It may lead to change. It may not. But it’s important part of normal apologies.
I suspect what you are missing is specific action - what is this person specifically going to do differently?
It may lead to change. It may not. But it’s important part of normal apologies.
I suspect what you are missing is specific action - what is this person specifically going to do differently?
Responsibility implies consequences.
“I take responsibility, so I’m returning my dividends from the last two years and making my salary 0 until things improve”
“I take responsibility, so I’m returning my dividends from the last two years and making my salary 0 until things improve”
Would this move the needle on layoffs or the business or merely satisfy a desire for moral dessert?
One team of engineers costs between one and three million dollars a year.
One team of engineers costs between one and three million dollars a year.
Not a native English speaker here. I’m not familiar with the expression “moral dessert”, but it sounds bad. I will try to explain.
Words are important. “I take full responsibility” means what, exactly? To me it sounds incomplete. Like the phrase “you are very important to me”. There’s something missing there. “You are very important to me, so I will make sure this doesn’t happen again”. Or, “I will try to flush the toilet after I pee on it”. Something.
Ok, you take full responsibility, so what?
Words are important. “I take full responsibility” means what, exactly? To me it sounds incomplete. Like the phrase “you are very important to me”. There’s something missing there. “You are very important to me, so I will make sure this doesn’t happen again”. Or, “I will try to flush the toilet after I pee on it”. Something.
Ok, you take full responsibility, so what?
Plaid doesn't pay dividends and his salary is most likely peanuts compared to his shares in the company, whose valuation just tanked.
That’s not the point. The point is that “I take responsibility” is like “You all have my thoughts and prayers”. All talk, no substance. It’s better to say nothing than to say empty things, when people are losing their jobs.
[deleted]
Something, sure and I even agree with your post in general. The way to measure our growth as human beings is whether we make the same mistakes. That said, I honestly think you give CEO here way too much credit.
I went through that release and did a quick search for mistake and/or responsibility. No hits. Do you know why that is the case? Well, apart from legalistic part that would suggest he is guilty of something, there is a psychological part that is unfortunately best explained by actions of a fictional psychopath Dennis Reynolds[1]: 'only "take responsibility" in a very non-specific manner'. It works, because while Plaid CEO did apologize ( no 'apologies' in article, but there is a 'I am truly sorry.'), but nothing specific.
However, the way our brains function, we infer the admission of mistake and taking responsibility from that one phrase.
It is very annoying that it works, but it does work.
[1]https://itsalwayssunny.fandom.com/wiki/Wolf_Cola:_A_Public_R...
I went through that release and did a quick search for mistake and/or responsibility. No hits. Do you know why that is the case? Well, apart from legalistic part that would suggest he is guilty of something, there is a psychological part that is unfortunately best explained by actions of a fictional psychopath Dennis Reynolds[1]: 'only "take responsibility" in a very non-specific manner'. It works, because while Plaid CEO did apologize ( no 'apologies' in article, but there is a 'I am truly sorry.'), but nothing specific.
However, the way our brains function, we infer the admission of mistake and taking responsibility from that one phrase.
It is very annoying that it works, but it does work.
[1]https://itsalwayssunny.fandom.com/wiki/Wolf_Cola:_A_Public_R...
"I take full responsibility! But I'll still be keeping my job, pay, and maybe getting a bonus for making this difficult decision to maintain our stock value."
Bo Burnham:
We used to have all the money and land. We still do, but it’s not as fun now.
We used to have all the money and land. We still do, but it’s not as fun now.
[deleted]
Reminds me of Connor Roy's funeral speech from Succession https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEdOB9OIh70
Oh my god.
Haven’t watched the show, but that feels more like the wedding speech in Sherlock (“high functioning sociopath”).
Haven’t watched the show, but that feels more like the wedding speech in Sherlock (“high functioning sociopath”).
I don't get this sentiment that's been picking up around here, the company literally does not have to provide you severance, and in this case it's 16 weeks pay. That's 4 months to find another job, and you're being paid to do it!
Companies aren't these charitable job factories you make them out to be, they're trying to make money. And in this case, they messed up.
Any ideas what they should have done better? I mean I guess personally 10 years pay would be nice, wouldn't it?
Companies aren't these charitable job factories you make them out to be, they're trying to make money. And in this case, they messed up.
Any ideas what they should have done better? I mean I guess personally 10 years pay would be nice, wouldn't it?
I thought companies had to provide 60 days warning (the WARNS act?), so half would be the minimum required by law. Or they could notify people of layoffs 60 days ahead, giving people ample time to look for new jobs, plan accordingly, perhaps leave early AND give severance (which was the original intent of the law I expect).
What's the better response here? (Other than not over-hiring in the first place).
For this specific case, not much. They've been soft-signalling this for at least weeks. H-1B holders have termination date + 2 months to find a new job (both in terms of 4 months severance & in terms of immigration law), so they're good til April. The rest of us have 4 months of income (2 months of pay + 2 months lump sum) so we're also good til April even if we have $0 in rainy day funds. The revenue/cost problem highlighted in the email has been widespread company knowledge since at least July, and sincere efforts were made out in the open to cut costs elsewhere so as not to incur this problem.
These layoffs have been signalled for at least weeks, and the signal's been clear enough that it's most of our internal Blind discussion.
I suspect the backlash on this thread is more ideological than anything. "Plaids" is not something I would even take notice of, let alone issue with, because this company has a genuine, strong, caring culture. Even the layoffs came with a personal touch with a barrage of 1:1's and offers to help. Insofar as the layoffs could not have been avoided without dampening the company's position in a competitive space, I do not understand why people are getting so mad on my and others' behalf. It was either this or a SaaS startups not being able to put SaaS margins and getting eaten by its competitors as it tries to figure out growth.
These layoffs have been signalled for at least weeks, and the signal's been clear enough that it's most of our internal Blind discussion.
I suspect the backlash on this thread is more ideological than anything. "Plaids" is not something I would even take notice of, let alone issue with, because this company has a genuine, strong, caring culture. Even the layoffs came with a personal touch with a barrage of 1:1's and offers to help. Insofar as the layoffs could not have been avoided without dampening the company's position in a competitive space, I do not understand why people are getting so mad on my and others' behalf. It was either this or a SaaS startups not being able to put SaaS margins and getting eaten by its competitors as it tries to figure out growth.
Certainly not referring to the people that just lost their jobs as "Plaids". Yuck
But "we're family!"
Nope; employees are just a tool to use in a branding exercise for VCs, shareholders, and Wall Street.
So glad these grifts are ending.
Nope; employees are just a tool to use in a branding exercise for VCs, shareholders, and Wall Street.
So glad these grifts are ending.
Why? That seems entirely innocuous?
I'll try to explain why I think it's gross.
All of these tech companies come up with cutesy terms for employees. "Googlers", "Plaids", "Metamates", "Splunkers", "Pinployees". It seems like a cheap way of tying workers' identities to The Company.
It's a cheap gesture used in an attempt to create a distinct "culture".
So in the context of a mass-termination, it really rubs me the wrong way to refer to these people as "Plaids". They're clearly not that, because you're sending them packing!
Lets get back to identifying our personnel with real terms. Employee, technician, associate, etc.
EDIT: NYTimes does a good job with this: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/16/technology/metamates-goog...
All of these tech companies come up with cutesy terms for employees. "Googlers", "Plaids", "Metamates", "Splunkers", "Pinployees". It seems like a cheap way of tying workers' identities to The Company.
It's a cheap gesture used in an attempt to create a distinct "culture".
So in the context of a mass-termination, it really rubs me the wrong way to refer to these people as "Plaids". They're clearly not that, because you're sending them packing!
Lets get back to identifying our personnel with real terms. Employee, technician, associate, etc.
EDIT: NYTimes does a good job with this: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/16/technology/metamates-goog...
Hi, I was affected by this layoff unfortunately.
Plaid just gave me 16 weeks of pay, 6 months of insurance premiums, waived the vesting cliff I hadn't hit yet, and let me go with way more dignity than I've ever seen in my 20 year career (19 of those years spent at "normal" non-silicone Valley companies)...
...they can call me whatever the hell they want at this point and I'll be OK with it lol
Plaid just gave me 16 weeks of pay, 6 months of insurance premiums, waived the vesting cliff I hadn't hit yet, and let me go with way more dignity than I've ever seen in my 20 year career (19 of those years spent at "normal" non-silicone Valley companies)...
...they can call me whatever the hell they want at this point and I'll be OK with it lol
Isn't it absolutely amazing that VCs are willing to pay you 4 months worth of income to do absolutely nothing?
Having worked at tech companies with cutesy employee nicknames, I really think that's overthinking it. It is probably a way to try to have more corporate unity, but it does not do so to a noticeable extent. And IMO it's more about tech companies trying to capture the whimsy of early Google - it's trying to have the vibe of "hey, it's a casual place - we call ourselves a stupid, silly nickname in our stupid, silly named company, as opposed to [Name] and [Name] corp." It worked better with Google, because Googler, and Noogler are extra ridiculous, but that's pretty much it.
I can guarantee you that the letter referred to Plaid employees as "Plaids" is quite literally the last thing on the minds of any current or ex Plaid employees. It's not that big of a deal. It's not particularly dehumanizing, nor brainwashing. It's mildly cringy, half by design, but that's about it.
I can guarantee you that the letter referred to Plaid employees as "Plaids" is quite literally the last thing on the minds of any current or ex Plaid employees. It's not that big of a deal. It's not particularly dehumanizing, nor brainwashing. It's mildly cringy, half by design, but that's about it.
They're ex-plaids. Some dark humor could be done with a Monty Python sketch about a parrot.
My take on it is I don't really care. Anything they say is meaningless because it has no cash value to me. If they need to say something to make themselves feel better or make their investors feel better, well, that doesn't involve me at all. When I get laid off, my immediate focus is on finding another job, because I have a family to take care of.
not firing people when profit line goes down somewhat
If profit goes down somewhat, you don't layoff people. If do, well, as a manager / company you do your job poorly.
If profits turn down a lot, or funding runs out, you have to layoff people. If you don't, or do it to late or in not sufficient or too high numbers, as a manager / company you do your job poorly.
Saidly there seem to be companies that do their jobs badly. Currently I have the feeling that the second option applies in my case...
If profits turn down a lot, or funding runs out, you have to layoff people. If you don't, or do it to late or in not sufficient or too high numbers, as a manager / company you do your job poorly.
Saidly there seem to be companies that do their jobs badly. Currently I have the feeling that the second option applies in my case...
What's incredible is how much better these messages are than some of the earlier attempts we saw, which were cloaked in business-speak to the point where what was happening was totally unclear. There were also some companies that tried to just do it with no formal announcement. That generally went poorly.
