A layoff fundamentally changed how I perceive work

https://mertbulan.com/2025/01/26/once-you-are-laid-off-you-will-never-be-the-same-again/

by mertbio • 1 year ago

1041 956 1 year ago

You'll never be the same again regardless. Food for thought.

brailsafe3• 1 year ago

Amazing job off capturing nearly word for word what I've said to people and thought before, during, and after being laid off. The signs, symptoms, and treatment; perfect. To someone who's never experienced it, it would seem myopic, but it's not, it's just the way it is, do not give more to your company than you can control the outcome of having done so. You don't get to decide that you're not laid off, and the only thing, as sad as it is, that you should be doing, is exactly what you're paid for.

szundi• 1 year ago

While being true, this do exactly what you're paid for is so dystopian.

coldpie2• 1 year ago

It is? That's a weird position to me. If I go to a store and pay $10 for a sandwich, I don't call it dystopian when I don't get two sandwiches. Similarly, if my working agreement is $X wage for 40 hours of work per week, I don't give them 60 hours, because we agreed on 40. What is dystopian about agreeing to terms and then executing on the agreed terms? That's just how exchanging money for goods & services works.

Tainnor11• 1 year ago

It's not "exactly the way it is" everywhere, though. I've worked at companies that, whenever they laid someone off, they were honest and upfront about it without playing any psychological tricks. Not every company has to be this devoid of soul.

brailsafe3• 1 year ago

That's true, I've been directly laid off and fired without cause without tricks, but the salient point to me is that usually it's a futile and burnout-inducing mission to try and put in extra effort to attempt to avoid the impending outcome. A manager at any company could just be annoyed with how you responded to a question one time and it'll be burned into their brain to get rid of you. In retrospect, although there have been valid moments where my performance has suffered, it's rare for that to be the cause imo, especially if they really don't know what you do anyway. You could think you're a crucial contributor, and all it takes is oversleeping on the wrong day to screw you permanently.

andrewstuart• 1 year ago

After being laid off a few times you start to understand it's all just a show - theater.

The young employees believe it entirely because they have never known any different.

The more experienced become more realistic about the way the entire system works.

iugtmkbdfil8344• 1 year ago

Oh, I don't know. In my current and previous job I was, frankly, amazed at the ronin-like attitude openly expressed by those new, young hires. I was nowhere near this radicalized, when I started my first 'real' job. Management is in for a rather rude awakening.

ForHackernews• 1 year ago

I'm sympathetic but this person comes across as young and (previously) naive. I suppose everyone has to learn the company is not their friend someday.

oldpersonintx• 1 year ago

yeah this is just someone losing their work virginity

the real pro-level insight is understanding that the people left behind are often in a worse position - inertia keeps them locked into a dying company

lm284693• 1 year ago

That's what happened during my first job almost 10 years ago. "we're different than other companies, we're family", "business is always personal", yadda yadda

Then one day out of nowhere "hey btw we're not going to renew your contract, we're nice so we give you an extra 10 days of vacation don't bother coming back tomorrow, oh and all your accesses have been revoked". At least I got the reality check right away, some people get that way down the line when their whole persona has already been built around their job

0xEF3• 1 year ago

I think one has some deeper issues to tackle if one is basing their whole persona around their job. This is not a healthy thing to do, regardless of layoffs.

amelius2• 1 year ago

Someone should develop an LLM-therapist for this situation.

pjc504• 1 year ago

Difficult to avoid when there's lots of culture encouraging it, and especially once your hours are long enough that the rest of your life gets eroded.

aziaziazi• 1 year ago

I agree with the bad idea to put all your persona in a job.

At the same time One will have issues if his persona doesn’t really match with his (min)8h/day 5days/week activity.

tednoob• 1 year ago

It happened to me, though I resigned when I hit burnout during covid. My whole identity was just being good at my job, and then I was no longer that. In part I think some blame is also to be placed on these companies who try to make the employees feel like a tribe or family. Since I've always been alone it was easy to slip into that false sense of belonging.

bestouff• 1 year ago

At one extremum there's e.g. Brad Pitt, how could you tell him not to base his whole persona around its job ?

aredox4• 1 year ago

You can't be aware of the toxicity when your parents, your teachers, your mentors, your bosses and your friends have all the same ethos (and actively put down any other opinion under slurs such as "socialism", "communism", "sloth", "failure of a human being", etc.)

dennis_jeeves29• 1 year ago

I think one has some deeper issues to tackle if one is basing their whole persona around their job. This is not a healthy thing to do, regardless of layoffs.

True, I got to wonder if people who write these posts have any healthy relationships at all? Surely they would have had parents/relatives/friends etc. speak of layoffs?

agumonkey4• 1 year ago

One thing that astonishes me, is that most people want to have a real team to be part of, contribute, give our best.. yet most jobs are just a game of lies and end up being the opposite (there are some good bosses but the stats are low). It's like two needs that can never meet.

bravetraveler• 1 year ago

The purpose of the system is what it does

formerly_proven• 1 year ago

I've been part of two really good teams, one went away because the company closed, the other because it was managed into smithereens. It honestly seemed like it didn't sit right with any level of management to have a bunch of at best average teams and then one very good team in the same org chart, they seemed to prefer to just have every team scrape along.

dennis_jeeves29• 1 year ago

One thing that astonishes me, is that most people want to have a real team to be part of, contribute, give our best..

What astonishes me is that people fall for that BS.

zwnow2• 1 year ago

I dont get it, everyone wants to work for big tech or big corporations in general and then wonder why they do stuff like this.

Go to small companies, yes they pay less but also yes: you will have real impact and they actually need you.

n_ary6• 1 year ago

Nah, small companies are burnout mills. Early in my career, I had explicitly worked on small companies and 4/4 times screwed over. Immediately when the big work is done and investments(or major profits) are in, suddenly the management starts replacing everyone with expensive consultants or their best chums from some failed business somewhere and starts strategic push out by stagnating.

While my experience can be rare/unique, at least at Medium/BigCo, my soul burning gets compensated, small ones are just “we are like family right?” and then push out once technical/financial growth starts rearing its head.

ghaff10• 1 year ago

Small companies can have their own problems. They may only somewhat overlap with the problems at big companies--although both need to make money at the end of the day. But they're far from a panacea.

klooney• 1 year ago

Big companies can double your compensation though, it's a tradeoff.

caseyy3• 1 year ago

I also thought that small companies are better in that regard. But no, they often have their own toxic idiosyncrasies, like when a little power goes too much to the management’s heads. A small company that’s YOURS is better and actually needs you.

scarface_7451• 1 year ago

I worked at mostly small companies and had one 3.5 year stint at BigTech.

“pay less” is an understatement. Top of band for most Big enterprise companies or smaller companies is about the same that a new college grad gets at BigTech.

While I would rather get a daily anal probe with a cactus than go back to BigTech at 50, if I were young and unencumbered instead of a 50 year old empty nester, I would make the trade off in a heart beat

j-bos• 1 year ago

their whole persona has already been built around their job

Maybe this is one of the unspoken goals of bringing people back to the office.

rightbyte• 1 year ago

I think a fundamental reason is that some people build their identity around the only community they are a part of -- their job.

Like, book clubs, political parties, community centres, sport associations etc used to be the place for that. And work was also a place for that. My parent generation worked at like 3 different employees in their whole career.

Tade02• 1 year ago

Mine was before my career started in earnest as I took a job during one of the summer breaks in college, worked 10-11h a day with a commute of 3h in total on top of that without even having a contract on paper only for my employer to first suggest I work for minimum wage and then not pay me at all after the first month.

Naturally, I walked, but to this day I can't believe how naive/stupid I was back then.

charles_f• 1 year ago

we're family

My family doesn't give me performance reviews.

ZephyrBlu2• 1 year ago

Really enjoyed reading this, but I will say that the particular circumstances here are a bit rare. Germany got completely gutted in this layoff. Almost everyone employed in Germany was cut. I know a Senior Staff Engineer from Germany who was laid off then re-hired.

pavlov• 1 year ago

It’s not rare for entire business units or country offices to get shut down. That’s the easiest way to do a layoff because it’s mostly isolated from the rest of the company. Executives can meet most of their layoff target without having to get into the weeds of evaluating individual performance.

Often some functions are moved or merged into another unit, and that’s the escape hatch for the few people someone really wants to save.

ZephyrBlu2• 1 year ago

It wasn't like that in this case. Rumours were it was because people in Germany were thinking of unionizing.

asim• 1 year ago

I remember the zoom call when a person from HR was there. Instantly you know.

arnaudsm• 1 year ago

Many companies could be so much more efficient if they were actually meritocratic.

CharlieDigital3• 1 year ago

It's very hard to measure this accurately at scale.

If you create metrics, they will be gamed. The people that succeed, then, are not necessarily those with the most merit, but those who are best at manipulating their metrics.

anilakar• 1 year ago

We started measuring progress this month by measuring how many percent of last week's planned tasks were completed, and it's already showing.

Everyone is reporting 100 % which means they're probably doing three days worth of work in one work week to keep the number up.

One product owner showed 12 tasks out of 57 being completed and still gave out a 100 per cent completion rate because he retroactively rated those 12 as critical and the rest as unimportant.

shashanoid• 1 year ago

Damn I was part of may the 4th lay off from Shopify. They locked me out instantly from my crucial immigration related document on my work laptop, and there was no help whatsoever. Very ugly. Still remember.

zelphirkalt• 1 year ago

Name and shame, good. Only when we name the perpetrators, we can help others avoid bad employers, of which there are way to many already.

2muchcoffeeman2• 1 year ago

Was it on your work laptop for a reason?

Good reminder, never mix work and personal. Or at the very least maybe use a cloud service or a thumb drive.

Etheryte• 1 year ago

In many countries, a number of visas are employer bound or sponsored, so there's a wide array of reasons why some relevant documents might live in the corporate sphere. Depending on policy, you might not be allowed to transfer it to a personal device. There are often many more documents to a visa than just the visa itself.

mickael-kerjean• 1 year ago

Was also laid of from Qantas when my dad died from cancer 2 months ago, I'm still flabbergasted by it

caseyy3• 1 year ago

Well, the person who decided to lay you off probably didn’t care enough to know, if that makes you feel any better.

bluGill19• 1 year ago

40 years ago an autobody shop near me (where I lived at the time) went bankrupt. The employees came to work in the morning and the door had a new lock. It was 6 months before they could get their personal tools back. Mechanics provide their own tools, so this meant they couldn't really get a new job (or could but only after investing thousands in tools that they already owned but couldn't access).

rsanek2• 1 year ago

this is why I regularly back up important documents to my personal computer. payslips, w2's, etc. never know when you might be terminated and lose access.

yumed15• 1 year ago

I've been part of layoffs twice (with around 8 years in the workforce by now) and yes, I realised the harsh truth that going above and beyond, putting in the soul and long hours is not worth it. No one cares in the long term, you're just a number in the spreadsheet at the end of the day.

But the thing is, I like what I'm working on, I like letting my passion dictate my actions. I want to go home at the end of the day and be proud of what I have accomplished.

But it's not worth putting in that effort for a company that treats you like any other resource. So I'm starting to become one of those soulless employees. You can call it quiet quitting or whatever. And it's slowly killing my spark.

I started working on my own projects to keep that spark alive. But 2h every day is not enough to build something that's worth it.

cyberpunk• 1 year ago

Yep I’m in exactly the same boat. I think I’ve largely decided that tech is just a job now; my motivation to code outside of work was tied to also somehow enjoying doing it at work and now I don’t anymore I also stopped doing it for fun.

So I’ve replaced advent of code with various other stuff, music, woodworking, books, the great outdoors and while my life is less rich in technology it’s becoming much fuller in other ways.

I think I prefer it this way.

secondcoming2• 1 year ago

For me, coding outside of work becomes unsustainable as you age. It's not that you can't, it's because you realise there's more to life than staring at a computer screen. I love coding, but it's also good to go outside sometimes.

gjadi• 1 year ago

Like you, I like doing work I enjoy, but I have never been in a layoff, so I don't know how I will react to it.

My hope is that after a layoff I would be able to bounce back and find a new company where I can keep on doing fun work.

Life has ups and downs. I don't think shielding yourself from emotions is a healthy path. Just like you don't have to shield yourself from others forever after a breakup. A key ingredient is to have other part of your life to support you (family, couple, friends, ...) when one is failing.

pjc504• 1 year ago

It's been 20+ years since I was laid off when the first internet boom collapsed. I got a decent settlement, spent a while experimenting with self employment, and got another interesting full-time job which lasted for years. I'd rate the experience as significantly less traumatic than my first relationship breakup.

But yes, the first time you experience redundancies regardless of whether you're made redundant or survive is definitely an eye-opener. It's like those financial disclaimers "the value of your investment may go down as well as up". There may be very little warning. It may even happen at a time that's very bad for you personally. And it does break trust among the company.