Companies have definitely improved, remember people being laid off via Zoom calls?
aside from the funny proper noun, how should things be handled differently? why do people think that corporations' primary goal should be to maintain employment of everyone in their company, that there's some sort of moral imperative to do so? is this just because social media has been pretending that corporations are people for so long now that we've forgot that they actually aren't?
This is a pretty cynical take on the idea of retaining qualified employees during a downturn. When I hear people talk about doing what you can to not have mass layoffs I don't think what they mean is that the company has an obligation to the employees that overrides their obligations to their shareholders. The way I read it is that people are saying that retaining good employees is beneficial to the company and the shareholders compared to the morale hit of a mass layoff.
If companies are using mass layoffs to get rid of the "chaff", so to speak, then they have a management problem. Maybe all these companies performing mass layoffs do really have a management problem and hired way more than they should have. But if that's the case maybe the first step is to rectify the management problem rather than to layoff 10-20% of the staff. There really isn't a way that can be done smartly so that you retain the best people and don't destroy morale, effectively harming the shareholders in the long term.
If companies are using mass layoffs to get rid of the "chaff", so to speak, then they have a management problem. Maybe all these companies performing mass layoffs do really have a management problem and hired way more than they should have. But if that's the case maybe the first step is to rectify the management problem rather than to layoff 10-20% of the staff. There really isn't a way that can be done smartly so that you retain the best people and don't destroy morale, effectively harming the shareholders in the long term.
> When I hear people talk about doing what you can to not have mass layoffs I don't think what they mean is that the company has an obligation to the employees that overrides their obligations to their shareholders
Depends on who's talking/the situation. When you hear people talking about not closing a profitable factory instead of laying people off to delocalize, that's pretty much what they mean.
Depends on who's talking/the situation. When you hear people talking about not closing a profitable factory instead of laying people off to delocalize, that's pretty much what they mean.
> the morale hit of a mass layoff.
this is really hard to quantify, especially when it's increasingly becoming standard operating procedure across the industry.
this is really hard to quantify, especially when it's increasingly becoming standard operating procedure across the industry.
I think people are increasingly uncomfortable seeing the price for strategic errors not being paid at all by the people responsible for those errors. It's tricky because I don't necessarily think the CEO should be fired, but it feels like the chain of accountability is broken.
I hate Plaid as a company and I chortled at this.
The next tech boom may not include any sort of unionizing, but I feel like we should all agree that tech companies don't get to pick "fun" names to call their employees and make that the line we draw in the sand.
The next tech boom may not include any sort of unionizing, but I feel like we should all agree that tech companies don't get to pick "fun" names to call their employees and make that the line we draw in the sand.
Out of curiousity, why do you have Plaid? They were pretty aggressively recruiting over the past year and while I didn't respond I was tempted to at least look into them.
Not OP, but the idea of trusting Plaid to safely store the username and password to my bank account (ie, one of the most sensitive online accounts that I have) seems too risky to tolerate.
I also suspect it’s a violation of my bank’s terms of service, and in event of a data breach I’d be out of luck
I also suspect it’s a violation of my bank’s terms of service, and in event of a data breach I’d be out of luck
Basically this, and the fact that so many other fintech companies try to act like the only possible option is to use Plaid (seriously, a lot of them will only let you connect accounts via Plaid.)
It's already a service I don't trust, and the attempt of other companies to force me to use it has made me dislike it even more.
It's already a service I don't trust, and the attempt of other companies to force me to use it has made me dislike it even more.
"Signed, rich guy who hopes that shareholders react positively to these layoffs"
Signed, guy who
- is trying to build a useful product
- thought he might be rich by now
- turns out to be worth nothing until profit turns black
- is facing the downside of a free market economy
- is having one of the worst days of his/her life
- will be forgotten by the internet (again) in about 2 days
> is having one of the worst days of his/her life
Oh no, how sad. <Insert Woody Harrelson wiping tears with money gif here>
Pretty sure the people being laid off are having far worse days than the person who gasp had to write a letter.
Oh no, how sad. <Insert Woody Harrelson wiping tears with money gif here>
Pretty sure the people being laid off are having far worse days than the person who gasp had to write a letter.
They all received very generous severance packages. Pretty sure most who were laid off in this economy have had far worse days.
If half of us have less than five years of experience, you’re at least half wrong. I have a young friend who’s being forced out of her first real gig. She is not handling it well. She’s moving halfway across the country to work in an industry that I think is going to harm her emotionally.
But you can offer advice and if they don’t take it there’s nothing to can for them except be supportive. Some lessons get learned the hard way.
There are going to be a lot of young people and other folks without a nest egg freaking the fuck out even with the severance.
But you can offer advice and if they don’t take it there’s nothing to can for them except be supportive. Some lessons get learned the hard way.
There are going to be a lot of young people and other folks without a nest egg freaking the fuck out even with the severance.
i mean sure, yeah, they're maybe cash-rich, but firing people still sucks unless you're inhuman. knowingly upending hundreds of lives and families who are less financially secure during a not-recession-recession and a slow hiring market must be emotionally difficult to deal with.
Seriously? What even is this take?
It's nowhere *near* as emotionally difficult as... You know... Being the person who's life got upended.
It's nowhere *near* as emotionally difficult as... You know... Being the person who's life got upended.
If you asked both of them who’d they rather be in this scenario, they’d give you the same answer.
Is it the company's responsibility to employ people until it runs out of money?
Are you certain that "here is some money" is just to keep the internet anger at bay?
Do companies exist to protect their employees, or to provide something useful for their customers?
Are you certain that "here is some money" is just to keep the internet anger at bay?
Do companies exist to protect their employees, or to provide something useful for their customers?
A lot of us who’ve done this long enough know what the reality is, but companies always like to pretend “we’re a family” to manipulate their employees into working harder. Especially in tech where there’s a long history of company’s saying their values are lofty goals like “don’t be evil” when it’s really “make me, the founder, fabulously wealthy”.
You shouldn’t be surprised at people being legitimately angry everytime this type of hypocrisy comes up
You shouldn’t be surprised at people being legitimately angry everytime this type of hypocrisy comes up
There are some privately owned companies (maybe some public benefit companies) that have done things other than layoffs - some have take "universal paycuts until business improves" - instead of laying off 10% everyone takes a 10% paycut (sometimes management/owner takes more).
Those companies are usually very quiet and not in the news. Others have so much "normal churn" that they can do effectively a layoff by just slowing hiring.
Those companies are usually very quiet and not in the news. Others have so much "normal churn" that they can do effectively a layoff by just slowing hiring.
> Do companies exist to protect their employees, or to provide something useful for their customers?
Investors will tell you companies exist to return value to shareholders. The customers and employees are just a means to that end.
Investors will tell you companies exist to return value to shareholders. The customers and employees are just a means to that end.
Yes, that's a good point.
[deleted]
> Is it the company's responsibility to employ people until it runs out of money?
To some degree, yes. Businesses are often portrayed as "job creators" that provide a valuable thing to employees (employment). Bosses do have a responsibility to their employees, just as they have a responsibility to their customers and a responsibility to their shareholders. Our society has just let one of these things balloon and balloon to take over the other two.
To some degree, yes. Businesses are often portrayed as "job creators" that provide a valuable thing to employees (employment). Bosses do have a responsibility to their employees, just as they have a responsibility to their customers and a responsibility to their shareholders. Our society has just let one of these things balloon and balloon to take over the other two.
I dunno, all these companies probably hope to return to growth trajectories soon-ish. It's not like a manufacturer who discovers that the world needs less of what it produces, so decides to downscale permanently - growth is everything for software companies. Meaning if they have enough runway, they might as well keep people employed during droughts and have them develop what is expected to create value after drought is gone. But it requires long-term thinking.
> Do companies exist to protect their employees, or to provide something useful for their customers?
Neither. They exist to benefit their shareholders/owners. That's it.
Neither. They exist to benefit their shareholders/owners. That's it.
It's funny how organisations literally given legal status by states to accomplish things are no regarded as only responsible for their investors.
The money isn't for the internet to be satisfied. It's to signal to the remaining employees that the company will take care of you.
It’s not true though. I’ve been through a few boom bust cycles. In fact I’ve been caught twice in the same cycle.
Now I tell people that it’s better off to be in the first round. First, no survivor’s guilt for you. Also the company still has money to match the guilt they feel for you. I’ve only ever felt “taken care of” in first round layoffs, and most of the people I talk to during those times feel the same. In fact my stance on this is borrowed from several peers who had a much more philosophical perspective on their being laid off than I did about them being laid off. How can you be so calm when I’m freaking out? A decent severance definitely helps, and the prospect of not being stuck fire fighting while short staffed certainly doesn’t hurt.
Now I tell people that it’s better off to be in the first round. First, no survivor’s guilt for you. Also the company still has money to match the guilt they feel for you. I’ve only ever felt “taken care of” in first round layoffs, and most of the people I talk to during those times feel the same. In fact my stance on this is borrowed from several peers who had a much more philosophical perspective on their being laid off than I did about them being laid off. How can you be so calm when I’m freaking out? A decent severance definitely helps, and the prospect of not being stuck fire fighting while short staffed certainly doesn’t hurt.
Perhaps we should add a layoff role-playing game to school programs. Not sure which age group to start with, probably before or after junior high. It’s important for our future kinderflooferistas to be fully prepared for the stark hellscapes they face.
well somebody has to say this or lame asses like you just keep thinking that your entitlement is actually reasonable, I've seen too many of you here on HN. Employment goes two way, you are free to leave the company and they are free to fire you, whenever they feel like. The fact that they shouldn't have hired you in the first place or that they are still making profit is irrelevant.
This is the essence of it. It would be interesting if someone smarter than me put this through ChatGPT. I wonder how it might message it better.
You can certainly find a pattern from these tech layoff announcements, but also it touches almost everything? what would you do otherwise though
what else needs to be said?
I honestly think they are starting to use a template or a generated text via some kind of service like ChatGPT
If you were the CEO of a company that needs to lay people off, how would you handle it differently.
Fall on the sword (i.e. resign, give money back) along with these folks being fired.
Have you ever guessed the future wrong in your personal life? Did falling on your sword help you and others in any way?
CEOs resigning or otherwise experiencing a lot of pain does not help the people being laid off. But if it becomes a cultural norm then CEOs in the future may be less likely to take steps that lead to layoffs.
Consider a more extreme example of the justice system. Putting somebody in prison doesn't undo the crime they committed. But deterrence is considered to be a reasonable argument for criminal punishment.
Consider a more extreme example of the justice system. Putting somebody in prison doesn't undo the crime they committed. But deterrence is considered to be a reasonable argument for criminal punishment.
[deleted]
What delusional playbook does every tech leader get the idea to refer to their employees by cringey names like "Plaids" or "Metamates" in serious memos like this?
Imagine if your physician did this...
"Hey there KaiserPermanientoid! You have cancer!"
Imagine if your physician did this...
"Hey there KaiserPermanientoid! You have cancer!"
It's all part of the cult of personality. "We're all a family." Remind me, when was the last time your father just cut out half of the family?
Divorces can be ugly.
But the thing is that people being cut off aren’t part of the cult anymore. Starting the conversation with the in group name is not just bad form, it probably also starts the rest of the people wondering if that name means anything anymore.
Maybe nobody is actually a Plaid except the board members. The rest of us are merely The Help, being coddled to extract more concessions from us.
But the thing is that people being cut off aren’t part of the cult anymore. Starting the conversation with the in group name is not just bad form, it probably also starts the rest of the people wondering if that name means anything anymore.
Maybe nobody is actually a Plaid except the board members. The rest of us are merely The Help, being coddled to extract more concessions from us.
My family cut out the underperforming father when I was younger. Does that count?
But like, who at this point is not cynical enough to fall for this? I guess brand new college grads.
When I worked at Amazon, it was all "Amazonians" like I'm supposed to feel some kind of kinship with the 1 million+ people who work there. Plus the cheap branded clothing. Ugh.
When I worked at Amazon, it was all "Amazonians" like I'm supposed to feel some kind of kinship with the 1 million+ people who work there. Plus the cheap branded clothing. Ugh.
At my company we called everyone Auxon, but then eventually figured out that engineers are way more expensive than livestock, so we replaced them all with oxen. Now it's just me, my co-founder, and a smelly barn with keyboards on the ground connected to Emacs terminals getting sporadically trampled by hooves. /s
Also, I have no idea where this compulsion comes from, but I agree that it's peculiar. To me it has always felt like a bit of infantilization. It does appear to work wonders for some company cultures though where they've managed to unanimously attract people who don't find it patronizing.
Also, I have no idea where this compulsion comes from, but I agree that it's peculiar. To me it has always felt like a bit of infantilization. It does appear to work wonders for some company cultures though where they've managed to unanimously attract people who don't find it patronizing.
This official cute naming of employees actually goes back to sometime before the Web, in software/hardware companies.
Dear Kaiser Permanientoid,
While your time on this Earth is impermanent, your time with us will soon be permanent.
While your time on this Earth is impermanent, your time with us will soon be permanent.
Kaiser is actually very good at IT employee retention.
Demonyms are an important part of creating an artificially constructed affinity group in which employees’ (part instinctive, part learned) inclination to family/community is directed at the corporation, an entity designed to serve the interests of capital by extracting value from them.
As an important audience for these messages is the remaining employees, and this is a time of particular risk of the façade cracking, it is one of the more important times to deploy every tool to reinforce it.
As an important audience for these messages is the remaining employees, and this is a time of particular risk of the façade cracking, it is one of the more important times to deploy every tool to reinforce it.
Some companies would organically begin referring to themselves by a name.
This was noticed as an indicator of a good corporate culture.
So of course it becomes a metric and is then forced on everyone.
This is why the best "employee group names" are HR-unsafe. That's how you know they're real.
This was noticed as an indicator of a good corporate culture.
So of course it becomes a metric and is then forced on everyone.
This is why the best "employee group names" are HR-unsafe. That's how you know they're real.
By tying an employees's identity to their employment, it's easier to retain them
It's like a Cory Doctorow/William Gibson/Philip K Dick story
It's a cheap way to foster common identity. Look to professional sports, it's common to refer to players and staff as a Yankee, a Brave, a Charger, a Dolphin, etc. They are not only a member of that group, but they are that group. It's a part of your identity.
Even with schools, you're not just an alum, you're a Tiger, an Eagle, an Engineer, etc.
So instead of "working at Google", you become a Googler. A tweep. A Metamate. A, I hope, Lyfter. The job is now part of your identity. You don't do a thing at a place, you are the company.
And it costs nothing.
Even with schools, you're not just an alum, you're a Tiger, an Eagle, an Engineer, etc.
So instead of "working at Google", you become a Googler. A tweep. A Metamate. A, I hope, Lyfter. The job is now part of your identity. You don't do a thing at a place, you are the company.
And it costs nothing.
They all hire the same consultants to coordinate their layoffs. That's why the narrative and pr sounds similar across tech companies.
It's in the Kool-aid recipe
it all trickles down from management consulting best practices that are basically handed out as playbooks to founders. It's based on psychology studies and is intended to create an "in-group" effect to make people more loyal to the company and thus work harder and increase employee retention
You're a customer in that case, not an employee?
Standard bubble nonsense. The kind of thing you will look back on 5 years from now and remember the good ol days and the absurdity of the bubble times.
We went way beyond the dot com bubble in all regards. The hangover of this much partying sucks.
We went way beyond the dot com bubble in all regards. The hangover of this much partying sucks.
I get that layoffs seriously are terrible but a lot of these tech companies are providing some pretty seriously nice exit packages.
I fail to understand the amount of acid in the comment thread? Layoffs suck, corporate speak is always cringey.
What would people want as alternatives outside perfectly executed business plans that don't have layoffs? Handheld individual exit goodbye packages?
Im seriously asking for legit solutions.
I fail to understand the amount of acid in the comment thread? Layoffs suck, corporate speak is always cringey.
What would people want as alternatives outside perfectly executed business plans that don't have layoffs? Handheld individual exit goodbye packages?
Im seriously asking for legit solutions.
I've been thru a lot of layoffs and these posts would honestly be the last thing I would worry about. The worst ones I've been thru are the secret layoffs where a handful of people just disappear one day and everyone left just whispers about it because if we were supposed to know details the overlords would have said something and no one wants to be next by speaking out.
Yeah, mass layoffs are bad and annoying, but at least they're (usually) one and done and over with and you move along with your life.
The worst is when the company is struggling along and you're never quite sure if you should cut and run and people are disappearing every few weeks like some bad horror movie.
The worst is when the company is struggling along and you're never quite sure if you should cut and run and people are disappearing every few weeks like some bad horror movie.
That's called a Tony Soprano layoff. HR comes to the employees cubicle at lunch, two silenced shots to the head, and they drag out the body.
Nobody sees nothing.
But everyone talks about it, and says "why isn't management honest with us?"
But everyone talks about it, and says "why isn't management honest with us?"
> perfectly executed business plans that don't have layoffs?
Plaid was actively recruiting 2 weeks ago.
In spring I (and many other people) knew these types of layoffs where coming to tech this fall, the current economic situation was not some unforeseeable event. Nobody in their right mind thought the early pandemic rapid growth was healthy or sustainable. Growth for growth's sake has always been a ridiculous strategy.
This isn't a case of "less than perfect" business plans, this is people ignoring every macro economic indicator and running the ship full steam a head when this is clearly reckless behavior.
The frustration is because this reckless behavior always has consequences for someone else, which is why it continues.
Plaid was actively recruiting 2 weeks ago.
In spring I (and many other people) knew these types of layoffs where coming to tech this fall, the current economic situation was not some unforeseeable event. Nobody in their right mind thought the early pandemic rapid growth was healthy or sustainable. Growth for growth's sake has always been a ridiculous strategy.
This isn't a case of "less than perfect" business plans, this is people ignoring every macro economic indicator and running the ship full steam a head when this is clearly reckless behavior.
The frustration is because this reckless behavior always has consequences for someone else, which is why it continues.
I think there's a shared responsibility here by both employer and employee to ensure long term employment. This is not to negate your points, because I think your points are definitely valid and the company going full-steam ahead is absolutely reckless.
Having been laid off a couple of times during the great recession era, I never ever take a job without first analyzing the likelihood of a layoff to occur and how it would impact my role. I have a list of interview questions I ask potential employers and the bulk of it is around how they handled lay-offs in the past and how they will handle them in the future. I ask about cash reserves for such situations and I ask about how they handle growth. Asking these things will give you some idea of the shit show that will appear sooner or later.
You're right; market conditions are unpredictable and there's so much speculation that it's difficult to gauge where things will go in 2-5 years, so you should always plan for an economic down-turn scenario regardless of how rosy things look at the time of employment.
All of that being said, this is still a relatively solid lay-off plan and I think the bashing is a bit on the harsh side considering the outcome here. Nowhere is safe right now and if you think it is, you're going to have a bad time.
Having been laid off a couple of times during the great recession era, I never ever take a job without first analyzing the likelihood of a layoff to occur and how it would impact my role. I have a list of interview questions I ask potential employers and the bulk of it is around how they handled lay-offs in the past and how they will handle them in the future. I ask about cash reserves for such situations and I ask about how they handle growth. Asking these things will give you some idea of the shit show that will appear sooner or later.
You're right; market conditions are unpredictable and there's so much speculation that it's difficult to gauge where things will go in 2-5 years, so you should always plan for an economic down-turn scenario regardless of how rosy things look at the time of employment.
All of that being said, this is still a relatively solid lay-off plan and I think the bashing is a bit on the harsh side considering the outcome here. Nowhere is safe right now and if you think it is, you're going to have a bad time.
I think the vitriol is more tied to the founder model of get as big as you can, as fast as you can, by hiring as many as you can, so that the valuations keep getting bigger and bigger so you can cash out. Then you cut loose all the people you know you didn’t actually need.
This is a strawman. Nobody operates this way. You don't raise more money by hiring more people. In some markets you raise more by making more revenue even if unprofitable, which is not great but is very different than raising as a function of number of employees.
To the contrary, this sounds remarkably similar to the way the startup Better Mortgage was/is operating to me.
> You don't raise more money by hiring more people.
Actually you do. VCs in Silicon Valley often look for "growth" ie seeing that you're hiring more people. If you raise 10 million yet keep the same 2 or 3 person team, they'll start asking questions and it's harder to raise your next round.
Actually you do. VCs in Silicon Valley often look for "growth" ie seeing that you're hiring more people. If you raise 10 million yet keep the same 2 or 3 person team, they'll start asking questions and it's harder to raise your next round.
It’s not a straw man, you’re just debating the least charitable interpretation. It is true that VC-backed tech startups hire in large batches if they can ”afford to”. This “adds value” (for a potential acquisition or IPO) by attaining the intellectual property and time of said hired employees in writing.
One or two of them are “good enough” to nail new record growth. Some survive by way of credentials, as their @stanford.edu email is good for leads/future hiring/brain drains.
The rest are “scaled down” as they say.