Jean-Papoulos• 1 year ago

I was thinking that it seems strange to fire a 10x dev that has regular one-on-one meetings with a VP. OP could have contacted said VP and outlined that he was worth keeping, until I got to this line :

the law enforces a social scoring system to determine who is affected, prioritizing the protection of the most vulnerable employees

This is the reason OP got laid off, if all he says about his high performance is true. The good old positive discrimination making unintended victims. Germany just lost a 10x dev's productivity for this.

While I agree with the spirit of the law and don't have the details of this case, it is quite the sad situation for everyone involved.

Tainnor11• 1 year ago

At no point does the law force a company to fire a high performer. The company can literally just fire one fewer person - if the employee really is 10x and if the company has its shit together, that's what would happen.

inglor_cz10• 1 year ago

Let us face it, the European welfare model is a blind alley. No one in the world is going to copy this from us again, now that it is clear that it makes us

a) uncompetitive - taxes too high, too much protection for people who might not merit it;

b) less likely to start new businesses - in theory, you can have a great welfare system and a great atmosphere for enterpreneurship, but in practice, the former will usually stifle the latter, as the "eat the rich" types will dominate the discourse;

c) extremely vulnerable to the aging problem. Too many pensioners, not enough kids, not enough highly qualified migrants who have zero reason to subject themselves to lower compensation, higher taxation and, on the top of all, interaction with bureacracy that insists on the local language. OTOH hardly literate people from Afghanistan or Niger don't mind any of that; the German / Dutch / Swedish welfare system will take care of them even if they do nothing and/or immerse themselves in the black market.

IDK how to get out of this pickle, the local population is addicted to high welfare spending and other onerous protections like to crack and won't vote against it, even though it is becoming clear that as we fall more and more behind the US, we won't be able to afford a system like that.

Robust welfare states can be only carried by robust economies and a lot of young workers. Those conditions existed in the 1960s or 1970s, and our current systems are downstream from that, but the foundation is eroding with every passing year.

The final collapse will be pretty ugly, something like Argentina, but full of 70 y.o. paupers. Weaker spots in the EU already have a huge problem providing healthcare to the elderly, or even anyone. On paper, it is an universal right, but in reality, there simply aren't enough doctors to carry this obligation out.

The Czech Republic is somewhere in the middle, nowhere near as bad as rural Bulgaria, but try finding a dentist who accepts insurance patients outside the major cities like Brno and Prague. That will be an exercise in the impossible.

shafyy4• 1 year ago

What does "European welfare model" even mean? Europe consists of many countries, and different countries have significantly different welfare models.

Many EU countries have enough wealth, the problem is that it is unevenly distributed.

xkbarkar• 1 year ago

Not sure why you are being downvoted. I live in welfare mecca with the worlds highest tax pressure and heqlthcare is breaking under the load.

Staff is overworked and underpayed, waiy lines for crucial procedures can count to decades.

The workforce is aging because young people have stoped reproducing and fear of losing welfare money and the sight of brown faces prevents authoritiesfrom importing competent foreign non eutopean workforce.

This will collapse. There is no doubt this is not sustainable.

This is not an uneven distribution of wealth. Its a monster system that costs more than the national GDP can reasonably sustain in the long term.

Now I am no proponent of privatized healthcare, the current system does not work though.

Everyone suffers like this.

Note: My employer provides private healthcare insueance for us. I live in the richest part if the world. The Nordics. My private insurances gets me same day medical appointments.

The poor sods that cannot afford it have to wait weeks.

Tell me how this is fair and how wonderful the nordic welfare is??

Its americanized and terrible for almost twice the price

twixfel7• 1 year ago

Yeah the system doesn't work. Nothing has convinced me more of that fact than living in Germany has. If your system only works for a single generation in which you have an unusually large working population and relatively few children and relatively few old people, then your system doesn't work. The German system never worked, it was always just running on borrowed time.

BlueTemplar6• 1 year ago

I'm not sure what you're expecting demography-wise : would you rather have this, an unsustainable population growth or an average lifespan of 40 years ?

But also, yes, in the "West" we've been living way above our means for almost a century now, and the chickens are starting to come home to roost.

shafyy4• 1 year ago

I had to look this up, and the law states that the Sozialauswahl (social selection) only applies to employees who have the same qualifcations, rank etc. The law applies when the company is doing across-the-board layoffs (e.g. because they have become unprofitable).

It says that employees who have been longer at the firm, have disability, need to support family etc. should be let go last, compared to employees who have the same qualifcations, rank etc. So, in theory, what you're saying is wrong – the company would not lose their "10x devs" (whatever that means) because of this law.

Also, OP mentions the law, but does not say that he was affected by it.

netdevphoenix6• 1 year ago

OP didn't got it right. It only applies for those with the same qualifications (i.e. given two 10x devs, the most vulnerable one is kept) so the company gets to keep a 10x dev. He's just externalising his problems to the easiest target (ie. vulnerable people). His own situation is partially his fault and he admits as much when he describes a list of what he would have done differently.

People expect things to always work the same way and they get upset when they don't.

MeruMeru4• 1 year ago

Strongly agree with the author. I was laid off two years ago, and I am experiencing the same feelings he is describing: I no longer want to give my 100%, I no longer overcommit. I do the minimum required and feel emotionally detached from the company and my colleagues.

It's a waste that so many individual contributors who, as the author said, had good performance and were close to the users went through a laid off. Now a new generation of previously high achievers work force will get back in the market and no longer use all their potential for their job. Like it wasn't the fault of the new company that hired me, that now I do the bare minimum, they won't see the full potential I gave before. And I, I cannot prevent it. My work ethics and motivation died after the lay off.

secondcoming2• 1 year ago

It's disappointing that you feel detached from your colleagues. They're in the same boat as you. Also, increasing your network doesn't hurt. There's a risk in being known as the quiet or moody guy who doesn't interact with anyone. It might make you enjoy your work more too.

MeruMeru4• 1 year ago

Partially agree. I still network, and actually found my current job thanks to my network. I still interact with ma colleagues, help them, socialize. But I try to keep some emotional distance. When I got laid off, my colleagues were also my close friends, so on top of the laid off turmoil I was living, I was sad I would no longer work with them.

qwe----34• 1 year ago

Well, if this generation is all like you then they’ll be replaced by the next generation of hungry graduates

n_ary6• 1 year ago

Hmm… not really, bars are high, no one is hiring fresh graduates anymore, and new generation is more detached with better sense of real world and focus on work-life balance and more personal growth, unlike previous generation who usually tied their identity to their work and gave their 500% for peanuts and glory(always fake and meaningless).

drawkward• 1 year ago

Eh, the kiddos seem to be realizing that the rat race is, after all, for rats.

elzbardico2• 1 year ago

The kids are way smarter than that.

bowsamic3• 1 year ago

This feels a bit too far in the opposite direction to the point of hurting yourself

MeruMeru4• 1 year ago

I understand. But since I have decided to reduce my time and energy dedicated to a company, I put this extra time and energy more towards my personal hobbies. I feel like I am living two lives in one day, at work I am detached and do only what's required, while outside work I am deeply invested in my things.

ipnon3• 1 year ago

I read a book called “The Goal” by Goldratt and he describes his theory of constraints. One of the main predictions of his theory is that the existence of many resources working at maximum capacity is symptomatic of a wildly inefficient production system. Thus you shouldn’t feel guilty about not giving 100% every day. This behavior is necessary to properly balance the total throughout of your company. Ideally only one person should be giving 100% in any given company, and in a fair and balanced system this would be the CEO who is concomitantly receiving massive compensation.

yadaeno• 1 year ago

This theory feels like it’s making tons of assumptions and leans heavily on semantics.

In a factory you have many components operating near or at capacity. In a high growth environment you want all of your components working at capacity to explore the problem space and optimize.

ozgung• 1 year ago

That was one of the most eye opening books for me. I think it all applies to Software development as well. It is not uncommon that you work all weekend to finish your task, only to see it waits two weeks in the next person's queue.

datavirtue2• 1 year ago

This is how you generate more layoffs for yourself. Having money saved and living within your means greatly reduces the impact of being laid off. You need to be impactful and putting yourself out there at all times or you lose trust. Several people who have allowed themselves to be beat down mentally at my company have lost trust and are on the chopping block. It can take a year or more before you get sacked. You can also reverse the course at almost any time.

MeruMeru4• 1 year ago

Thank you for your advice. I agree. I am still working and completing my tasks, so far I didn't give anyone any reason to complain about my work. But I would not put again the extra hours or extra creativity. I save money and live within my means. And I live in a country with great unemployment benefits if it happens again. When I got laid off, I didn't suffer financially thanks to our support system, but emotionally it was hard.

bluGill19• 1 year ago

While not bad advice, but careful - you will die and you don't know when. You can't take it with you (almost all religion agrees on this, though if yours doesn't then I guess I won't argue religion here). Have a reasonable amount of saved money, but make sure you are using the majority of what you earn on things you enjoy (well at least things you enjoy consistent with the law and religion should either of those conflict with what you enjoy)

Tainnor11• 1 year ago

I was working for a German startup that had been acquired by a big American company. The relationship between my team and the big corp was strained from the start - we felt that they simply didn't understand what we did and didn't give us the liberty to decide how best to do things. They also didn't seem very mindful of time zone differences or understanding of German worker protection laws.

When they laid off the other team that was working in our office (on an entirely different product), they of course assured us that we were safe - they believed in our product, yadda yadda.

Then at some point, things started getting weird - a job position was cancelled right before we were going to offer the candidate the job. A trip to HQ was cancelled last minute. An external team was getting increasingly involved.

About a year after the other team had been fired, the second highest ranking executive was visiting our office, something he would do once in a while. When the visit was announced, we were joking that "if he brings Pattie from HR, they'll lay us off". I got the message from my coworker on my way to work: "Pattie is here."

The speech the executive gave us was the stupidest thing I've ever heard somebody say to me. He literally said: "In a couple of years, you will look at this as a big opportunity." We just rolled our eyes at each other. When he left the room, we picked up the remotes and started playing stickman against each other. It was the only thing that seemed appropriate.

We had a very nice office and so we were looking forward to be able to spend our notice period together, playing video games, making music and doing the bare minimum in terms of handover duties. Unfortunately, covid happened at right that time and our time together was dramatically cut short, which I still consider a tragedy.

One woman in our team was pregnant and fought the settlement they were offering us. As far as I know, they had to keep her on for longer and she eventually negotiated a better deal - pregnant people are especially protected under German labour law.

To this day, some in my former team doubt that what they did was really all that legal and think we should have fought back, because it later turned out that they lied to us about a bunch of things. But I doubt it would have been really worth it. They just wanted us out.

strken• 1 year ago

After being laid off more than once, I think I'd adjust the advice a little:

- You're only obliged to work your contract hours. If you do more then make sure that you, personally, are getting something out of it, whether that's "I look good to my boss" or "I take job satisfaction from this" or just "I get to play with Kotlin". Consider just not working overtime.

- Take initiative, but do so sustainably. Instead of trying to look good for promo, or alternately doing the bare minimum and just scraping by, take on impactful work at a pace that won't burn you out and then leave if it isn't rewarded.

- Keep an ear to the ground. Now you've got a job, you don't need another one, but this is a business relationship just like renting a house or paying for utilities. Be aware of the job market, and consider interviewing for roles that seriously interest you. Don't go crazy and waste the time of every company in your city lest it come back to bite you, but do interview for roles you might actually take.

The last two points are fine, however.

roenxi2• 1 year ago

Indeed. The real discovery in the article is that the people who manage performance and the people who manage headcount were completely different people. The article writer had (common mistake) assumed that impressing the former would take care of the latter. It doesn't; the techniques to manage the headcount people are different.

I wholeheartedly endorse your adjustments - it is fine to go above and beyond but for heavens sake people please think about why beyond some vague competitive urge. Going above and beyond without a plan just means the effort will likely be wasted. Some cynicism should be used. Negotiate explicitly without assuming that the systems at play are fair, reasonable or looking out for you.

mcherm• 1 year ago

the techniques to manage the headcount people are different

I would like to hear a little bit more about those techniques.

The only one I am aware of is to make sure that you have promotions under your belt: The arm's-length people who plan layoffs know very little about the individual's other than their job title and rank. But this advice is hardly useful: it is extremely rare for an individual to have a choice of whether to be promoted or something different.

What other techniques are you aware of?

imsaw• 1 year ago

Just got accepted on my first job last month. Yet, last week, company (>500 ppl) already announced some small layoffs.

Do you always lurk for opportunities outside the current company (maybe some roles are more stable)? If so, how to explain in the interview that you're currently employed somewhere but concerned of their stability?

ourmandave• 1 year ago

I read somewhere that 1 in 20 job postings is fake.

So you just explain to the fake job interviewer that you're the 1 in 20 fake job candidate.

There's a 5% chance they'll understand.