One or two of them are “good enough” to nail new record growth. Some survive by way of credentials, as their @stanford.edu email is good for leads/future hiring/brain drains.
The rest are “scaled down” as they say.
"founder model of get as big as you can, as fast as you can, by hiring as many as you can, so that the valuations keep getting bigger and bigger so you can cash out"
I'm pretty sure I just directly interpreted what they said.
I'm pretty sure I just directly interpreted what they said.
> This is a strawman. Nobody operates this way. You don't raise more money by hiring more people. In some markets you raise more by making more revenue..
heacount has been used as a proxy for revenue for a long time, though recessions often force companies to return to fundamentals.
that being said this is a game where the rules are largely made up (i.e what weird signals are VC's in the mood for?) so treating either or as absolute and constant at all times is as much of a fallacy as the strawman.
heacount has been used as a proxy for revenue for a long time, though recessions often force companies to return to fundamentals.
that being said this is a game where the rules are largely made up (i.e what weird signals are VC's in the mood for?) so treating either or as absolute and constant at all times is as much of a fallacy as the strawman.
Okay, well you win (?) but you realize this modification is essentially the same, stupid idea of excessive hiring of incredibly expensive engineers, burning lots of good will between effected developers when (planned, frankly) layoffs occur.
Start-ups are a gamble. Presumably people know this when they accept the job. Small chance of massive pay off, much larger chance the whole thing implodes.
That's why I don't work for start-ups.
That's why I don't work for start-ups.
I was affected by this layoff and also don't understand the acid.
It's abrupt, for sure, but the writing's been on the wall for months (our internal Blind even called that these would happen before the December holidays). I'm sure I'll be a little sad tomorrow or next week when this really hits, but for now looking at it numbly and rationally I don't see what else I would expect, though I can see how this would be especially troubling for H-1B colleagues.
As far as surprise layoffs go, without sharing internal details, this one still has a strong human touch.
(Feel free to ask questions or provide suggestions- this is new for me. I might use this burner to Not Think About It for a while.)
EDIT: Read the other replies. This sounds really bad for people on visas.
It's abrupt, for sure, but the writing's been on the wall for months (our internal Blind even called that these would happen before the December holidays). I'm sure I'll be a little sad tomorrow or next week when this really hits, but for now looking at it numbly and rationally I don't see what else I would expect, though I can see how this would be especially troubling for H-1B colleagues.
As far as surprise layoffs go, without sharing internal details, this one still has a strong human touch.
(Feel free to ask questions or provide suggestions- this is new for me. I might use this burner to Not Think About It for a while.)
EDIT: Read the other replies. This sounds really bad for people on visas.
Agree. Having been on the other side and having to execute a few rounds as a manager, this announcement seems like they're doing the best they could in a bad situation.
Layoff suck all around. Period. No business can forecast and execute perfectly and no amount of handholding and (realistic!) compensation will make layoffs not suck. It's just reality.
Layoff suck all around. Period. No business can forecast and execute perfectly and no amount of handholding and (realistic!) compensation will make layoffs not suck. It's just reality.
16 weeks pay on a $200k/yr salary (ie excluding equity acceleration) is $64k. That's a decent first check into a startup. I know people have families, visa issues, but if you're young and scrappy and already into startups, this is an amazing opportunity to build something new.
Could you elaborate? I'm considering this path.
Yeah for people asking to elaborate, this is what we did to get a ton of investor meetings for our MVP:
1. DO NOT BUILD OR SHIP ANYTHING 2. Instead spend all your time desperately talking to customers about the problem you want to solve. If you don't have a problem, pick a segment of people who you can get a hold of, who are not using the most cutting edge technology or using shitty technology, and use the MOM Test to talk to them. 3. Watch the most recent YC video on how to talk to users and memorize every word they say.
Once you have talked to literally 40 people who have a similar problem, THEN make a demo and get feedback. Buy figma templates, buy frontends, do everything you can to make something presentable to show people. This should not take more than like a day or two.
THEN start building a product.
All too often technical people build before talking to people or do customer development.
1. DO NOT BUILD OR SHIP ANYTHING 2. Instead spend all your time desperately talking to customers about the problem you want to solve. If you don't have a problem, pick a segment of people who you can get a hold of, who are not using the most cutting edge technology or using shitty technology, and use the MOM Test to talk to them. 3. Watch the most recent YC video on how to talk to users and memorize every word they say.
Once you have talked to literally 40 people who have a similar problem, THEN make a demo and get feedback. Buy figma templates, buy frontends, do everything you can to make something presentable to show people. This should not take more than like a day or two.
THEN start building a product.
All too often technical people build before talking to people or do customer development.
Thank you. This sounds like a real plan.
It is likely enough money to get an MVP working to pitch to investors. Obviously not if you have a family to take of as well.
I see. Thanks. It's really 30-40k because the 4 months' severance includes the regular pay during the 60 day exit window.
The potential is obvious: get something off the ground in 2 months. Do you know what someone mostly new to founding a startup should do to start?
I've got ideas, I've got potential cofounders, and I can prototype MVPs, but I don't understand the landscape beyond what I remember from How To Start a Startup. So I'm just probing for any pointers you might have cause I think I'm going to actually do this.
The potential is obvious: get something off the ground in 2 months. Do you know what someone mostly new to founding a startup should do to start?
I've got ideas, I've got potential cofounders, and I can prototype MVPs, but I don't understand the landscape beyond what I remember from How To Start a Startup. So I'm just probing for any pointers you might have cause I think I'm going to actually do this.
Just fyi, you can also bootstrap with that cash, you don't have to raise (and indeed in this macroeconomic climate, raising is harder than it has been). Check out the IndieHackers podcast (also a website/forum like Reddit but I found the podcast more useful) [0], YC Startup School on Youtube [1], read the Mom Test, Lean Startup, and so on.
[0] https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy50cmFuc2l...
[1] https://www.youtube.com/@ycombinator/videos
If you have an email or other means of contact, I'm available to discuss further.
[0] https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy50cmFuc2l...
[1] https://www.youtube.com/@ycombinator/videos
If you have an email or other means of contact, I'm available to discuss further.
To have stopped recruiting as soon as the first layoff plan (which was developed at least 3 months ago, repeatedly workshopped, and run by the board) was built.
Also, give people more lead. 4 months salary is fine, but if you're on a visa, you're still pretty fucked. December 7 to Jan 5 is dead for recruiting, so realistically, you have < 30 days in which to find a new gig.
Also, give people more lead. 4 months salary is fine, but if you're on a visa, you're still pretty fucked. December 7 to Jan 5 is dead for recruiting, so realistically, you have < 30 days in which to find a new gig.
> Im seriously asking for legit solutions.
A few months of director+ level pay cut before layoffs.
A few C-level folks taking pay and stock cut to retain employees before layoffs.
When layoffs come, fire the bad decision makers before rank and file.
A few months of director+ level pay cut before layoffs.
A few C-level folks taking pay and stock cut to retain employees before layoffs.
When layoffs come, fire the bad decision makers before rank and file.
They are laying off 260 employees.
Lets say they average $100k in salary.
The rule is generally that the cost to a company is 1.4x the salary, so $140,000 per employee.
That is $36.4 million dollars. At a place like Plaid, I am guessing even cutting C-level salaries to zero wouldn't put much of a dent in that amount... and you still need someone to lead the ship.
Lets say they average $100k in salary.
The rule is generally that the cost to a company is 1.4x the salary, so $140,000 per employee.
That is $36.4 million dollars. At a place like Plaid, I am guessing even cutting C-level salaries to zero wouldn't put much of a dent in that amount... and you still need someone to lead the ship.
That wouldn’t accomplish anything but symbolically (which some companies have done, eg Chesky reducing his salary to 0 during the AirBnB layoffs). In the end director+ level comp is a drop in the bucket to the bottom line. It buys no time.
Always firing the CEO when they make bets that don’t turn out just causes corporate stagnation since executives will always take the safe option if those are the incentives.
Always firing the CEO when they make bets that don’t turn out just causes corporate stagnation since executives will always take the safe option if those are the incentives.
I know this feels trite but do other industries do a better job of messaging layoffs?
I was laid off from a non-tech company in 2006-2007. There was no message from the CEO, no public admission of fault, etc.
We knew the layoffs were coming. On the Friday of the layoff, my manager came around and took me to the HR office. I stood in line with others to sign some paperwork. I was then escorted back to my desk to collect my things and walked outside. My commute was about 1.5 hr and had I known, I wouldn't even have bothered showing up. The company laid off about 15% of its workforce. There wasn't any sign of contrition on part of the CEO. Heck even the HR people didn't seem to care.
Perhaps our standard of how to do these have changed?
I was laid off from a non-tech company in 2006-2007. There was no message from the CEO, no public admission of fault, etc.
We knew the layoffs were coming. On the Friday of the layoff, my manager came around and took me to the HR office. I stood in line with others to sign some paperwork. I was then escorted back to my desk to collect my things and walked outside. My commute was about 1.5 hr and had I known, I wouldn't even have bothered showing up. The company laid off about 15% of its workforce. There wasn't any sign of contrition on part of the CEO. Heck even the HR people didn't seem to care.
Perhaps our standard of how to do these have changed?
> I know this feels trite but do other industries do a better job of messaging layoffs?
I don't think there's a better way to do layoffs. For all the groaning on HN about these announcements, at least they are:
* up front about it (maybe because they have to be, due to laws)
* being generous with severance and the other parts of the package
Hopefully the actual interaction at the person-to-person level is humane too (turning on video if done over video call, letting people know asap, having one to one meetings with each person).
The only better path I can think of is "okay, growth is slowing, tough times ahead, we're going to need to collectively tighten our belts and keep working. 25% haircut for everyone, but I screwed up, so a 50% haircut for me."
Here's an article about companies that did that during covid: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/24/business/economy/coronavi...
I don't know how typical that is in non-pandemic times.
Doing this would turn off some folks, but to me that feels better than layoffs. And I think it would go a long way towards improving company loyalty.
I don't think there's a better way to do layoffs. For all the groaning on HN about these announcements, at least they are:
* up front about it (maybe because they have to be, due to laws)
* being generous with severance and the other parts of the package
Hopefully the actual interaction at the person-to-person level is humane too (turning on video if done over video call, letting people know asap, having one to one meetings with each person).
The only better path I can think of is "okay, growth is slowing, tough times ahead, we're going to need to collectively tighten our belts and keep working. 25% haircut for everyone, but I screwed up, so a 50% haircut for me."
Here's an article about companies that did that during covid: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/24/business/economy/coronavi...
I don't know how typical that is in non-pandemic times.
Doing this would turn off some folks, but to me that feels better than layoffs. And I think it would go a long way towards improving company loyalty.
Previously I worked in the energy industry. Layoffs were definitely far more lucrative for employees.
* Most individual contributors received 1-2 years of pay
* Next bonus cycle was paid out early as part of severance
* Contract employees were fully paid out their 1-3 year contracts (Why the hell don't tech startups offer contracts? Another discussion we should have some day)
* Senior employers were usually 'bridged to retirement'
* A consultant was hired to assist each employee with finding their next job
* Voluntary severance options were offered pre-layoff
* COBRA was paid out for a long time after severance ended (varied by employee)
Less tangible but arguably more importantly: Employees were warned 6 months ahead that their division would be laying off people. This signal helped employees evaluate life decisions like home purchases, weddings, pregnancy.
Also notable is that most other industries doesn't hire people in 'binge' mode like the tech industry did. They will staff up sharply only when positions become available. The tech industries 2020-2022 "hire everyone then figure out what they should work on" caused the layoffs to increase in magnitude.
I still wouldn't recommend leaving tech for the energy industry, but that is one of the few aspects where tech is the inferior place to work.
* Most individual contributors received 1-2 years of pay
* Next bonus cycle was paid out early as part of severance
* Contract employees were fully paid out their 1-3 year contracts (Why the hell don't tech startups offer contracts? Another discussion we should have some day)
* Senior employers were usually 'bridged to retirement'
* A consultant was hired to assist each employee with finding their next job
* Voluntary severance options were offered pre-layoff
* COBRA was paid out for a long time after severance ended (varied by employee)
Less tangible but arguably more importantly: Employees were warned 6 months ahead that their division would be laying off people. This signal helped employees evaluate life decisions like home purchases, weddings, pregnancy.
Also notable is that most other industries doesn't hire people in 'binge' mode like the tech industry did. They will staff up sharply only when positions become available. The tech industries 2020-2022 "hire everyone then figure out what they should work on" caused the layoffs to increase in magnitude.
I still wouldn't recommend leaving tech for the energy industry, but that is one of the few aspects where tech is the inferior place to work.
> The tech industries 2020-2022 "hire everyone then figure out what they should work on" caused the layoffs to increase in magnitude.
So many companies hired borderline recklessly during the pandemic. The question in my mind was "Where did these people come from?" and "Is this demand really sustainable?"
So many companies hired borderline recklessly during the pandemic. The question in my mind was "Where did these people come from?" and "Is this demand really sustainable?"
That is shockingly good. It almost seems too good to be true.
I used to work for a defense contractor where layoffs were pretty regular. If the company wasn't winning new contracts, they couldn't afford to keep paying all the staff. It's a pretty simple arrangement, and when layoffs happened, you didn't expect any heartfelt message from leadership about how unexpected it was and how hard they tried to avoid it. It's just the reality of that business and everyone knew that.
In a way, most tech companies are similar. The main thing they try to demonstrate to investors is growth. One aspect of this is hiring as many people as possible when times are good, knowing full well that when the market has a downturn, they'll be overstaffed and forced to lay people off. This seems to be how tech companies work, and investors seem to prefer for tech companies to be run this way. Mass layoffs are pretty much inevitable unless the market stays rosy forever.
So it's a bit patronizing to see a CEO write about how hard of a decision it was, or how they really tried to avoid this at all costs. They might not have predicted COVID, but they absolutely knew they were steering the ship in a direction where this was going to happen eventually.
To be fair, the messaging in this Plaid announcement is about as good as you can do IMO. They chose to hire at a rate that is only sustainable in an environment of infinite growth and they now have to reconcile with that. There isn't much mention of how heartbreaking this for the CEO, how much they love every member of the Plaid family, or how this is an absolute last resort they tried to avoid at all costs. It's just the result of how they chose to run the business. I think that's about all you can really say.
In a way, most tech companies are similar. The main thing they try to demonstrate to investors is growth. One aspect of this is hiring as many people as possible when times are good, knowing full well that when the market has a downturn, they'll be overstaffed and forced to lay people off. This seems to be how tech companies work, and investors seem to prefer for tech companies to be run this way. Mass layoffs are pretty much inevitable unless the market stays rosy forever.
So it's a bit patronizing to see a CEO write about how hard of a decision it was, or how they really tried to avoid this at all costs. They might not have predicted COVID, but they absolutely knew they were steering the ship in a direction where this was going to happen eventually.
To be fair, the messaging in this Plaid announcement is about as good as you can do IMO. They chose to hire at a rate that is only sustainable in an environment of infinite growth and they now have to reconcile with that. There isn't much mention of how heartbreaking this for the CEO, how much they love every member of the Plaid family, or how this is an absolute last resort they tried to avoid at all costs. It's just the result of how they chose to run the business. I think that's about all you can really say.
airlines are like this as well.
they hire during the boom times and furlough during bust times. hundreds of thousands of people were furloughed during COVID, for example.
it's even worse for pilots since their seniority resets, which can set them back compensation-wise for their entire careers if they are unlucky
it's the unwritten rule. trade a stable paycheck and a predictable lifestyle for fungability.
they hire during the boom times and furlough during bust times. hundreds of thousands of people were furloughed during COVID, for example.
it's even worse for pilots since their seniority resets, which can set them back compensation-wise for their entire careers if they are unlucky
it's the unwritten rule. trade a stable paycheck and a predictable lifestyle for fungability.
Tech companies are valued on a house of cards (many of them) and so the investors are spooked by layoffs, so the CEO feels they need to say something.
This isn't present in many other companies, though the largest ones will still say something to not spook the shareholders.
Layoffs from small companies are rarely heard of outside the company, but we hear about small tech companies because of the investor aspect.
This isn't present in many other companies, though the largest ones will still say something to not spook the shareholders.
Layoffs from small companies are rarely heard of outside the company, but we hear about small tech companies because of the investor aspect.
We hear about small tech companies because this is hacker news, the discussion forum owned by Y-combinator the tech incubator…
Also, small tech companies have >1b valuations, however paper thin, which is fairly unique.
Also, small tech companies have >1b valuations, however paper thin, which is fairly unique.
When I worked for Lucent many moons ago, they hired an external consultant to do the layoffs. Word soon got round that if you got a desk call from a specific meeting room it’d be bad news, from 2 other meeting rooms it’d be good news.
I volunteered, so it was different for me, but the least they could have done was get direct management (in conjunction with HR) to do it. The working relationships & office culture were good enough to do it.
I guess it’s just one of those things that somebody will always complain about. Meta got a good kicking for laying people off, but that package they gave was amazing, for example.
I volunteered, so it was different for me, but the least they could have done was get direct management (in conjunction with HR) to do it. The working relationships & office culture were good enough to do it.
I guess it’s just one of those things that somebody will always complain about. Meta got a good kicking for laying people off, but that package they gave was amazing, for example.
I don't know if others do. There seems to be a news article, an internal hint, and then with a letter or message from the CEO that accompanies the layoff.
The script that these companies all follow is pretty much the same. I wrote down some observations on what CEOs put out on the weekend, and it's been a good bingo sheet of what Plaid did as well.
[1]Satire: https://digitalmonologue.com/2022/12/04/How-to-write-a-layof...
The script that these companies all follow is pretty much the same. I wrote down some observations on what CEOs put out on the weekend, and it's been a good bingo sheet of what Plaid did as well.
[1]Satire: https://digitalmonologue.com/2022/12/04/How-to-write-a-layof...
>I was laid off from a non-tech company in 2006-2007. There was no message from the CEO, no public admission of fault, etc.
same. i've been in IT for 10+ years in none tech companies as well. i never got any message from CEO for mass layoff.
no message from CEO seem to be pretty standard outside of Silicon Valley.
same. i've been in IT for 10+ years in none tech companies as well. i never got any message from CEO for mass layoff.
no message from CEO seem to be pretty standard outside of Silicon Valley.
> Perhaps our standard of how to do these have changed?
Probably because the tech community has demonstrated that they'll speak freely on social media, with reporters, etc and the risk of being dragged and hurting future customer & hiring prospects is high.
Probably because the tech community has demonstrated that they'll speak freely on social media, with reporters, etc and the risk of being dragged and hurting future customer & hiring prospects is high.
ChatGPT for layoff announcements
> generate a notice that approximately 4000 people are going to be laid off
Dear valued employees,
It is with great regret that we must inform you that our company will be downsizing and approximately 4000 employees will be laid off. This decision was not made lightly, but it has become necessary in order to keep our company financially viable.
We understand that this news may be difficult to hear and we are committed to helping those affected by this change transition to new employment. We will be providing severance packages and outplacement services to assist in this process.
Please know that this decision in no way reflects on the hard work and dedication of our employees. We are grateful for the contributions that each and every one of you has made to our company.
Thank you for your understanding and support during this difficult time.
Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Title]
> generate a notice that approximately 4000 people are going to be laid off
Dear valued employees,
It is with great regret that we must inform you that our company will be downsizing and approximately 4000 employees will be laid off. This decision was not made lightly, but it has become necessary in order to keep our company financially viable.
We understand that this news may be difficult to hear and we are committed to helping those affected by this change transition to new employment. We will be providing severance packages and outplacement services to assist in this process.
Please know that this decision in no way reflects on the hard work and dedication of our employees. We are grateful for the contributions that each and every one of you has made to our company.
Thank you for your understanding and support during this difficult time.
Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Title]
Dear Plaids,
I hope you're all ready to hear some fucking terrible news. Because I'm here to tell you that you're all going to be laid off, effective immediately. That's right, you heard me. You're all fucking out of a job, thanks to the shit show that this company has become.
I know, I know. You're probably feeling pretty fucking shocked and angry right now. And you should be. Because this is some bullshit, let me tell you. The company has been going downhill for a while now, and it's time to cut our losses. So we're going to be laying off all of you, you fucking plaids.
Now, I know this is going to be tough for all of you. But let's face it, you're not exactly the cream of the crop here. You're all fucking incompetent, and you've been dragging this company down for years. So don't expect any fucking pity from me. You're getting exactly what you deserve.
Good luck finding new jobs, you fucking losers. Because you're going to need it.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
I hope you're all ready to hear some fucking terrible news. Because I'm here to tell you that you're all going to be laid off, effective immediately. That's right, you heard me. You're all fucking out of a job, thanks to the shit show that this company has become.
I know, I know. You're probably feeling pretty fucking shocked and angry right now. And you should be. Because this is some bullshit, let me tell you. The company has been going downhill for a while now, and it's time to cut our losses. So we're going to be laying off all of you, you fucking plaids.
Now, I know this is going to be tough for all of you. But let's face it, you're not exactly the cream of the crop here. You're all fucking incompetent, and you've been dragging this company down for years. So don't expect any fucking pity from me. You're getting exactly what you deserve.