Lanolderen• 1 year ago

If you're actually down to jump ship you can probably be upfront about it.

It's a negative point but the good managers I've had were usually realists so unless you have multiple questionable things or get overly defensive/weird when answering they'd just take it as "shit happens" with a small minus.

Edit: To me it feels like all of the talk outside of technical knowledge is essentially based on vibes. My CV is pretty bad since it took me way too long to graduate but after I stopped explaining it too much and just went with "shit happens, my bad" it stopped being much of an issue.

If you wanna lie you can also say that you took the job as filler until you find a position in/with CERTAIN CRITERIA and you made your employer aware of this. I don't know how common that is but my current situation is kinda this. I worked for my current fulltime employer as a student and when offered a fulltime contract past graduation I asked for a shorter notice period due to wanting to move to Switzerland and they agreed.

Of course be careful not to do it too often since you don't want multiple couple month gigs in your CV.

ptero• 1 year ago

If you just started at your first job i would focus first on becoming an asset for your team.

Being well regarded by key technical folks will allow you to leverage them for introductions and recommendations if you need a new job. In general, find a good mentor, develop soft skills and maintain friendships.

There are no guarantees and with minimal experience you are for now more vulnerable, but this should minimize the risk better than always searching for the next job. My 2c.

ghaff10• 1 year ago

Whether or not you start actively looking for other jobs, you can take any opportunities you have to better develop your network. It's harder just starting out but post my first fairly extended role out of grad school, every one of my jobs was through someone I knew.

eastbound• 1 year ago

Well, you say just that. It even demonstrates a beginning of business acumen.

Everyone does it, recruiters aren’t naive. Once I became old enough to hire people, I understood it’s ok (depending on the audience, beware) to say “I can start on Monday but I’ll take two weeks of holidays during the same month, because it’s already planned.” Better have employees who are mature enough to take care of their worklife balance, than employees who burn out and end up grumpy. An employee was relocating and I told him during the first month he shouldn’t work more than 6hrs/day and use the rest to settle his private life (rental, bank, insurances, child care, etc.).

saagarjha2• 1 year ago

There's no need. Just tell them that you're keeping tabs on the job market and would switch for a compelling offer. It's up to them whether they have one for you.

ghaff10• 1 year ago

I was laid off during dot-bomb and was lucky enough to land a good (actually better) job through someone I knew pretty quickly. Pay wasn't great and they barely came through dot-bomb themselves later. But whatever.

I can't say I was surprised when it happened. I knew things weren't going well and I wasn't really bringing in business. Was actually happy to move on except for the fact that the job market was really tough at the moment.

But, yeah. Under most circumstances knocking yourself out isn't worth it most of the time. I have had some product launches and on-job site projects where I sort of did for a while and that was OK. But don't make a practice of it in most cases.

foogazi• 1 year ago

through someone I knew

The best interview hack

myth_drannon• 1 year ago

I never understood the advice of to take on impactful work. How does work? The team is assigned units of work and then individuals are usually assigned the tasks. The only way I see it to work is to be on a team that works on impactful projects.

thechao• 1 year ago

I know this probably doesn't help you now, but I negotiated this as a requirement of my employment. I showed up day one, walked around & engaged about 20 or so people on the floor in what they did over the first few weeks I was there, picked up a few low hanging projects that seemed interesting & then just kept doing whatever the hell I felt like. Was I qualified to do this? No. But, honestly, I wasn't qualified to do anything at the place, anyways.

I mentor all of my junior engineers to do the same, and management really likes it. The rule of the game is you must finish what you start, and you must clearly communicate schedule.

closeparen3• 1 year ago

individuals are usually assigned the tasks

The higher you go, the more vaguely your "tasks" are defined, the more scope you have for interpretation and for choosing subproblems and related problems to dig into and run with.

SkyBelow2• 1 year ago

Also, keep yourself employable. What you get hired to do and what you'll find yourself doing 6 months later, 2 years later, etc. aren't going to be the same. Whatever you are doing, keep in mind how much of it is really a marketable skill and how much of it is specialized to a small slice of the industry or perhaps even just your current company. Move within a company to keep working on what is useful to one's own career. I would only accept dead end work for a significant pay bump or as I'm finalizing for retirement.

jacobgkau2• 1 year ago

Not sure why you got downvoted for this. My current role started very tech-heavy and morphed into almost completely documentation as my management found out I'm one of the only ones at the company who doesn't suck at grammar and photography. Now my day-to-day really wouldn't be useful for getting another job with a similar title (and pay) to my current one, and I need to devote extra time outside of work to keeping up with actual tech skills that I used to be able to develop on-the-job.

asah• 1 year ago

this is great and subtle advice worth reading twice. I'd add that a great "getting something out of it" reason is learning and reputation.

yibg• 1 year ago

I agree with this, maybe I'd summarize things in a slightly different way: think of employment as a mutually beneficial transaction. That doesn't necessarily mean simply working the contracted hours, but keep in mind that jobs are, these days transactional in nature.

I can go above and beyond, work on the weekends etc, but there should be a benefit to me. That could be because I learn something and it sets me up for my next job, I increase my chances of a promotion, or just that it's something interesting to me personally.

I think there is probably less cynicism this way too, because this is how most companies look at employees too.

jwr• 1 year ago

My recommendation would be: don't make your work be part of your identity, unless it's your work (e.g. your business). The work you do for others is not who you are. Your employer is not your family, nor even your friend. It's a business relationship, and should be taken as such.

This, incidentally is good advice for both sides of an employment relationship: employers sometimes also mistakenly believe that employees are their friends and family and then get a rude awakening when employees suddenly leave with no warning, for a 10% increase in salary.

flymaipie• 1 year ago

If your business fails you will consider yourself a failure. Thus these life lessons leads us to buddhist concept of self-detachment.

layer8• 1 year ago

I agree with the “it’s a business relationship and not family” part, but not with the identity part. Something you spend ~40% of your awake time with is certainly part of one’s identity, and for good mental health should be something one enjoys.

thomond• 1 year ago

The first layoff is always the worst. You'll treat future gigs as transactional and be better for it. The younger you're laid off the sooner you'll learn this.

magicstefanos2• 1 year ago

I'm so grateful I was laid off just 2 years into my first software gig out of school. I graduated, worked my ass off at a startup, and theeeen covid! It hurt but that was a permanent wisdom upgrade.

shaftway3• 1 year ago

You forget over time, and obligations grow.

My first layoff was rough. It was in '00 and I was 21, so I didn't have too many obligations.

My second layoff was in '23 and I was 44 with kids and a mortgage. It hit me a lot harder.

My third was in '24, but I had learned my lessons and had positioned myself better, so I wasn't as badly affected.

xdennis• 1 year ago

The worst part is finding out how many things depend on your job. I needed to move out when I was laid off, but good luck finding someone to rent to you when you don't have a job.

firtoz3• 1 year ago

Yes... I'm in the UK, in London. For renting, even as a founder who has a profitable business that was active for a year, they're still either asking for upfront payments (12 months...) or a guarantor. This was the case for multiple locations (SE13 + E16).

They said if my business was running for 2 years or more then they'd accept that as low enough risk.

A bit understandable in this economical situation, but man, it's hard. Even for the guarantor, they need to own a house and have at least 40x the monthly rent as proven (PAYE or business with 2+ years) yearly income.

I knew only one person who could be a guarantor that fits the requirements.

Alternative was AirBnb or other monthly accommodation which was of course more expensive.

BlueTemplar6• 1 year ago

The worst cases is when they don't even accept the 12 months of upfront payment !

keiferski2• 1 year ago

The thing that bothers me most about layoffs due to “financial difficulties” is when you observe management wasting absurd amounts of money on something in one year, then announcing the following year that they have to make cuts to baseline, “low level” employees that don’t cost much at all.

This kind of managerial behavior seriously kills employee motivation, because it both communicates that 1) no one has job security and 2) that management is apparently incapable of managing money responsibly.

“Sorry, we spent $200k on consultants and conferences that accomplished nothing, so now we have to cut an employee making $40k” really erodes morale in ways that merely firing people doesn’t.

mk893• 1 year ago

That's because they have a budget which is planned ahead (e.g., 2024 for 2025) for everything.

Typically if the company is really in financial trouble, they will also NOT use the pre-allocated budget which was not yet spent (=200k for company events, although the budget for such things was planned and approved last year).

I have seen companies actually taking care of finances (both firing people AND blocking useless events) and I have seen companies doing what you said, which creates pure hatred.

keiferski2• 1 year ago

Right, which is more indicative of how yearly budgets which don’t factor in continual employment of staff lead to the morale decline I mentioned. Perhaps the manager isn’t actually capable of doing much about it, and can only spend or not spend their budget. But that indicates a failure in the company as a whole; at least if keeping employee morale high is a goal (which it definitely isn’t at many companies.)

Even then, the mismanagement of funds just communicates a level of incompetence that is more demotivating than cuts from an actual lack of funds, IMO.

“Sorry, the market has shifted and we can’t afford this,” is at least somewhat understandable when you have trust in management’s ability. When you don’t, it comes unpredictable and chaotic - never a recipe for getting good work done.

codr76• 1 year ago

Let's hope the budget includes success then...

vasco• 1 year ago

Also mostly it's speculation of an accepted kind. Executives can say, listen we have these initiatives, I think they will print money next year, so based on this prediction I will raise the budget for the FY. Then when the prediction of revenue fails, you do cuts, oh well you were wrong. But next year you can do the same thing. Game theory wise this works because if you're right, you bet big, hire big, are ahead next year vs your competitors that invested less. If it goes wrong you are seen as a serious executive that has the courage to have layoffs when needed, and if your market is ebbing your competitors will also be suffering somewhat.

It's also easy to make the next year prediction be whatever you want since in a small company it's just you saying a number that the board doesn't think is too outrageous and in a large company involves you asking an analyst to increase the word of mouth factor of their model or whatever.

bodegajed2• 1 year ago

This happened to a friend of mine. Executive made far-fetched PowerPoint slides and tried to raise a budget, the board loved the powerpoint. They restructured, the company laid-off dozens, and hired new foreign contractors. Because past engineers got the blame, and the legacy code. They rewrite from scratch using X this time. Massive failure because of poor morale, brain drain and over-ambitious features. So what now? well let's do another round of layoffs, make new powerpoint slides and repeat the same process.

marcosdumay5• 1 year ago

Oh, those hyperspecialized employees that can only work in one project and could never do the exact same thing if the thing's goal changed...

And yeah, those quick to materialize gains, where the manager can easily discover if a project worked within the same fiscal year...

Also dragons and unicorns, I guess... what a world those people live in!

bluGill19• 1 year ago

That is the problem with presentations of all sides - doesn't matter if it is power point, a blog post, a NYC article, government report, a documentary, or something else. Whoever writes it gets to choose what arguments and facts to bring out. However listens to it is generally primed to think it is correct and not ask hard questions - often they don't even know what the hard questions would be. And so garbage gets approved all the time because it looks good.

wisty2• 1 year ago

Managers have a budget. They can't save it, and may spend big on consultants to create a buffer for their team when cuts hit. This is especially true in government, and big companies are similar.

There is only one person who really can stop cycles hitting budgets and that is the CEO. IIRC Warren Buffett lamented the fact that the CEO is more of an investor than a manager and that spending budgets as a senior manager gives them almost no experience in setting those budgets.

iovrthoughtthis• 1 year ago

budget based economics may be the worst thing to happen to large organisations

seb12043• 1 year ago

Governments have lost many skills to do fuck all. The consultant justification is just hiding the fact that years if not investing in skilled people have resulted in a lot of clueless administrators that can't do much.

mytailorisrich2• 1 year ago

Conversely, budgets are based on estimates and forecast of resources needed. It's not like a manager gets a random number out of the blue and then needs to find ways to spend it. Budgets in engineering, especially software dev., are mostly based on number of people (aka 'resources') needed in the team, so a manager will want to fill their headcount otherwise it means they don't actually need this number of people.

aimanbenbaha• 1 year ago

This is what Palmer Luckey criticizes in how the DoD do procurement. The way contracts are signed makes it that contractors are only incentivized to provide solutions that maximize the budgets set by higher management in government focusing on filling out those reimbursements rather than delivering effective warfighters that the military needs.

It seems that all this layoff discussions should shed light to the blight of managerialism that permeated modern business culture. It’s this system that encourages managers to obfuscate accountability for their high-stakes decisions, and while the low-level employees shy away from suggesting solutions that solve problems or identify bottlenecks because at the end of the day they're just part of the budget in an excel sheet table. It feels like a betrayal to the promises of capitalism.

cies• 1 year ago

Everybody makes mistakes. Higher up in the company (or goverment) mistakes are usually more expensive. Painful, but I see no way around this.

gherkinnn• 1 year ago

Surely this is a question of having skin in the game, where management is all game and employees all skin. If the clowns making decisions would get hit by bad ones, things would look differently. You now, actually "taking full responsibility".

jojobas• 1 year ago

They don't spend $200k on consultants just because it's fun. They do it when there are already difficulties in figuring out how to productively use the employees who make $40k (say 20 of them).