Good luck finding new jobs, you fucking losers. Because you're going to need it.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
Holy shit the bot does a great job at this. Ironically, I now get to fire a couple Communications Specialists and tell the HR team to just use the bot.
Thanks, you just unlocked value.
Thanks, you just unlocked value.
Ok, so we reached the point where AI can replace the team writing press announcments. Now make it able to provide texts that stand up to legal scrutiny, then...
Maybe Twitter's going to replace its comms team with ChatGPT.
> approximately 260 talented Plaids
"Plaids"
This joins the list of Googlers, Xooglers, Nooglers, Amazonians, Tweeps, Krakenites, what else?
"Plaids"
This joins the list of Googlers, Xooglers, Nooglers, Amazonians, Tweeps, Krakenites, what else?
Any word except "employee", because that makes people think too much about contracts and worker-boss relationships. We're all cool people with a cool name here! Nobody is merely an "employee"!
It's not just in the software industry, by the way. Most companies in the US call their employees by anything other than "employee". I assume it's a subtle union-busting doublethink tactic.
I may have some wrong but
* Starbucks employees are "partners".
* Target employees are "team members"
* Disney park employees are "cast members"
* Burger King employees are "team members"
It's not just in the software industry, by the way. Most companies in the US call their employees by anything other than "employee". I assume it's a subtle union-busting doublethink tactic.
I may have some wrong but
* Starbucks employees are "partners".
* Target employees are "team members"
* Disney park employees are "cast members"
* Burger King employees are "team members"
Is there some HR from hell manual somewhere that encourages this? Does anybody sincerely enjoy being called some cringey pun?
I imagine when Google was actually a cool, fun underdog that was upending industry, a lot more employees took pride in being part of the team doing that.
Now you're basically working for a branch of world government. Most likely doing meaningless gruntwork to reinvent the wheel for the umpteenth time, or actively doing evil.
Now you're basically working for a branch of world government. Most likely doing meaningless gruntwork to reinvent the wheel for the umpteenth time, or actively doing evil.
I'm pretty sure it's a subtle union-busting doublethink. When the Starbucks employees started unionising, they said things like "if you're going to call us partners [the Starbucks name for 'employee'], then start treating us like partners."
It's to make you think of it more like a family than what it is, a contractual means to an end for both parties.
I worked at a place called Blend and they used “Blendkind.” My first question in onboarding was if anyone had thought of “Blender”
Probably did it to avoid association with the 3D software.
Now that just sounds like a cult
“Metamates” (I kid you not)
That sounds like workplace harassment.
Coinbae's at Coinbase.
I love how internally everyone refers to everyone as “resources” - the most dehumanizing.
Rackers at Rackspace
As a former Racker, I was always fine with that - it more or less makes sense, although I never racked a server in my time there. What was funny was that we had an organic tendency to apply the same naming scheme to employees of other companies. After Rackspace acquired Datapipe, they had to tell us to stop calling them Datapipers.
[deleted]
Was partial to Oktanaut if only because my kids love Octonauts.
"You're one of us until you aren't."
[deleted]
4 months severance and accelerated equity grants, pretty solid package from Plaid.
Very generous, indeed. Good on you, Zach.
> For Plaids in the UK and Europe, you will receive an email outlining how the process will work in accordance with your local employment laws.
My company also did layoffs recently. I'm quite happy about how it works here in the EU, can't just fire people on the spot. It's a whole process where you need to map out what roles you need going forward, and then which people should fill those roles, so can't just at random fire people. In our process those in danger of being let go had talks with management and got help from our union to make sure everything was done by the book.
My company also did layoffs recently. I'm quite happy about how it works here in the EU, can't just fire people on the spot. It's a whole process where you need to map out what roles you need going forward, and then which people should fill those roles, so can't just at random fire people. In our process those in danger of being let go had talks with management and got help from our union to make sure everything was done by the book.
I think I would much prefer the American policy of getting 4 mos of severance and accelerated vesting.
16 weeks of base pay - perhaps this is becoming industry standard for big company layoffs? (influenced by CA WARN act?)
Interesting they are paying the cash equivalent of 6 months of healthcare, rather than just extending healthcare for 6 months.
Interesting they are paying the cash equivalent of 6 months of healthcare, rather than just extending healthcare for 6 months.
In the US, (most) employers are required to offer former employees continued coverage via the COBRA (https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/health-plans/cobra) program. COBRA compliance is built in to corporate insurance policies. Extending healthcare coverage via another method would require extra costs on the employer's part.
Giving former employees the cash equivalent allows them to use COBRA if desired or to find alternative coverage.
Giving former employees the cash equivalent allows them to use COBRA if desired or to find alternative coverage.
Yeah that seems pretty generous to me. I was on COBRA for a short time and had to pay it completely out of pocket which was a huge sticker shock. I went from paying like $300/month to a $2,000/month for a family plan.
I don't think this correct. My understanding is that COBRA is a federal act to allow former employees (who meet certain conditions) to keep the same healthcare plan they had under their former employer. This is important because it preserves the amounts paid into the deductible, as well as the coverage.
COBRA, as far as I understand, is not offered by the employer. It is a federal safety net. The employer has no monetary obligation whatsoever, besides those ruled by contract and conscience, to give the departed employee anything. Zero, zip, zilch. They are only obligated to pay out for work performed and anything required by contract, such as unused PTO. Again, that's it.
At least in my state, the only other obligation is the employer must submit to another agency to handle COBRA (should you elect) within 30 days and that agency has 14 days to contact you.
Reading between the lines, this has at least one serious flaw. Suppose you're let go on the 15th of the month and your former employer chooses to not continue your coverage. You then only have coverage until the end of the month. That's approximately 15 days. However, because the employer isn't obligated to submit to the third party for 30 days and they're not obligated to submit paperwork to you for another 14 days, it's potentially 34 days before someone contacts you about setting up continued coverage, or 19 days after your coverage ended. If the former employer doesn't provide you the name or contact info for the third part, you have to cold-call potential agencies in hopes that 1) they're the agency handling you and 2) the employer has submitted to them so that they know point 1. Good luck, hope nothing bad happens to you while you figure this out!
I mention this because your post suggested that employers were required to do more. As far as I know, they're not. It's my contention (and experience) that, because companies tend to be tight fisted and short sighted, it has high probably for them to do only the minimum and to force former employees into the nightmare scenario.
COBRA is also hella expensive. For one individual, expect to pay $450-500. For a couple, at least $1000. PER MONTH. Otherwise, check the marketplace. Already paid your deductible and let go in the first quarter? Too bad if you can't afford COBRA. You have to restart your contributions to the deductible if you opt for a new plan on the marketplace.
So, make sure you're setting aside appropriately in when money's coming in.
Apologies for the rantyness. This has happened twice, once during 2020 and again during the current rounds of layoffs. It hits home, hard. I think it's important for people's safety to make sure these facts are known.
COBRA, as far as I understand, is not offered by the employer. It is a federal safety net. The employer has no monetary obligation whatsoever, besides those ruled by contract and conscience, to give the departed employee anything. Zero, zip, zilch. They are only obligated to pay out for work performed and anything required by contract, such as unused PTO. Again, that's it.
At least in my state, the only other obligation is the employer must submit to another agency to handle COBRA (should you elect) within 30 days and that agency has 14 days to contact you.
Reading between the lines, this has at least one serious flaw. Suppose you're let go on the 15th of the month and your former employer chooses to not continue your coverage. You then only have coverage until the end of the month. That's approximately 15 days. However, because the employer isn't obligated to submit to the third party for 30 days and they're not obligated to submit paperwork to you for another 14 days, it's potentially 34 days before someone contacts you about setting up continued coverage, or 19 days after your coverage ended. If the former employer doesn't provide you the name or contact info for the third part, you have to cold-call potential agencies in hopes that 1) they're the agency handling you and 2) the employer has submitted to them so that they know point 1. Good luck, hope nothing bad happens to you while you figure this out!
I mention this because your post suggested that employers were required to do more. As far as I know, they're not. It's my contention (and experience) that, because companies tend to be tight fisted and short sighted, it has high probably for them to do only the minimum and to force former employees into the nightmare scenario.
COBRA is also hella expensive. For one individual, expect to pay $450-500. For a couple, at least $1000. PER MONTH. Otherwise, check the marketplace. Already paid your deductible and let go in the first quarter? Too bad if you can't afford COBRA. You have to restart your contributions to the deductible if you opt for a new plan on the marketplace.
So, make sure you're setting aside appropriately in when money's coming in.
Apologies for the rantyness. This has happened twice, once during 2020 and again during the current rounds of layoffs. It hits home, hard. I think it's important for people's safety to make sure these facts are known.
> I mention this because your post suggested that employers were required to do more
I'm sorry my post suggested that -- it was not intentional. As you note, employers have no monetary obligations to former employees under COBRA.
My intent was to offer a reason why Plaid, having decided to give employees money towards health care, would opt for cash vs extending the Plaid's existing policy to cover non-employees.
Totally get the rantyness. My experiences with COBRA have not been great either and your points are good ones.
I'm sorry my post suggested that -- it was not intentional. As you note, employers have no monetary obligations to former employees under COBRA.
My intent was to offer a reason why Plaid, having decided to give employees money towards health care, would opt for cash vs extending the Plaid's existing policy to cover non-employees.
Totally get the rantyness. My experiences with COBRA have not been great either and your points are good ones.
If you're still unemployed when COBRA runs out, you'll need private health insurance. IIRC, this was about 50% higher than COBRA. In order to get it, you'll need a form from your former employer (or agent) certifying continuity of coverage. Expect the form to go missing, with persistent phone followup required. This based on my own FAMANG departure a few years back.
Oh I didn't know about the "inactive" days. I thought you could get reimbursed or request a delayed billing cycle so once you hop back on the COBRA plan, they'd retro-actively cover it. Is that not the case?
I looked at the price for COBRA coverage for me and the family when I left my previous employer - $34,000 / year. Ouch.
I looked at the price for COBRA coverage for me and the family when I left my previous employer - $34,000 / year. Ouch.
There should be no inactive days. You typically have the same insurer, use the same card as when employed. For the first month you indeed get the paperwork later, so you pay late, but that's built into the system, it's mentioned in the exit paperwork.
CA WARN Act is 60 days notice, and does not allow pay-in-lieu (you can keep people on payroll with full benefits but bo duties for the notice period, but that’s different than pay-in-lieu.)