This is not to say managers don't make stupid decisions, but they are more like bets. Somewhere between the fall of Nokia and the hit of iphone are thousands of decisions that lead to hiring or firing some 10-100 people.

mrweasel4• 1 year ago

Sorry, we spent $200k on consultants

A former employer decided to freeze pay for a few years and later later start laying off people. During the pay freeze a colleague suggested that we might save a significant amount of money by hiring staff, rather than paying the large number of consultants we had hired. I think the ration was something like getting rid of two consultants would free enough money to hire three developers.

Managements take was that we should keep the consultants, because they where much easier to fire, two weeks notice, compared to four. So it was "better" to have consultants. My colleague pointed out that the majority of our consultants had been with us for 5+ years at that point and any cancelling of their contracts was probably more than 4 weeks out anyway. The subject was then promptly changed.

In fairness to management large scale layoffs did start 18 months later.

jddj• 1 year ago

Outside of the US this optionality does have some value to deserve at least some premium.

Hire an extra dev for the same money looks good on paper, but employment being the trapdoor function that it is in some jurisdictions does muddy the water.

(I do understand that there's a historical context to keep in mind, and that the relationship is often asymmetric in the other direction as well)

mstaoru• 1 year ago

5+ years "consulting" would probably be reclassified as employment by most courts.

pydry• 1 year ago

Consultanties get brought in to provide ass cover for management but they cant just say that.

sheepscreek• 1 year ago

There’s the whole capital expenditure vs operating expenses angle too, and depending on a company’s particular situation, one might look better on paper than the other. Without going into too much detail, contractors will be hired typically to contribute to capital expenditure and employees to the latter.

This distinction is even more relevant for earnings. So companies will optimize this for taxation and accounting to win shareholder brownie points.

scarface_7451• 1 year ago

“A former employer decided to freeze pay for a few years and later later start laying off people”

Why would anyone stay at a company that had pay freezes for a few years. I would have been looking for another job the moment they announced them.

EGreg2• 1 year ago

How exactly does one become a consultant on a 1099? Go work for a consulting company a W-2? That’s how I did it four years ago. Well, the consulting company takes a nice chunk above what they bill you out for.

How does one do it freelance? I also would prefer contract work or consulting work, I like that no feelings are hurt when I leave having done a good job, leave em better than you found ‘em.

hammock• 1 year ago

Many companies have a policy like “freelancers, once kept on for 12 months, must be either hired full time, or fired” to deal with this

dolmen2• 1 year ago

Think about a wider scale than your employer: if the costs of the consultants goes in fact in the pockets of the investors of your employer, that money is not lost.

kavalg• 1 year ago

In quite many places, hiring consultants has a very high corruption potential (e.g. the hiring manager favoring one of several suppliers). With employees they don't have this leverage.

Simon_O_Rourke2• 1 year ago

Management tend to get a bee in their bonnet about headcount, specifically full time employees, while they don't count consultants as being under the same kind of restrictions. It does often end up in the madness you describe, like that time there was a data entry consultant costing at my 0 company 100k, which a full timer would have been paid 35k max.

jorvi• 1 year ago

One that is functionally different but causes the same type of morale hit is managers and upward equipping themselves with fully loaded MacBooks and iPhones, but equipping rank-and-file employees with shitty Dell laptops and budget tier Android phones.

That happens more at traditional companies than tech companies, but it immediately signals that it's a crappy company steeped in "rules for thee but not for me" culture.

skirge• 1 year ago

"low level" do count in stats if need to show "savings" and can be easily replaced when needed. Also they do not generate profits but need resources (mentoring etc.). On the other side costs are tax deductible.

markus_zhang• 1 year ago

It's just normal late Capitalism syndrome - no one takes responsibilities, and everyone, at least everyone that is close to the trough tries to get his/her head into it.

From politicians to corporation managers to civil servants, it's everywhere. That's it.

ClumsyPilot• 1 year ago

management is apparently incapable of managing

That’s frequently the fundamental issue really.

Measuring a developer’s productivity as an IC is fairly easy. Measuring quality of manager’s decisions is tricky

InDubioProRubio2• 1 year ago

Lets just add a metric (like loc or stockprice) - that will solve things. Gambling metrics will continue till lipservice improves.

EGreg2• 1 year ago

Um, I have seen irrationality all across the board. Market participants shooting themselves in the foot.

I have seen investors not invest even $10K into a project and then line up to invest far more for the SAME amount of shares.

When you apply for jobs, you see recruiters (who get commission from placements) tell you that your background isnt a fit when it is a perfect fit, and prefer to not show candidates.

I have even explained to recruiters that there is an opportunity to represent the candidates, like a Hollywood agent or like a seller agent i Real Estate. That the candidates would also pay a commission out of their salary, if placed in a job they actually like. And that all they have to do is call their counterpart recruiter and vouch for the candidate, which usually a quick call. But most are stuck in their ways and don’t want to tap new opportunities, no matter how easy. To their credit, some are not.

And so, it is no surprise to me that businesses waste money and then cut their task force. Many of them don’t care about you, but expect you to care about them. They’ll even expect you to stay late and demonstrate commitment, but they won’t pay you overtime.

TeMPOraL2• 1 year ago

One thing I learned the other day is to never believe the internal corporate newsletters. For an entire year, pretty much every single day would bring in an e-mail from Company BU A, or Cross-Company Initiative X, or Podcast with CEO, or such. Every single one of them would talk about the great successes in recovering from the economic crisis, the amazing results this quarter, the great product release here, another successful merger there, new perspectives on Bitcoin or AI or such from CEO, whatnot - all giving you the picture of the enterprise being like literal USS Enterprise hitting warp speed. And then a layoff wave finally reaches your department, and you learn that apparently the whole BU is deep in the red and they're forced to cut staff across the board, and it's been like this forever, and that's why there was an emergency meeting last Thursday (called "Financial Update Q3 for BU Y" or something, non-obligatory and otherwise not announced or discussed), and "don't you ever attend town halls?".

(Yeah, no one at PM level or above does, there's nothing relevant in them. Until one day there is.)

Newsletters, meanwhile, continue coming and announcing even greater growth due to digital transformation in the age of blockchain or AI or stuff.

Lesson learned: the first impression was correct - it's all internal marketing, and it's about as truthful and helpful to the recipient as regular marketing, i.e. not at all.

pclmulqdq4• 1 year ago

For most execs/people, there's a big difference between what people will say in a meeting and what they will write down. They feel the permanance of the writing or recording.

nthingtohide3• 1 year ago

When narratives fail, to casual observers the failure seems sudden and out of the blue, but there are usually unmistakable signs of "narrative breakdown" that often become obvious to most observers only in hindsight. One of the most dramatic stories of a "failed narrative" we have ever read comes from Barton Biggs, in his book "Wealth, War and Wisdom":

> "...the Japanese official battle reports and the Japanese press reported the Battle of the Coral Sea as a great triumph, and Midway was portrayed as a victory, not a defeat, although some loss of aircraft and ships were admitted. Although casualties must have been noted and grieved, Japanese society at the time was so united behind the war policy and believed so totally in the invincibility of the Japanese military, that defeat and economic failure were virtually inconceivable. It would have been unpatriotic to sell stocks..."
> "Not every investor in Japan misread the battles at Coral Sea and Midway. Food was in short supply, and railings in the parks around the Imperial Palace were being dismantled for their iron. The Nomura family and Nomura Securities in mid-1942 began to suspect the eventual defeat of Japan. Although the newspapers and radio broadcast only good news about the course of the war, the Nomuras apparently picked up information in the elite tea houses of the upper class. Many of the naval officers and aviators involved in the battles at Midway and the Coral Sea had geishas, and when the officers failed to return, rumors began to circulate."
> "The Nomura family, sensing something was amiss, began to gradually sell its equity holdings, and even sold short. Later they purchased real assets, probably reasoning that land and real businesses would be the best stores of value in a conquered country. These protected assets allowed the family to have the capital to finance the rapid expansion of Nomura Securities & Research in the immediate postwar years and eventually emerge as the dominant securities firm in Japan."

When did the narrative above "officially" fail? Many date it to August 15, 1945, six days after the 2nd atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, when Emperor Hirohito addressed Japan on the radio to announce Japan's surrender, noting "...the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage..."

jodrellblank• 1 year ago

"the Ministry of Plenty's forecast had estimated the output of boots for the quarter at one-hundred-and-forty-five million pairs. The actual output was given as sixty-two millions. Winston, however, in rewriting the forecast, marked the figure down to fifty-seven millions, so as to allow for the usual claim that the quota had been overfulfilled. In any case, sixty-two millions was no nearer the truth than fifty-seven millions, or than one-hundred-and-forty-five millions. Very likely no boots had been produced at all. Likelier still, nobody knew how many had been produced, much less cared. All one knew was that every quarter astronomical numbers of boots were produced on paper, while perhaps half the population of Oceania went barefoot. And so it was with every class of recorded fact, great or small." - https://www.george-orwell.org/1984/

Centralised rule, surveillance, privileging the upper classes, meaningless statistics, perfomative loyalty; things capitalists say they hate about communism, they love when designing companies.

"all giving you the picture of the enterprise being like literal USS Enterprise hitting warp speed."

Everything whizzing rapidly upwards while your cube farm gets more crowded and your tools slower and your once-respected skilled work devalued in favour of pump-n-dump funny-money schemes?

"The fabulous statistics continued to pour out of the telescreen. As compared with last year there was more food, more clothes, more houses, more furniture, more cooking-pots, more fuel, more ships, more helicopters, more books, more babies -- more of everything except disease, crime, and insanity. Year by year and minute by minute, everybody and everything was whizzing rapidly upwards. As Syme had done earlier Winston had taken up his spoon and was dabbling in the pale-coloured gravy that dribbled across the table, drawing a long streak of it out into a pattern. He meditated resentfully on the physical texture of life. Had it always been like this? Had food always tasted like this? He looked round the canteen. A low-ceilinged, crowded room, its walls grimy from the contact of innumerable bodies; battered metal tables and chairs, placed so close together that you sat with elbows touching; bent spoons, dented trays, coarse white mugs; all surfaces greasy, grime in every crack; and a sourish, composite smell of bad gin and bad coffee and metallic stew and dirty clothes. Always in your stomach and in your skin there was a sort of protest, a feeling that you had been cheated of something that you had a right to. It was true that he had no memories of anything greatly different. In any time that he could accurately remember, there had never been quite enough to eat, one had never had socks or underclothes that were not full of holes, furniture had always been battered and rickety, rooms underheated, tube trains crowded, houses falling to pieces, bread dark-coloured, tea a rarity, coffee filthy-tasting, cigarettes insufficient -- nothing cheap and plentiful except synthetic gin. And though, of course, it grew worse as one's body aged, was it not a sign that this was not the natural order of things, if one's heart sickened at the discomfort and dirt and scarcity, the interminable winters, the stickiness of one's socks, the lifts that never worked, the cold water, the gritty soap, the cigarettes that came to pieces, the food with its strange evil tastes? Why should one feel it to be intolerable unless one had some kind of ancestral memory that things had once been different?"

nradov• 1 year ago

If it makes you feel any better, there is usually little connection between management wasting money last year and laying off employees this year. Downsizing targets are based on predicted future needs so if business is trending down they'll cut just as many employees even if they have an enormous amount of cash saved.

gonzo41• 1 year ago

I think that the honorable thing in those companies is for a CEO to demand seppuku from a significant portion of the c-suite. At least as a form of solidarity with the workers put to the sword.

iugtmkbdfil8344• 1 year ago

We are apparently going through a "year of efficiency" and most of us know what it means. After "more with less" round come layoffs so one might as well do some basic prep work, dust off resume, reach out to your support network.. just saying.

donatj2• 1 year ago

In my experience, the consultants likely recommend the layoffs, probably even helping select who to let go.

If they cut more than five $40k employees, they've made their $200k back.

DrScientist• 1 year ago

I'm not disagreeing - but I think it's worth pointing out that an employee on $40K actually costs the company a lot more ( can be as much as > 2x ) - not just employers tax, pensions contributions etc, but also the cost of factory/lab/office space and equipment and consumables[1].

[1] Assuming the consultants aren't also in the office with a desk etc

pclmulqdq4• 1 year ago

$40k is a tiny salary, too. Taxes, facilities, and benefits are going to be more than 2x that. A contractor paid $200k/year is likely cheaper in total cost than an employee paid $100k/year.

moduspol• 1 year ago

Employee headcount is also evaluated less favorably when potential investors evaluate the company's health. They're implicitly seen as a promise to continue paying them in the future, whether that's materially different from what the company does with contractors or not.