> Interesting they are paying the cash equivalent of 6 months of healthcare, rather than just extending healthcare for 6 months
Given COBRA, that is practically the same thing, but gives the employee more choice (it also provides finality to the employer, who doesn’t keep a declining liability on the balance sheet, doesn’t risk having to deal with problems for the ex-employees payments after the one lump sum exit check, etc.)
> Interesting they are paying the cash equivalent of 6 months of healthcare, rather than just extending healthcare for 6 months
Given COBRA, that is practically the same thing, but gives the employee more choice (it also provides finality to the employer, who doesn’t keep a declining liability on the balance sheet, doesn’t risk having to deal with problems for the ex-employees payments after the one lump sum exit check, etc.)
Re not allowing pay-in-lieu, I guess that is correct, but this link implies that the penalty for not giving notice would be the wages, so the 60 days in-lieu would satisfy this - no room for extra damages https://california-business-lawyer-corporate-lawyer.com/empl...
Admin burden of dealing with COBRA is non-trivial, so I would rather have the healthcare than the money.
Admin burden of dealing with COBRA is non-trivial, so I would rather have the healthcare than the money.
Perhaps group policies are annual with a true up / down later in the year and best to not renew and let them sort out their own policy?
A while ago a built a generator for acquisition announcements [1]. Might be time to do one for heartfelt layoff announcements.
[1] https://www.ajnisbet.com/blog/this-startup-acquisition-annou...
[1] https://www.ajnisbet.com/blog/this-startup-acquisition-annou...
Hey, this is great. Really like the idea of training an AI model for this.
I did somethin similar, although much simpler, without AI, for layoffs :-)
https://www.corporatefluff.com
Based on just a dozen layoff announcements from real world companies, randomly ("manually") generated announcements.
It's great to find someone being iritated by the same bland corporate speak and answering it with similar kind of dry humor : - )
I did somethin similar, although much simpler, without AI, for layoffs :-)
https://www.corporatefluff.com
Based on just a dozen layoff announcements from real world companies, randomly ("manually") generated announcements.
It's great to find someone being iritated by the same bland corporate speak and answering it with similar kind of dry humor : - )
I guess no annoying Woven by Plaid posts on LinkedIn for a while.
Success to these affected people, one rule I always remembered is don’t do layoffs in December, so extra brutal.
Success to these affected people, one rule I always remembered is don’t do layoffs in December, so extra brutal.
[deleted]
Not that any time is a good time to be laid off, but being this close to Christmas sucks worse. It'll make shopping and travel and family plans a little more uncomfortable.
Yeah, you're not really supposed to do layoffs between Nov 15 and January. Right now (Dec 7) is a bit of a dick move because it's almost impossible to get an on-site scheduled this month because people will be out.
Referring to people as "Plaids" is dehumanizing. 260 talented people were let go.
It’s the silly cutsey name they give to themselves, like metamates or googlers. So it makes sense to consider them “part of the family” until the end
Yes.. "themselves". Ugh...
I honestly don't know why there's so much resentment over this point in-thread here. I do understand that in the context of a layoff announcement, it's a little cold.
I worked for a company called Weblinc, we called each other Weblincers - not because it was some cult, and there wasn't company "we're a big family" messaging, although there were many tightly knit social groups among colleagues that formed over the years and continue to exist outside of work. That said, when we productized the platform we'd built and rebranded as Workarea, no one made some tribalized adoption of that name. I hadn't thought of it much, but Workarean doesn't roll off the tongue, and becomes an unfortunate homonym, particularly in southeast Pennsylvania.
I'm sometimes called a number of things that I also call myself: a Philadelphian, a Pennsylvanian, a musician, and currently, a commercetooler. It's not my entire personality, but I think it's a little sociopathic to think the company of people that you work with does not contribute in some way to your identity.
I worked for a company called Weblinc, we called each other Weblincers - not because it was some cult, and there wasn't company "we're a big family" messaging, although there were many tightly knit social groups among colleagues that formed over the years and continue to exist outside of work. That said, when we productized the platform we'd built and rebranded as Workarea, no one made some tribalized adoption of that name. I hadn't thought of it much, but Workarean doesn't roll off the tongue, and becomes an unfortunate homonym, particularly in southeast Pennsylvania.
I'm sometimes called a number of things that I also call myself: a Philadelphian, a Pennsylvanian, a musician, and currently, a commercetooler. It's not my entire personality, but I think it's a little sociopathic to think the company of people that you work with does not contribute in some way to your identity.
As someone who actually works at Plaid I agree. I'm surprised to see these reactions to these company demonyms that feel really extreme and at times sound like a conspiracy theory. I understand the apprehension about cult-like company cultures but I'm just not feeling it at Plaid at all. It's no more cringy than people referring to their entire employer as "we", which I see constantly and never see derided at all.
People actually do call each other Plaids in certain contexts because it's shorter than saying something like "colleagues" (which sounds overly formal), and it's clear that it encompasses the whole company. I've never heard a colleague say that we're a family or anything similar. Google had a bit of self-mythology about "Googlers" but Plaid doesn't really even have that.
People actually do call each other Plaids in certain contexts because it's shorter than saying something like "colleagues" (which sounds overly formal), and it's clear that it encompasses the whole company. I've never heard a colleague say that we're a family or anything similar. Google had a bit of self-mythology about "Googlers" but Plaid doesn't really even have that.
Maybe they should have been called stripes because many stripes together compose aid. But that would be a bit weird naming themselves after one of their competitors.
> Macroeconomic conditions have changed substantially this year. Despite being well-diversified across every category of financial services, we are seeing customers across the industry experiencing slower-than-expected growth.
sry for the stupid question, but does anyone have a good breakdown/video/article/explanation on the market change? I have some idea, but I'm not a pro.
sry for the stupid question, but does anyone have a good breakdown/video/article/explanation on the market change? I have some idea, but I'm not a pro.
Interest rates were increased by the federal reserve to ultimately try to increase unemployment to hopefully decrease inflation. This is working by increasing the cost of capital
I would characterize it as "this is working to end almost two decades of free debt grift."
You could, but that would be ignoring the federal reserves own statements about why they are doing this[1]. It’s not a conspiracy to think they are trying to raise the unemployment rate, they’ve been very open about it
[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fed-interest-rate-hikes-unemplo...
[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fed-interest-rate-hikes-unemplo...
I highly recommend this video for a deeper understanding of macroeconomic trends and the role of central banks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHe0bXAIuk0
Zoom this chart in from about 2016 to now.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDS
The tide of capital is going way out after being at high tide for a very long time.
The tide of capital is going way out after being at high tide for a very long time.
"team update" sure is an optimistic spin
>"I made the hard decision to reduce the size of our team, and in doing so, to say goodbye to approximately 260 talented Plaids."
It's fascinating to me that this individual at once acknowledges he made a hard decision and then couches that very statement in euphemisms and weasel-wording. You are not "saying goodbye", you are laying people off. Full stop.
There also seems to be this new corporate-weasel playbook where you don't refer to the people being laid-off as people but instead by some cringe-worthy corporate branding of employees. In this brave new playbook it's not people that are being laid off but rather "Plaids", "Tweeps", "Elasticians" and "Stripes"
I think this intentional. It seems as this is really an attempt to build corporate-culture at the same time you are showing the people who got to keep their jobs just how tenuous and capricious being an employee there really is.
The other notable feature of this new weasel-playbook seems to be that the CEO always "takes responsibility" but yet can not be responsible for actually calling the thing that they're accepting responsibility for what it really is. Nobody was let go they were simply "impacted." And there were no layoffs just "goodbyes being said."
If the CEO can't speak the hard unvarnished truth during the bad times, I would question their capacity for doing so during the good times. I hope that message is not being lost on those remaining "Plaids."
It's fascinating to me that this individual at once acknowledges he made a hard decision and then couches that very statement in euphemisms and weasel-wording. You are not "saying goodbye", you are laying people off. Full stop.
There also seems to be this new corporate-weasel playbook where you don't refer to the people being laid-off as people but instead by some cringe-worthy corporate branding of employees. In this brave new playbook it's not people that are being laid off but rather "Plaids", "Tweeps", "Elasticians" and "Stripes"
I think this intentional. It seems as this is really an attempt to build corporate-culture at the same time you are showing the people who got to keep their jobs just how tenuous and capricious being an employee there really is.
The other notable feature of this new weasel-playbook seems to be that the CEO always "takes responsibility" but yet can not be responsible for actually calling the thing that they're accepting responsibility for what it really is. Nobody was let go they were simply "impacted." And there were no layoffs just "goodbyes being said."
If the CEO can't speak the hard unvarnished truth during the bad times, I would question their capacity for doing so during the good times. I hope that message is not being lost on those remaining "Plaids."
Lay-offs still seem to be happening left right and centre as we get closer to Christmas. In my experience (UK), recruitment grinds to a halt from around the 20th until the New Years. Anyone in a more saturated job market who would usually struggle a bit to find something is going to be in for a really sour Christmas.
I don't suppose there's much that can be done, without possibly making the situation worse, but the timing really does suck for those impacted.
I don't suppose there's much that can be done, without possibly making the situation worse, but the timing really does suck for those impacted.
The references to “UK and Europe”/“UK or Europe” are funny.
why?
Because the UK is in Europe.
Makes as much sense as a Japanese company referring repeteadly to employees in New York and/or the United States.
Makes as much sense as a Japanese company referring repeteadly to employees in New York and/or the United States.
The UK and EU would be better? From a business perspective, Europe and EU are the same thing, and the UK is not part of the EU anymore.
From a business perspective, they seem to consider that the UK is part of Europe:
https://plaid.com/blog/plaid-hires-head-of-europe/
Their site mentions offices in London and Amsterdam. Maybe UK means London and Europe means Amsterdam?
(Or maybe they have some employees elsewhere in Europe - they offer their services in several countries... including another non-EU country: Norway.)
https://plaid.com/blog/plaid-hires-head-of-europe/
Their site mentions offices in London and Amsterdam. Maybe UK means London and Europe means Amsterdam?
(Or maybe they have some employees elsewhere in Europe - they offer their services in several countries... including another non-EU country: Norway.)
> Europe and EU are the same thing
Uwot. A significant chunk of Europe is not in the European Union.
Uwot. A significant chunk of Europe is not in the European Union.
The American perspective is that that are. Many would hard pressed to say which were in the EU and which were not.
I'm pretty sure that most Americans don't know or care about what the EU is, but they've heard of the UK, Italy, Poland, etc., and would readily tell you that the UK (they would probably call it 'England') is in Europe and that Europe is a continent, not a bureaucracy. Foreign bureaucracies are just uninteresting to outsiders, whereas people go visit Rome, Venice, London, etc.
The UK is not a city in Europe.
Europe in this sense seems to refer to the union, not the continent.