And some of that is probably fair. As an employee, a layoff of a bunch of employees is a lot more troubling than a bunch of contractors not having their contracts renewed.

nrclark3• 1 year ago

I was laid off once. The reason on paper was budgetary, times are tough, etc. But the real reason was that I was a bad fit for the role - for a variety of reasons.

I got pipped, and foolish me tried hard to work on the items in the pip (to no effect). The layoff came right on schedule.

A few years later, I was chatting with an old coworker and I came to find out that the director of engineering had demanded it. It was in direct response to me refusing to participate in building a knowingly DMCA-violating product.

The pip was theater. The "times are tough" bit was theater. The reality is that the director wanted me gone, and that is how they did it for legal coverage reasons.

I don't really blame the company - I was a bad fit, and I can see that clearly in hindsight. But it did teach me never to accept budgetary layoffs at face value.

ergocoder2• 1 year ago

I don't see the theater as bad or good. If anything, it's slightly good.

It gives people an out; a soft landing. Being fired because you suck is going to destroy your confidence and tarnish your work reputation (because layoff is public).

cultureswitch2• 1 year ago

Imagine getting fired because you wanted to respect the DMCA of all things. I'd be curious for details, though you probably shouldn't tell.

mclau156• 1 year ago

not a single comment about overpopulation?

snozolli3• 1 year ago

when you observe management wasting absurd amounts of money

Working in corporate America has caused me to view layoffs as proof of managerial incompetence. I understand that the market doesn't see it that way, but that's the conclusion I've come to.

malfist• 1 year ago

What's even more absurd than cost cutting after mismanagement is a layoff and cost cutting while having record profits. Look at most of the big tech layoffs last year and the year before. Every one of them was reporting more profit and revenue than ever before and still doing layoffs

jarsin• 1 year ago

It's not just overspending it's over hiring too. IME they always go hand in hand.

Then those who spent years working hard with minimal staff are the ones to be laid off.

johnvanommen2• 1 year ago

“Sorry, we spent $200k on consultants and conferences that accomplished nothing, so now we have to cut an employee making $40k” really erodes morale in ways that merely firing people doesn’t.

One time I was tasked with auditing what my team spent, at a tech startup. During my audit, I found that we'd spent a million dollars to make a single phone call.

Basically:

* We were spending money like it was going out of style

* We were getting the highest level of support contracts on EVERY piece of hardware and software that we bought. This mean that we would routinely purchase hardware, stick it in the corner of our data center, and it would have an expensive support contract, before it had even been installed in a rack and plugged in. In some cases, we bought stuff that never got installed.

* The software support contract from one of our vendors was a million dollars a year. The software was quite reliable. In a single year, we'd made a single support call.

brailsafe3• 1 year ago

This is why I recommend to everyone, both in and out of tech, that you need to try and get as much money out of your initial negotiation and down the line as possible from your prospective employer; if you don't get it, it'll be fucked away on like one single meal or evaporate some other way.

creer8• 1 year ago

It doesn't matter what the reason is. The reason is whatever will look least bad in the news (if it ever makes it in the news) - and is legal. Ignore the reason, it has nothing to do with you, it's not about you, it's a technical detail. But yes, it would be nice if the manager was helping their employees understand that.

Even for an investor keeping an eye on their holdings, give minimal weight to the reasons for a detail level layoff.

Arisaka1• 1 year ago

I feel like that not only due to my recent layoff due to cuts, but also due to the job market. I'm tired of applying to ghost openings that exist just to signal growth when there's none.

nickd2001• 1 year ago

Q : What's the difference between a permie and a contractor? A: The contractor KNOWS they have no job security. ;). Your only real job security is your skillset. If that's good, lay-offs are often an opportunity rather than something to be feared. I've been laid off twice, 20 yrs apart. 1st company folded soon after. 2nd got taken over by bigger one. Was glad to be out in both cases, not happy place to remain. In both cases quickly got a better job, pay rise, and engineered a nice long break between jobs. 2cnd time I wasn't super happy there, but risk averse about moving due to young family. Lay-off was helpful push to look for something else. Found another job, then hopped on in 18 months to a great job. Got rid of a nasty commute in the process. Many people tell this story. Far too many of us stay places too long, we think "better the devil you know". Layoffs can be a blessing..... Caveat - if you're working a min wage job without a marketable skillset, layoff is indeed to be feared and a totally different experience.

netdevphoenix6• 1 year ago

if you're working a min wage job without a marketable skillset, layoff is indeed to be feared and a totally different experience.

That's the majority of the population to be honest

bandrami• 1 year ago

About 1% of the US workforce works for minimum wage

KaiserPro2• 1 year ago

without a marketable skillset, layoff is indeed to be feared

Which will probably soon encompass a large amount of Devs. large productivity increases usually mean job losses.

n_ary6• 1 year ago

Lay off is great if economy is booming(some 2012-2018 and then 2021) but nightmare if economy is screwed(2024-present).

I recall commenting few days back that, the job market is so screwed now that even senior engineers with decades of experience are not trusted these days if they are missing minor experience in some minor tool.

In 2021, I remember everyone with ability to type some code(regardless of quality) land great jobs, remote contracts etc. Everyone I know currently looking to change or were laid off since mid last year are suffering(real bad) and all of these are highly qualified people whom I’d really trust with most critical work.

mmcconnell16182• 1 year ago

Ironically, if you are a contractor going through a staffing agency, when you are "fired" from a contract, you generally still get paid something by the agency and get "bench time" to train up your skills or work on internal projects. Sometimes contractors have better job security from a paycheck perspective.

saagarjha2• 1 year ago

Depends on the agency. Many will not pay you (and some may terminate you themselves if you don't have a contract for you, because they are paying your benefits).

OpenDrapery• 1 year ago

Being a contractor can be a good play, especially if your spouse carries benefits for your family.

Being a contractor is generally considered low status and temporary, so if you can get over that, then you can thrive.

The upside to this is the understanding that it is transactional and hourly. There is no expectation that you get emotionally invested. Which can actually be a much more health arrangement.

otar• 1 year ago

Mostly a bad advice.

firtoz3• 1 year ago

Why do you think so?

mnau2• 1 year ago

Why? Seems pretty sensible. Employer-employee is a business relationship. Treat it as such.

m0llusk2• 1 year ago

Worked with some of the teams making the first iPhone and bringing the Internet to everyone in a pocket sized slab was way more than a job it was a dream. Didn't turn out quite as expected, but this idea that work is only that is in my opinion dangerous. Millions are made selling sugar water and there is a famous multimillionaire with warehouses full of nickles, but business can be much more than that and it is up to all participants to build, man, and steer the boats.

croemer2• 1 year ago

For those wondering, he was laid off from Shopify (quick search on LinkedIn revealed, not mentioned in article)

snozolli3• 1 year ago

He clearly didn't want to mention it, so why 'out' him?

croemer2• 1 year ago

I'm not sure he clearly didn't want to mention it - he didn't state he didn't mention it on purpose. I'm sure many people wondered, and going on LinkedIn is trivial. Had it not been on LinkedIn I wouldn't have looked further. If he didn't want to be outed, he could take Shopify off of Linkedin.

You could also comment the same on the 3 other comments that "out" him: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42839195, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42843755, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42842682

bodegajed2• 1 year ago

Great read OP. My only hope is that somewhere in the future, when these "efficiency-focused" companies close. (Nobody there will build anything special soon and they can easily be disrupted.) Maybe, just maybe, someone would start something that will do things differently, and others will follow.

ChrisMarshallNY6• 1 year ago

Avoid going above and beyond with initiatives. Many companies encourage impactful work to earn promotions, but instead of chasing internal advancements, focus on switching companies to achieve your next career step.

This is probably the most heartbreaking aspect of modern HR policy.

It’s not just about layoffs. It’s about the way the company incentivizes (or doesn’t) worker loyalty and enthusiasm. You could have employees that spend their entire career at a company, and refuse to ever “go the extra mile,” because there’s obviously no motivation to do so.

Loyalty, engagement, and morale usually comes from things other than paychecks. Often, simple, basic Respect can have huge impact on the motivation and loyalty of employees.

It’s actually quite mystifying [to me], how modern HR practice seems to actively discourage things like treating employees with Respect.

I worked for a company that was (at the time I joined them) quite well-known for employee retention. I think the average length of stay was about 25 years, when I joined. They didn’t pay especially well, so their corporate work environment was responsible for that retention.

As the years went on, I watched the HR Department become much colder, and more impersonal. They became absolutely obsessive about constantly reminding employees, at every possible opportunity, that we were simply replaceable cogs in the machine, and that the company could get rid of us, at a whim. They never really improved their compensation, and gradually removed many incentives, so it became all stick, and no carrot.

Performance evaluations became insulting and predictable exercises in humiliation. I was often told to reduce the encouragement in my evaluations (I was a manager, for many years). I used to take pride in specific and eloquent praise in my evaluations. My employees really appreciated that.

HR definitely wanted to make sure that employees felt insecure in their employment. It was obviously a deliberate and calculated policy. Our HR was run by the corporate General Counsel, so, lawyers set the tone.

By the time I left (as a result of a much-anticipated layoff), the employee morale was completely in the shitter, and the company’s much-vaunted employee retention statistic was no more.

netdevphoenix6• 1 year ago

the company’s much-vaunted employee retention statistic

In a job market with more candidates than jobs, why would you need to an employee retention statistic? The reality is that in the current job market, regardless of your employment status or your work, your value has greatly diminished.

ChrisMarshallNY6• 1 year ago

Sadly, this is true, but this company was world-famous for insanely high-Quality products. It was definitely crucial to their brand. They needed to attract top-shelf talent, and that brand reputation was important for this. I worked as a peer, with some of the top scientists and engineers in my field.

That reputation took a big hit, over the the time that I worked for them. I think they damn near went belly-up, after 100 years.

They seem to be (slowly) getting their act together, once again. I sincerely wish them luck.

pjc504• 1 year ago

Rather like "if you've never missed a plane you've spent too much time in airports", companies believe that there's such a thing as employee retention that's too high; it means you could be squeezing their pay more in order to force them to quit.

Doesn't account for all the tacit knowledge and morale effects of course. Some people just like running the Hunger Games.

& a good corporate reputation is just another asset like a rainforest: something you can burn to top up profits this quarter.

BlueTemplar6• 1 year ago

A company having a Human Resources department sounds like a red flag. (And who is surprised by this : such an Orwellian term !?)

Muromec6• 1 year ago

A company cop can be called "People's Partner" and North Korea could be called Democratic Republic, but everybody knows what is happening.

mmcconnell16182• 1 year ago

HR departments are constantly looking at "market rates" for jobs which is a fancy way of saying they share salary data or get it from ADP and have much more information about what people are willing to accept.

At hiring time, they are willing to pay market rate (or some percentage of market rate) to get people in the door. Once you are employed, they don't care anymore and will let excellent people slowly fall behind market compensation with 1% to 2% raises.

When those employees get frustrated and leave for 20% bump in comp, the companies seem fine replacing them with a new hire at market rate. So now, they have a new employee making market rate, they have to train the new employee for months before they are productive and they've taken on the risk of an unknown vs. just giving the existing employee a raise to market rate. It doesn't make sense unless you want to telegraph the message that employees are fungible and you don't really care about people.

ChrisMarshallNY6• 1 year ago

you want to telegraph the message that employees are fungible and you don't really care about people.

From my experience, that’s exactly what is going on.

HR was obsessed (and that’s not hyperbole) with constantly telling us that we could be ejected, at any time.

I suspect that it had something to do with legal stuff. Our HR was run by lawyers.

Muromec6• 1 year ago

It doesn't make sense unless you want to telegraph the message that employees are fungible and you don't really care about people.

I actually makes total sense and a lot of it. I see the take that management doesn't know about knowledge being lost, they don't understand this, they don't understand that. I believed this was case until I started to work for a company that is literally 200 years old.

At some point between joining that company and deciding to leave the previous, I got it -- nobody is actually that stupid, neither people are evil or anything.

Employee being a row in an excel sheet is an important goal that every big company strives to achieve and all the functions, processes and products that are contrary to that dogma are actively rejected by the system as dangerous.

For the company to be the company it must never depend on this particular employee being very smart. Every bit of knowledge that is not written down and confirmed to be in accordance to The Policy is a risk and should be forgotten. That's the intended way.

And of course the only way to discover the market price for real is to spend the money. The cost of losing mister special employee is negative anyway, and for the offchance it's positive, it's worth it.

The evil thing is not this, the evil thing is not being upfront about it. Get a union, negotiate yourself a nice row in the excel sheet and be happy about it or make your own company.

xyst• 1 year ago

But today, companies are announcing layoffs alongside record-breaking financial results. You work hard, focus on impactful projects, and receive praise from your lead—only to find yourself let go by someone who likely doesn’t even know you exist

This what happens when country policy and businesses are driven by awful neoliberal economic theory and neoclassical/orthodox economic policy.

For the past 40 years, we have seen:

- wage stagnation for labor

- decreasing worker protections (in tech, this means forced NDAs, arbitration, non-compete clauses)

- significant decreases in social safety nets

- increasing wage disparity across the board

- decrease in investment of labor and company and emphasis on stock —manipulation— buy back programs and layoffs for short term gains

- decreasing participation in labor unions and thus decrease in collective bargaining power for labor

- non-transparent pay grades across the industry

- rampant wage theft in the form of: “instead of paying overtime, give you a title, a salary, and expect you to push more than 40 hrs a week” (or do a job that usually requires 3-4 people)

- decreasing worker loyalty to companies

- increasing consolidation of power and money through monopolies and monopsonies

netdevphoenix6• 1 year ago

If workers don't do something about it (other than complain on random websites) and everyone else is happy with their record breaking profits, you can possibly expect any changes to do this aside from going further in the same direction

code-blooded2• 1 year ago

I've experienced a company not only treating its employees as numbers in a sheet, but also actively lying to them.

I was part of a well performing team in a corporation in the US. Management told us that we've been making a real impact in the company's goals and they are going to increase our capacity to accomplish even more the next year by adding several more engineers in India to help us with tasks. The facade was well maintained - we got expanded goals for the next year, celebratory meeting for exceeding expectations etc. but you could clearly tell something was off in meetings with management. Little did we know that we ended up training our replacements.

Majority of my teammates got kicked out of the company by security, getting paperwork on their way out without a chance to even say goodbye. I was offered a role in another team, but the trust by that point was severed so much that I instead decided to take severance and leave as well.

The lesson for me has been to always act like an independent contractor or business owner, even when employed by a corporation or "family-like" startup. Based on mine and many of my friends' experiences there's no such thing as loyalty in the business setting anymore. You are on your own and you should only engage as much as it makes sense to you. Extra hours beyond what's required (e.g. beyond 40hrs) should directly and clearly benefit you.

belter• 1 year ago

I saw IBM uproot an entire support team, persuading them to sell their homes and relocate their children to another U.S. state with more lenient layoff laws. Once the team had moved, the company made everyone redundant.

The proportion of psychopaths on the boards of most companies is off the scale:

"...Hare reports that about 1 percent of the general population meets the clinical criteria for psychopathy.[11] Hare further claims that the prevalence of psychopaths is higher in the business world than in the general population. Figures of around 3–4 percent have been cited for more senior positions in business.[6] A 2011 study of Australian white-collar managers found that 5.76 percent could be classed as psychopathic and another 10.42 percent dysfunctional with psychopathic characteristics..." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace

MortyWaves• 1 year ago

Reason #54298 why IBM deserves nothing.

jajko3• 1 year ago

Not a clinical psychologists, so something about grains of salt.

I use term 'highly functioning sociopaths', you can see them often in management since they are attracted to pay, power and percieved 'prestige'. You know the types - smart, hard working, ruthless, learned to fake genuine nice emotions and human interactions to almost perfection over years at least under normal, controlled, and previously experienced settings. Once some novel bad situation happens, cracks start to show.

Banks and anything re finance is probably the highest concentration. Another areas are those with real power, whatever that means. Its trait like every other, not binary but gradual. In my experience its more 1/3 of these in middle management, C suite most probably majority. Can't be a nice guy and get, survive and even thrive there.

nthingtohide3• 1 year ago

How many people are involved in scheming such strategies? There must be leaks of the planning, right?

dumbledoren4• 1 year ago

That something like this can be legal shows how f*cked up the US is.

branperr• 1 year ago

Nothings going to change until consequences for this behavior is established.

yellow_lead• 1 year ago

but you could clearly tell something was off in meetings with management

What signs were there? Or was it simply some subconscious feeling?

code-blooded2• 1 year ago

Only one was obvious in the hindsight: management stopped caring and sometimes attending product demos, but really cared about India's part in the deliveries (justified as we want them to level up quickly).

Everything was subtle:

Managers distanced themselves from the team, had more meetings between themselves ("for efficiency - team grew so we cannot include so many people in the meetings anymore"), they were looking at each other often when making decisions (which to me looked as if they were trying to think how to handle requests knowing the team will be laid off soon).

In the final weeks management started suddenly taking/reassigning tasks out of US team's hands in ways that didn't make sense.

vachina• 1 year ago

adding several more engineers in India to help us with tasks

Haha this is what my current company is trying to do now. Bet we are dragging our feet helping the team in India. If they chop our heads off now, you bet they’re gonna be left with ruins. Fuck them.

iugtmkbdfil8344• 1 year ago

Come to think of it, this is what our management seems to be trying to do now. If true, that is mildly amusing given that we just managed to avoid major pain resulting from all those helping hands.

temporallobe2• 1 year ago

In my recent layoff, basically what happened is that another company won the contract as the prime and we became the sub The new company brought it a bunch of their hires, then management combined our teams and suddenly everything became redundant. Two dev leads (me being one of them), two tech leads, two product owners, too many testers, etc. After this, they laid off about half the team, most of them being from the subcontractor. It was sneaky and unethical. In the end they were all like “Woops we hired too many people. So sorry!”.

The kicker is that they used me in the RFP to win the contract since I was a specialized SME.

secretsatan4• 1 year ago

This hits me 2 ways, I got laid off in my late 30s and had over 4 years unemeployment. TBH, I'd got bored of what I was doing and it was looking like a career dead end. I took a hobby project and worked on that, learned iOS and eventually got a job in that.

But one thing got me, I developed an original app for the company I work for, that is now one of the focus products. I wish I never, I feel like it was literally stolen from me, never ever go above and beyond for a company, your managers will get the credit.

achempion• 1 year ago

Why you think it's stolen when company paid for your time? If the app wasn't successful, would you have considered refunding your salary back to a company?

secretsatan4• 1 year ago

There's paying for someones time, and then there's going above and beyond. I feel like I shouldn't have gone above and beyond

secretsatan4• 1 year ago

And to throw it the other way around, when someone works over hours and contributes significantly, but burns out, does the company throw out the unpaid work?

netdevphoenix6• 1 year ago

There is so much to unpack from this post.

1. Post Dot-com bubble dev naivete: most Post Dot-com devs (ie those who joined the work force sometime after the bubble burst) have only known the summer of tech (ML flourishing, everyone can code movements, nonsensical startups raising ridiculous amounts of money, companies hiring devs they don't need to keep competitors from having and BigHead kind of devs able to keep a job). These are the devs that used to go to r/cscareerquestions and tell everyone that they should get everyone to learn to code and program, the kind that believed in chasing aggressive salary growth at any cost. True summertime devs who have known nothing but joy and love in the tech world. These are the devs who OD'ed on the tech corpo koolaid

2. The super-meritocracy fallacy: following from point 1, these devs believed in the increasingly rare concept of promotion-only growth, the idea that if you worked really hard, your salary and your job title willl eventually reflect your hard work. While this is somewhat true, the extent to which your hard work is actually compensated seems to be overrated by most devs. This a rather peculiar thing as you would expect most devs to be data driven and to actually research whether this is true in general for most companies. Any veteran knows that career progression and salary increase by promotion has a very early point of diminished returns hence the job-hopping

3. The existential meaning of a job: this is another peculiar aspect of devs given that they see themselves as rational. An employeement relationship is a business relationship (like a partnership) where continuous work is exchanged for money. Yet these devs seem to have somehow assume some kind of existential meaning to this transactional relationship the terms of which they should have known. Placing the meaning of your life in a transaction is clearly misguided and it shouldn't take a layoff for someone to realise that. Yet here we are

4. The Saviour Dev Hero myth: this also follows from point 1. Devs being marketed as corpo heros is just that marketing. The supply and demand ratio is not a fixed thing. It changes. Devs were never going to be in demand forever. Business needs change. No one is irreplaceable. No matter how good. There is always someone good enough that will work for a similar salary (or less). During the summer of tech, the demand was higher than the supply so layoffs were rare. But summers don't last forever.

Ultimately, the lesson that devs, for all their self-described higher intellect and rationality, never seem to learn is that the goal of all companies is to increase their profits, everything else is secondary. Other goals exist only to help that. Layoffs while declaring record breaking profits is not surprising. Given the job market, new hires could be acquired at a lower salary and perhaps not as many are needed. As an employee, you are there to help increase profits and the company owes you a salary. This implied idea that efforts should be rewarded even when it makes no business sense, that the company should provide an existential meaning to your work or that it should always need you even when it makes no business sense is in my opinion delusional and a by-product of Post-Dot bubble conditions that no longer exist.

The market has changed (and it will change again) and all agents within must do so as well.

thr02• 1 year ago

Thank you. This is a very underrated (yet) thoughtful and wise response.

bwfan123• 1 year ago

Perfectly echos my thoughts as a 25+ year veteran engineer who has been laid off 3 times. Your writing style is poetic as well.

I would add a few more.

1) There is no permanancy in tech, only impermanancy - hence, stay on your toes, be a learning machine, and not be attached to your laurels. You could one day be a hero, and the next day a zero.

2) Bandwagons come and go - internet, web, cloud, ml etc etc. Be a learning machine with a strong grip on the fundamentals of the math and the science.

3) Most of us are picking up lottery tickets - but confuse skill with luck. An early google engineer may walk with a swagger, but he/she has been lucky.

4) Keep saving for the rainy day, as they usually will come. In your financial calculations, do not take on long term obligations assuming your job will last.

moomin• 1 year ago

I've been laid off a few times. I'd add one more "danger sign": you're not busy. If the firm/department doesn't seem to be achieving very much, it's a good sign that no-one's asking much of them. Which means the entire area is possibly for the chop.

But the line in the Excel sheet thing rings _incredibly_ true. It's actually surprisingly rare to be laid off by someone who knows you. Decision is nearly always made by people who've never met you and only have a cursory understanding of what your entire team does.

unknownsky• 1 year ago

I've been laid off twice, and both times we were very busy. There were deadlines we were told were absolutely crucial to meet and we were burning ourselves out trying to meet them. The product we were making never saw the light of day and to this day we don't even know why.

nottorp• 1 year ago

It's different when you're contracting and expect your contract to end at any minute.

But I was doing some work for this startup ages ago and at some point out of the blue one of our full time contacts asked us if we've been paid because they haven't been. Must have been a lot less fun for them (I had other projects besides them) than for me. I only lost the pay for like 1/3 of a full time month.

acatton4• 1 year ago

The Myth of Job Security in Germany
[...] If a company decides to lay off, for instance, 40 employees, German law doesn’t prevent this. Instead, the law enforces a social scoring system to determine who is affected, prioritizing the protection of the most vulnerable employees, such as those with children. In this sense, when it comes to layoffs, the difference between Germany and the US is minimal.

This is not true, and an over simplification.

Yes, you can always technically layoff in Germany, but it might not hold in court. Most people have legal insurance (mine is ~€300/y) which is tax deductible if it has employment protection. Mine will cover costs for an employment-related lawsuit.

If you feel that your layoff is not justified, you can always sue, the judge could decide that your work contract was unlawfully cancelled, leading to the company having to re-hire you and paying your salary for every month it didn't do so. The company posting record profits could weight in your favor in front of a judge. People, especially non-native like me, don't know better, they just move-on and go c'est la vie. If you sue, win and get re-hired, you can always ask to leave for a bigger package.

For companies above a certain amount of employee (50? 75?), if a small amount of employees (I think it's 3 or 4) request it, the company must run a works council election. For any layoff (individual or mass layoff), the work council must be consulted, and has co-determination, they can basically block the layoff, this was done by Volkswagen's work council recently. [1] For large mass layoffs, companies might also have to consult with the authorities.

Last thing, the social scoring is much more complicated than "those with children." If you have 4 kids and got hired 7 months ago, you might be fired, and I, single person, might keep my job with my 15 years of tenure. Tenure, disabilities, children, ... a lot of things take part into the social scoring.

All and all, I agree with a lot of the sentiments and points of the article. But saying that, outside of social scoring, layoffs between the US and Germany are the same is simply not true. There is a reasonable job security in Germany.

[1] https://www.volkswagen-group.com/en/press-releases/agreement...

leomos• 1 year ago

this is very interesting, thanks for sharing it! Are you aware of any story involving individuals fighting their case for a job in a tech company? Would love to read about it.

acatton4• 1 year ago

Not in my circle. Usually, threatening to sue is enough. I know people who increased their severance package because they said that "they wanted to talk to the lawyer from their legal insurance before accepting any severance package."