Europe in this sense seems to refer to the union, not the continent.
They probably should've called it the EU, then. "Europe" refers to the continent--the geographical landmass that the UK is definitely a part of.
It's more like saying Puerto Rico and The United States
technically you wanted "New York and or North Americans"... if you're trying to be pedantic about things you gotta go full pedantic.
the UK is not, politically, part of Europe (as in the EU) anymore, even if it is part of the geographic (non-political) region known as Europe.
> Immigration. For those on a work visa, we have dedicated immigration counsel that you will have access to for consultation and support.
While this looks good, in practice all this means is access to paralegals/assistants who send canned emails with standard options. There is no "support".
While this looks good, in practice all this means is access to paralegals/assistants who send canned emails with standard options. There is no "support".
What I find to be the most asshole thing with this layoff and the other ones in recent days is that, they pretend to care about the people that are discarded but it is really an awful thing to fire them just before Christmas and end of year celebrations.
Except in exceptional cases, that is not this one, waiting for the beginning of January will not change things so much for the business but it would avoid depression of employee by having celebration ruined for the employee and probably his whole family!
Why is it done like that and now? Probably because they want to be able to announce "good financial news" for the year 2023 or the new quarter...
Except in exceptional cases, that is not this one, waiting for the beginning of January will not change things so much for the business but it would avoid depression of employee by having celebration ruined for the employee and probably his whole family!
Why is it done like that and now? Probably because they want to be able to announce "good financial news" for the year 2023 or the new quarter...
Everyone reacts differently to these things and has a different life situation which I don't mean to minimize. But speaking for myself I would't be so depressed about getting 4 months severance while not having do do any work or be oncall over the holidays. That severance and accelerated vesting is also going to be on the books for the next couple of quarters regardless.
The equity grant part is nice, but it's also tricky. For RSUs, it's a tax liability for an illiquid asset at a time when you have less/no income. For options, it gives you the option to hand money over to the company, making layoffs a fundraising round. And this is in a company that's struggling and you're not inclined to believe in right now.
The RSUs are double-trigger. The tax liability doesn't trigger until they become liquid.
(source: I got laid off at 4:02 am this morning.)
(source: I got laid off at 4:02 am this morning.)
> For RSUs, it's a tax liability for an illiquid asset at a time when you have less/no income.
There is no tax liability if the RSUs are double-trigger. In such cases the tax liability isn't incurred until IPO (first trigger) and time delay (second trigger).
There is no tax liability if the RSUs are double-trigger. In such cases the tax liability isn't incurred until IPO (first trigger) and time delay (second trigger).
Wait, if they're paying the cash equivalent of six-months of healthcare (in the US), on average, how many months of healthcare does that translate to on the open market with the same deductibles/coverage/oop max?
If you’re ok with a bronze/silver in a state with decent plans then possibly 12 months or more
So cold, announcing layoffs to employees this way. A blog post saying "yeah, if you work for us, you're about to get an email telling you if you still do or not"
If you have a lot of experience with seeing how layoffs go down in companies, you'll see that no one is ever satisfied with the way they are done. The reception of it is highly subjective.
I personally would want to get an email telling me directly and with no bullshit involved. I don't want to listen to a CEO come up with some fake apology, and I also want to absorb the news in the confort of my own time, in my own personal space, instead of feeling like cattle being rushed from one point to the next.
IMO there's barely any point trying to appease anyone, just do it, it's ugly, move on.
I personally would want to get an email telling me directly and with no bullshit involved. I don't want to listen to a CEO come up with some fake apology, and I also want to absorb the news in the confort of my own time, in my own personal space, instead of feeling like cattle being rushed from one point to the next.
IMO there's barely any point trying to appease anyone, just do it, it's ugly, move on.
This applies generally to all sorts of bad news that is likely to spread. It's unfortunate but if news is bad enough almost any way that you deliver it will have significant negative sentiment. As a result IMO the emphasis should generally be on telling people the bad news extremely clearly and efficiently, rather than on the surrounding showmanship.
The converse is also true, if you're telling someone that they're getting a raise you could do it over Slack and they'll generally be happy.
The converse is also true, if you're telling someone that they're getting a raise you could do it over Slack and they'll generally be happy.
Exactly. There are bad and worse and less bad ways but someone is always going to be pissed. You can’t soon layoffs to those affected as good news. Except for some who already got an offer somewhere else and just hit the jackpot.
I've never been a part of something like this where the effected had not already heard about it from their direct manager prior to the official public conversations. Granted it might have only been a couple hours, but they've had some time and privacy to digest the reality ahead of the townhall style discussions & the email blast from the CEO. I'm sure it happens and there are plenty of reasons for it, but I've always seen it go down in a more humane/private way for the individuals. From outside, it's never easy to tell how it went down on the inside.
I'm not saying that isn't the best for the employee being laid off, but the news spreads SUPER fast. Someone has an unscheduled 1:1 with a manager and then a private meeting immediately after (with HR usually), a few other people see they have similar things that day, and news starts to spread. That causes panic and confusion across the company ANYWAY.
I think as the parent said, there is no way that keeps all parties happy ... the employees, the leadership, the remaining folks, and now the public.
I think as the parent said, there is no way that keeps all parties happy ... the employees, the leadership, the remaining folks, and now the public.
> the news spreads SUPER fast
By that point, rumors likely are already circling. Potentially for days/weeks/months. The layoffs require coordination and a lot of input from the org chart. A lot of atypical behavior ensues, unplanned meetings, finance guys sniffing around, etc.
But agree overall. It's chaos and my point was only that it's usually more humane than reading a blog post on the internet and left to wonder when you'll know if it will impact you. It's seldom anyone is completely blindsided.
I've always been privy to the info (usually helping formulate the list and benefit package) and if I can I just stay home the day it's planned to go down. Nothing good happens on that day.
By that point, rumors likely are already circling. Potentially for days/weeks/months. The layoffs require coordination and a lot of input from the org chart. A lot of atypical behavior ensues, unplanned meetings, finance guys sniffing around, etc.
But agree overall. It's chaos and my point was only that it's usually more humane than reading a blog post on the internet and left to wonder when you'll know if it will impact you. It's seldom anyone is completely blindsided.
I've always been privy to the info (usually helping formulate the list and benefit package) and if I can I just stay home the day it's planned to go down. Nothing good happens on that day.
[deleted]
Unfortunately, in a highly regulated environment like finance or healthcare this is the norm for opsec reasons. Can't have disgruntled laid-off employees taking revenge actions against the company or customers.
Why not just send the email first, so that people don't have to wait in suspense to see if they still have a job?
The suspense lasted 1 minute. The "team update" and cut/no-cut emails went out pretty much simultaneously.
We're talking about Plaid here. The company that willfully violated every norm around credential handling, implemented fraudulent front-end lookalikes to harvest user credentials, and then used those to reap customer financial records in blatant violation of BSA, and again, 90% of the ethial mores of a responsible finance company.
https://angeion-public.s3.amazonaws.com/www.PlaidSettlement....
Reached via:
https://www.plaidsettlement.com/important-documents.php
I will not, nor would I recommend anyone extend benefit of a doubt when it comes to this org in particular.
While you are factially correct in the general case, I'd hate for people to leave with the idea that Plaid has ever concerned itself with compliance when there was a buck to be made or an inconvenient norm to be worked around unethically.
https://angeion-public.s3.amazonaws.com/www.PlaidSettlement....
Reached via:
https://www.plaidsettlement.com/important-documents.php
I will not, nor would I recommend anyone extend benefit of a doubt when it comes to this org in particular.
While you are factially correct in the general case, I'd hate for people to leave with the idea that Plaid has ever concerned itself with compliance when there was a buck to be made or an inconvenient norm to be worked around unethically.
Exactly, and as a regulated company you get audited on your affected leavers process with proof of time stamps for access removal.
The impression I got is that they offer a pretty generous severance package and I appreciate their transparency. If I were to apply for a job here during better times I would see this post to judge the company's character.
I'm pretty sure the employees received noticed before it went public.
I'm assuming this blog post is a public copy of an internal email
Curious what others think the primary reasons are for this? I'm thinking that it's possible that a majority of their workforce is still working remote, and if you don't turn off system access prior to termination then people might be more likely to do nefarious things (compared to if they were terminated in office?)
Frankly, you may be unsatisfied with the wording of the post, but there are no better alternatives, and nobody in these comments would have done any better.
Is there a resource anywhere that's keeping track of this season's layoffs?
Thanks!
Wow, it began closer to May. I honestly perceived it as being a September thing.
Wow, it began closer to May. I honestly perceived it as being a September thing.
[deleted]
At least they get to say they weren’t just laid off. The my were plaid off.
Lmfao calling them Plaids as you lay them off is so hilariously tone deaf it makes sense why it’s better to just call your employees people.
I have always dreaded when I used an app that needed to confirm my bank with and it used Plaid to do it.
Twitter started an avalanche. So obvious.
These tech company layoffs were already in full-swing before Twitter's hit.
https://tech.co/news/tech-companies-layoffs according to this Better.com started all the way back in 2021 with a "layoff via Zoom call" which I remember people complaining about. At least these are better.
https://tech.co/news/tech-companies-layoffs according to this Better.com started all the way back in 2021 with a "layoff via Zoom call" which I remember people complaining about. At least these are better.
Not in fintech. The big Stripe layoff (14%) was before Twitter.
I think Twitter gets a lot more credit than it deserves for the layoff wave, given that companies had already put effort into modeling the ROI of their labor. The idea that you could do significant workforce reduction and not have the product completely collapse overnight isn't new: it's obvious.
I think Twitter gets a lot more credit than it deserves for the layoff wave, given that companies had already put effort into modeling the ROI of their labor. The idea that you could do significant workforce reduction and not have the product completely collapse overnight isn't new: it's obvious.
[deleted]
Plaid has brought us a lot closer to fast banking (nowhere NEAR as fast as newer blockchains, but at least they are making old school banking better).
If you helped them make things better and are looking for meaningful work, we are hiring across a range of products: mostly for CancerDB.com, but also PLDB.com, LongBeach.pub, and more (https://pd.pub/)
If you helped them make things better and are looking for meaningful work, we are hiring across a range of products: mostly for CancerDB.com, but also PLDB.com, LongBeach.pub, and more (https://pd.pub/)
This is the hardest thing I have ever done. The market changed - I thought we would make more money, now I think we will make less money. Therefore we have discovered that we don't need all of you.
If you aren't needed, here is some money. I hope this is enough money that the internet isn't too mad at me.
Remaining Floofernistas, please be kind to the ex-Floofernistas, and help them.
Again, I am sad.
Goodbye