Of course this doesn't work if you have a work council, usually the work-council negotiate a severance package algorithm (= fix_amount + tenure * amount), and this is usually un-negotiable. This makes sense, thanks to collective bargaining, it's most likely one the best deal you could have gotten. (Even though libertarians will flock-in and start going "How do I know, that I, as a highly performing individual couldn't have negotiate better!?! This seems unfair!")

n_ary6• 1 year ago

I know of a case where a company laid off a person for unjustifiable reasons. Of course the notice period was observed but the person decided to press a lawsuit and the court decided that the layoff reason was baseless. While they did not get rehired(once the moral is hit hard to go back may be), but they got awarded to 7-8 months of full salary paid. Something that probably played into the favor was that the person just recently became a father for a month after which he was handed the forced redundancy news and the observance of notice period.

According to anti-discrimination law, a ground for layoff(or not hiring) can not be tied to parenthood.

twixfel7• 1 year ago

I understood the claim to be that if you are at the bottom of the social points scale then you are sufficiently vulnerable for it not to matter. That the people who really benefit from Germany's strong labour laws are those with kids, disabled people, old, etc... but not just a standard young person.

Germany is just a strange country IMO. Lots of "nice" stuff like this that sounds great but really only works for the older generation and doesn't really work for young people, who are already hugely disadvantage by the German boomerocracy (probably one of the worst boomerocracys in the world).

BlueTemplar6• 1 year ago

Well, boomers are on their way out.

But why do you think that Gen X will be better ?

acatton4• 1 year ago

I'm not a lawyer, but AFAIK, age doesn't influence your social score, tenure does. If I'm a 30 year old with 10 years in the company, I will have a better score than 50-year-old you who got hired 7 months ago.

The idea is that working at a company "squeezes juice out of you", so you should not be so easily fired after a long tenure, because the company got all the rewards from your juice, but you don't have much left. You can agree or disagree, but I have to admit that there is a logic.

lionkor• 1 year ago

but not just a standard young person.

This makes sense in a way, since "standard young people" are very flexible [in Germany]. There are multiple different safety nets and ways to get money, jobs, support, and a lot of basic needs are taken care of by the social system.

Source: I'm a "standard young person" German SWE ;)

nikodotio• 1 year ago

What’s the legal insurance called in German?

acatton4• 1 year ago

"Rechtsschutzversicherung." You want it to include "Arbeitsrechtsschutz"

I would also advise you to include defamation, in case somebody sue you for defaming them. Usually many legal insurance exclude "internet" from the protection, this means that if you post on hackernews "Hans is an idiot", and Hans sues you, you might have to pay the lawsuit yourself. These insurances usually have an "internet" options for usually ~20€/y which would protect you in this case. You can still deduct the entire amount from your taxes, as it's still technically a labour-law legal insurance.

meijer• 1 year ago

In addition, except for companies with serious economic problems, layoffs are also simply much less common in Germany, I believe.

nonrandomstring• 1 year ago

A great heartfelt essay. I got the feeling it was written with magnanimous restraint.

It would be good to do a study on how tech workers feel in an era of such commonplace betrayal and dehumanisation. If anyone has stories they want to share please get in touch at UK Cybershow and let's see if there's an episode in it.

jollyllama• 1 year ago

Layoffs were uncommon when I started working, and being a developer felt like an incredibly safe job. In most professions, the unspoken rule was simple: if you performed well and the company was financially stable, your job was secure.

You hear this a lot but it's the result of developers from sectors that did well during this time period whistling past the graveyard as rolling layoffs hit more mature sectors and firms, such as networking (Cisco) and storage. It's surprising to me that people who are paid to try to imagine how systems perform in different scenarios, and are presumably good at what they are paid to do, fail to apply the same thought processes to the systems that provide them their salaries.

jongjong• 1 year ago

First time I was let go, I was fresh out of university. I had only been in the position for around 3 weeks. I came into the company at the worst possible time and they gave me a task which, in retrospect, was very difficult for a recent graduate; the project had around 30K concurrent users at its peak and I had to make it so that their results tables would update in realtime... They gave me only 3 weeks to do that task (which I had to complete along with some other tasks/bug fixing)... Also, I had to learn git which was not mainstream at the time (this was before GitHub). This was also before WebSockets were widely supported and before Socket.io existed. In retrospect, I should have asked to be assigned to an easier task as a starter, or should have negotiated down the scope. Anyway this was my first job and I was deeply passionate about web technologies so it was a painful experience to be rejected for something which was the center of my universe at the time.

After that, I held onto, in fact, excelled at every job and was often one of the top software engineers wherever I worked. I also launched some popular open source projects since then. I experienced some success in crypto (after facing a lot of adversity). I led significant improvements in the crypto project I worked on and things were looking up, the blockchain became highly stable and supported some unique features which would allow it to scale and meet its original vision; but after a couple of years, founders decided they wanted to go in a different direction which I did not agree with and so I had to quit. I made such an impact on that project that I managed to earn income from it for about 3 years after quitting the company; the biggest crypto voting cartel in that ecosystem broke up and re-formed just to include me as a member. Then after 3 years of horrible decisions, the founders essentially ran the project into the ground (no surprise to me); they did such a bad job that they then had to migrate their token to a competitor's platform. I lost my passive income... Though I must have earned like 200K EUR from it over the years. Best years of my life; no job, earning passive income while working voluntarily on open source project I cared about. I was not beholden to anyone and had no responsibilities besides just keeping my node running.

After that, I had to go back to working 9-to-5 doing the most tedious jobs, for lower pay. I was forced to accept work for a company in the mainstream finance sector which was the antithesis of everything I knew and believed in, literally going to work every day believing 100% that I was making the world a worse place. I struggled to find motivation; I did my best to hide it but I got fired after almost 1 year (coincidentally, just a few months before my shares would vest). Talent cannot make up for lack of enthusiasm it turns out... It was an unsettling experience hearing the CTO tell me how smart I was and that I won't have trouble finding other work... while firing me... Like 2 weeks after giving me access to their Stripe control panel where I could see all company finances! At that point, I had full access to everything, all user data, all services, all infrastructure. They'd literally put me in a position of ultimate trust, before pulling the rug from under me. I left in a very classy manner and on decent terms, as I always did before. In retrospect, the whole experience working there was very strange.

Anyway it's been a struggle to find motivation since then. I don't take my career too seriously now; having seen both the lows and the highs and seeing how talent and determination doesn't doesn't actually make a difference in the face of political machinations (which are pervasive in the industry). I don't think I would even care much if I got fired again. I'm now more political myself; I do the bare minimum. In effect, I've become like the people I used to hate, but I don't hate them anymore because I now understand why they might have been that way.

bowsamic3• 1 year ago

I just started a new job in Hamburg, Germany, same location as the author, and one nice thing they have here is an extremely negative view on overtime, making it very encouraged to remain within hours

n_ary6• 1 year ago

one nice thing they have here is an extremely negative view on overtime, making it very encouraged to remain within hours

Wait until your probezeit ends and your POs metrics get strained.

bowsamic3• 1 year ago

My coworkers have passed their Probezeit, do you think it's also like them too?

Also, what is with the negativity? Are you depressed? I bet you're just going to say "I'm a Marxist" or something

Tainnor11• 1 year ago

It's not just a "negative view on overtime", there are also very strict laws around the amount of overtime, how much rest you need between workdays and compensation.

bArray2• 1 year ago

If a company decides to lay off, for instance, 40 employees, German law doesn’t prevent this. Instead, the law enforces a social scoring system to determine who is affected, prioritizing the protection of the most vulnerable employees, such as those with children. In this sense, when it comes to layoffs, the difference between Germany and the US is minimal.

From what I have seen in the past, the set of people with children and a mortgage can be difficult. Some really do not want to be there, but stay for job security.

I'm also not entirely sold on prioritising those lay-offs based on social elements, such as children. I can see incentives being good to have more children in a society, but you shouldn't be punished for not having them. Ultimately from the company's perspective, you want to maximise your company's future success.

I would amend some points:

Stick to your contract hours.

Do additional hours where required and you are able, but make sure they are visible, and compensate yourself them back. It increases your perceived value.

Avoid going above and beyond with initiatives.

For your own sake, take pride in your work. Don't become stale.

Always keep interviewing.

Many stop doing this because it's a pain and stressful. I think it is enough to keep your toes in, try to figure out what salaries are being offered, what kinds of jobs are available and how desirable you are. Try to learn those things with as minimal effort from yourself as possible.

BlueTemplar6• 1 year ago

I can see incentives being good to have more children in a society, but you shouldn't be punished for not having them.

Isn't this self-contradictory ?

bArray2• 1 year ago

There's a carrot and stick. Losing your job seems like a heavy stick, whereas a small redistribution of tax seems more like a carrot.

soneca• 1 year ago

”Always keep interviewing”

This seems as exhausting as working more than 40 hours a week routinely. I would rather keep a financial reserve to cover the time to get a new job.

ghaff10• 1 year ago

It's one thing to informally cultivate a network and another to actively interview all the time. I've done the former which has resulted in my three jobs since the late 90s and I've never done the latter.

pjmlp4• 1 year ago

Quite on point, for me it made me value the team, and no longer believe in whatever management tells about "we are family", "company values", or whatever else they feel like selling as the vision and company culture.

KaiserPro2• 1 year ago

Op writes sage advice.

However I would encourage that the "don't give a shit about the company and colleagues" is not quite as simplistic.

Yes, fuck the company, they don't care. You should always assume this. But you _should_ care about your colleagues. They are your network, and greatest asset at the next company. If you are shit to them, they will not recommend you.

So my conclusions, and or advice to younger people is this:

o Learn what the business wants, it'll help you make better decisions/products, and often gives you fair warning about being laid off.

o Be suspicious of the company.

o if there a clash between business priorities and you, you will always come off worse.

o Go over and beyond for your colleagues, not your company.

o fight for your colleagues not the company

o your colleagues are your CV.

wccrawford• 1 year ago

While true, they might not recommend you anyhow. I thought I got along well with my co-workers, and I consistently got feedback at year end that they enjoyed working with me, but when I was laid off and asked them for a recommendation on Linked In, only the most junior of them did it. Even after I left all of them great reviews there.

I am still surprised by this. They didn't get laid off. Just me.

I'm not angry at them, just very confused about their reasons not to leave me a good review to help me get a new job.

CRConrad10• 1 year ago

confused about their reasons not to leave me a good review to help me get a new job.

At a guess: They're afraid your stigma of not currently having a job will "rub off" onto themselves.

Prunkton• 1 year ago

good write up, let me share my experience coming from the other side.

"3. Lack of Vision from Leadership" comes in different flavors.

One scenario is exactly as described: leadership genuinely lacks vision, which inevitably leads to layoffs. Another, is when management is already aware of impending layoffs but cannot talk about it yet. While this may seem nefarious, it often has legal implications that restrict transparency. I've been in the difficult position to continue to manage teams while the companys closure was already known to management. Not allowed to inform people is one thing but trying to emotionally prepare them for whats coming is a different, so the drop may not be as high.

Forcefully reducing server costs by 50% and cutting of contractors is hardly considered a vision. 'A lack of vision' could be the actual message. By the time I knew what is going on and costs got reduced I encouraged the best kind of development within the team: CV-driven-development with vague sprint goals!

You want to make use of the new fancy LLM APIs and play around with it? Sure! Introducing a new tech stack? I can not think of a better idea!

While its far from an ideal scenario, its often better than wasting energy on dead features. My idea was to giving people the opportunity to work on something they find personally meaningful and is driven by self motivation. I hope it helped, at least after speaking to every one personally after the bomb dropped, no one was really surprised.

hdjeirhj• 1 year ago

For me layoff was great:

- 3 month severance, free money

- 1 year unemployment support, more free money

- fat tax return, since I falled into lower income bracket, even more free money

- moving out out expensive city to countryside, less expenses (and yes more money)

I took one year off, finished my opensource project and started consulting. Layoff tripled my disposable income and vastly improved quality of my life.

austin-cheney4• 1 year ago

It has been 1.5 years since I was laid off for 6 months. Here is what I learned about this in my 19 year career in software (mostly in JavaScript):

* If you can do the job but nobody else can and it’s a critical role you are probably immune from layoffs even with a horrible annual evaluation. It’s not you that’s critical, it’s the job you fill that’s critical.

* if you take deliberate actions to make yourself critical, such as the only person who knows the code base, it’s only a matter of time before the mega corp dumps you. Self-appointed critical people are too expensive and viewed as toxic by management, but you can probably get away with this at a mom and pops shop.

* once incompetence becomes the universally accepted norm it doesn’t matter that you can do what others cannot. Everybody is a replaceable beginner irrespective of their titles and years of experience and treated exactly as such. The survivors are the people that don’t rock the boat.

* if you have years of experience operating, managing, and authoring both people and technology in side projects you are probably far further along into your career than you are getting paid for. If your career is stagnant trying doing something wildly different and see what happens. I achieved rapid promotion after changing careers.

* don’t ever work more than you have to unless it’s something you want to do knowing you won’t get paid for it. I liked writing personal software outside of work because at work it could do my job for me or it frees me from the restrictions of shitty commercial software.

* the best way to impress management is to 1. do less work and 2. solve tough problems and share your solutions. Don’t be special. Demonstrate value.

datavirtue2• 1 year ago

To the last point, there are few ways to lose respect faster than spinning your wheels with all kinds of tasks. Without consciously recognizing it, upper management is looking for people who understand and live the Pareto principle.

quietbritishjim• 1 year ago

I liked writing personal software outside of work because at work it could do my job for me or it frees me from the restrictions of shitty commercial software.

You have to be careful on this one.

Often (it varies by jurisdiction), blanket rules by companies that all software you write in your spare time are their property can be safely ignored as invalid. But if it is heavily related to your current job then (again depends on jurisdiction) then they probably do own the copyright, possibly even if they don't have an explicit contractual provision for it.

If you're using your own spare-time software at work and benefiting from it there, it would be hard to argue it's not related.

austin-cheney4• 1 year ago

Yeah, I got stung by that early in my career. So now all my personal software is licensed either CC0 or AGPL3.0. That is first thing I do. Secondly, I don't talk about it at work.

The key here is don't be stupid. Don't write the software on company time or on company equipment. My experience has further taught me:

1. Most employers don't want the software. They want the person writing the software.

2. Once your peers discover that its you writing the software they use there is a good chance they will immediately move on to something else. In JavaScript world "Invented Here" syndrome is extreme and developers do not trust quality software could ever come from people they know.

3. If the software was in use before you got to the organization then you are in the clear.

4. Have multiple lines of alignment, such as a part time job and/or contractual obligations elsewhere. Employers will not fight other employers to gain ownership of your pet project. In my case I have a part time job in the military and the military has the most liberal IP rules on the planet. Now I am a defense contractor on a project with multiple contract vendors, so who would really own my pet project: the contractor that pays my bills, the client that pays the contract, or the other contractor who manages the contract.

5. If its your personal project you are free to abandon it at any time and use your time to play video games. You are also free to abandon that job and go do something else.

deltaburnt• 1 year ago

It’s not you that’s critical, it’s the job you fill that’s critical.

I think at a big enough company the people making layoff decisions don't know or care what job is critical. In some cases that means your job wasn't as critical as you thought. But I've also seen layoffs that seem just downright stupid. Literally saw someone laid off then re-hired to a different team a couple weeks later with a substantial bump to their pay.

At a certain level of abstraction nothing will save you. Critical job? Bean counters don't know the specifics of each team or project. High level? Cost too much, not contributing enough to short term goals.

I was once told that a lot of executive level management was based off gut instinct more than cold logical decision making. It would not surprise me if this also applied to deciding who is laid off.

__turbobrew__2• 1 year ago

It’s your manager and skip level’s job to make sure your VP knows the company is fucked if they lay your team off. I can guarantee you that no matter how evil Oracle is — the king of bean counters and mismanagement — they aren’t going to accidentally lay off the core Oracle cloud teams. Your job is to get onto those teams.

Every business has key teams, you just have to find them. For some businesses tge key teams are not in your domain (non-tech company) and you are just a cost center. The only option is to jump ship to a tech first company.

CRConrad10• 1 year ago

I was once told that a lot of executive level management was based off gut instinct more than cold logical decision making. It would not surprise me if this also applied to deciding who is laid off.

It would surprise me if it didn't apply to deciding who is laid off.

franktankbank• 1 year ago

What did you change careers to?

austin-cheney4• 1 year ago

I was hired as a developer of APIs on this big enterprise API management system, but then promoted to lead of operations on the project.

Simon_O_Rourke2• 1 year ago

Those who made the poor decisions remain, and some are even promoted, while the people carrying out the work are let go.

That's usually accompanied by some mealy mouthed communication from the CEO that "the decision rests with me" or some other poor faith mea culpa while you end up scrambling to get health cover for your wife and kids and figure it how far and severance will get you

DDickson2• 1 year ago

This article doesn't mention it, but being laid off will change you at a psychological level. It can be a deeply traumatic event.

I was laid off over 5 years ago, and, as these things usually go, it was a complete shock to me. The company had been acquired, and my services were no longer needed. It ended up being a very positive change for my career, but to this day, if I ever get a moment of déjà vu, my immediate thought is to check my phone and see if I've been fired.

seb12043• 1 year ago

Wow, I would not expect this kind of news to come via txt or email. This should be manager/supervisor face to face.

DDickson2• 1 year ago

I was laid off in a face to face meeting with the VP. Checking my phone might be irrational, but irrational thoughts can be a symptom of trauma. Then again, I do work fully remote, so I'm checking for tell tale signs. Mysterious meetings on my calendar, DMs from the CTO, etc.

Trasmatta• 1 year ago

being laid off will change you at a psychological level. It can be a deeply traumatic event.

I didn't get laid off, but I project I put years of my life into was shut down (in a "row on a spreadsheet" type of way), and it effected me surprisingly deeply. I'm still dealing with the after effects, and reading this thread is making me realize it was cognitively really similar to a layoff.

I wish it didn't bother me as much as it did, but that doesn't change the impact.

dave78• 1 year ago

I'm 24 years into my career now. I think you just get used to this after a while.

I've worked on several big (at the time) software products that our company built and shipped to customers for a while, that we have since abandoned. And in those cases, the entire organization within the company that owned the code was disbanded, so there was no one left to know about it or care about it. I'm not 100% certain but I strongly suspect that there is not a single copy left anywhere in the company of the code for those products - code that I worked on for years.

It's strange thinking that there is basically no trace left of something that I put years of professional work into, but I think it happens more than most people realize. I suppose it's no different than startups that fail and everything disappears.

I also think this is why so many software people end up enjoying hobbies that revolve around physical things, like woodworking or restoring old cars. Having some physical object that you can point to and say "I built that" is kind of nice compared to everything else you've done living on a flash chip somewhere.

ipsento606• 1 year ago

being laid off will change you at a psychological level

it certainly can do, but it's also fine if it doesn't

when I was laid off, some family members simply refused to believe that it hadn't had a profound negative effect on how I viewed myself. Dealing with that disbelief was by far the most difficult part of the process

I felt absolutely fine, because at the time I had no emotional investment in my job or career

DonHopkins• 1 year ago

Signs of a Layoff

6) Senior management is mysteriously missing and impossible to get ahold of. (They're not allowed to say anything to anyone.)

eadmund• 1 year ago

The author complains that after all his leadership and hustle:

to the company, I was just a row in an Excel sheet.

But then writes:

[German] law enforces a social scoring system to determine who is affected, prioritizing the protection of the most vulnerable employees, such as those with children.

It sounds like under German law he had to be treated as a row in a spreadsheet. Cynically, it might have been wiser to spend time having a child rather than hustling for the company.

biohcacker84• 1 year ago

I feel fortunate it's not layoffs that made me cynical. But working for mid and big companies.

I had the incredible luck of starting my career as the first hire and thus lead developer right out of college. The startup which hired me eventually ran out of steam, but the experience I got is priceless.

Now big corporations on the other hand are a shit show, and from what I can tell have always been a shit show. Have laid me off 3 times. And none of it has affected me much. Always quickly found another good position, and that's with being absolutely terrible at live coding challenges.

I'd say try to find work you're interested in. If you can, also try to keep your commute as short as possible. And live in a place you like.

And good luck.

Havoc• 1 year ago

It feels like companies are moving towards annual layoffs akin to stack ranking and removing bottom.

ie annual cull rather than oh no financial results are weak.

Last round did spook me a bit too. Decided to up the emergency reserves as a result

dontlaugh• 1 year ago

Join a union. If every worker at a company was willing to go on strike when redundancies are announced, they’d be forced to do better by their workers, or even something else entirely.

physhster• 1 year ago

"prioritizing the protection of the most vulnerable employees, such as those with children"

This is so discriminatory, I don't even know where to start. Also, employees with children are more likely to need urgent time off, and have more stringent time constraints than the ones who don't.

scarface_7451• 1 year ago

I’ve been working for almost 30 years and I’ve had 10 jobs. A layoff for me has not been “traumatic”. It’s a nuisance.

“Always keep your running shoes around your neck”.

After staying at my second job too long and becoming an “expert beginner” in 2008 and being stuck, I said “never again”

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39629190

1. I keep enough savings in a liquid account to pay my expenses between 9-12 months.

2. I keep my skills up to date.

3. Don’t be a “ticket taker”. This link I posted to HN describes my thoughts perfectly (It isn’t my blog)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42818169

4. Keep your network strong.

My first layoff was in 2011 when the company was sold for scraps and they let everyone go. We all knew it was coming. Management was up front with us about the difficulties the companies was facing and that kept us apprised of the companies that our investors were looking to for acquisitions. Our investors also promised us that we would get paid for every hour we worked.

Most of us stuck around to the bitter end, when the time came, they gave us our notice, we all went to lunch together and came back to the office and just joked around for awhile.

The CTO had a couple of recruiter friends reach out to us. From looking at LinkedIn, everyone got a better job within a month. Our major customer arranged for me to finish my work as a contractor for them after making an agreement with the acquirer to let me keep the code while working for the customer.

The second time was the year before last and it was Amazon. I commented here about four months after it happened.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37963988

I honestly didn’t think about the layoff three weeks after it happened. It was then my 8th job since 1996, I got my severance and moved on to my ninth job three weeks later.

The next job after that one ended up being mote shitty than I could imagine. I got laid off from there last year. I replied to an internal recruiter from my current company and again had a job three weeks later.

agtech_andy• 1 year ago

I was once in a fast-growing startup, where the CEO told us in a company all-hands that we had 18 months of runway and that our future was looking great! Some of us devs booked long-delayed vacations after months of grinding hard on releases.

Turned out that this "runway" factored in dumping all the American devs and replacing us with workers overseas who made ~35-40% of what they paid us.

My recent experience in the "data" world taught me that many companies in the US actually want contractors, but our employment laws make it make being "full-time" not that different than a contractor.

Another thing I learned was to never jump on R&D type projects unless you are in a very close communication loop with the leadership. If they are going to see you as a consultant on retainer, you have to always be delivering and improving on stuff that affects the business. I was put on some sort of "special projects" role in three fast-growing startups and those are always the first on the chopping block when things tighten up (and they almost always do at some point, especially in a startup).

Muromec6• 1 year ago

As an "oversees" developer who was getting those 30% and paid almost no taxes for ten years -- thanks for your sacrifice. It was great money for that time and was wisely spent on enjoying life.

tbrownaw• 1 year ago

4. Sudden, Vague Meetings

These aren't actually that rare.

not_the_fda• 1 year ago

I was "fortunate" to live through the dot com crash early in my career.

When the times were good, the messaging was we were all one big family. When the crash came, there were weekly layoffs. Co-workers that thought they were friends turned on each other to keep their jobs.

I learned to keep a fat emergency fund. I learned to work as a mercenary. I get in, I get out, I get paid. Then I live my life, which is not work. I keep no personal effects, and can be out the door in a second. Coworkers are acquaintances, not friends.

JKCalhoun2• 1 year ago

I was lucky to dodge the layoff-bullet a few times in my 26 year stint at Apple. (The layoffs were almost exclusively at the start of my career there, mid-90's, as Apple was circling the drain.)

I was told by a coworker, when I was over 50 or so, that they could not fire me because I could turn around and make it about age discrimination at that point. I don't know if my coworker was correct — there is, as was mentioned in the blog post, a weaselly way where they lay off whole teams to avoid the blowback. (And then may cherry-pick a few of the laid-off engineers and make them a quick offer on another team.)

Earlier though in my career I had a very cool manager (hi, Steve!) that made it clear to me that The Corporation doesn't give a fuck about me. That, to that end, I needed to chart my own career path and not rely on might bright-eyed "beamishness" to get me anywhere.

In the end I did stay with Apple for the whole ride but was quicker to switch teams when I thought I was being either overworked or under-compensated. Seeing the company as the cold entity it is was in fact a liberating concept for me. Fortunately I didn't need to be personally impacted by a layoff to find that out.

ethbr1• 1 year ago

was quicker to switch teams when I thought I was being either overworked or under-compensated

Calling out internal mobility (and normalized support for taking advantage of it!) as a key corporate culture value.

I've worked for companies that make this hard/toxic/impossible and companies that make this easier/normal.

The latter are always better, healthier companies.

iugtmkbdfil8344• 1 year ago

This. Without going into specifics, I attempted to internally transfer to another team for higher level/better pay position. My current boss said he doesn't have a problem with it. I pre-cleared everything with the possible new boss, but I got mysteriously blocked. Few months later, team member from the other team indicated that they were told not to let it happen ( and who said no ).

Needless to say, I am miffed. The market is what it is right now, but not only am I not 'allowed' to move around, but stuck with the same pay/benefits, because my raise was.. lets say not great.

There is not enough .. not hate.. not enough awareness of how corps fuck you over and HN can help with that a little.

commandlinefan• 1 year ago

when I was over 50 or so, that they could not fire me because I could turn around and make it about age discrimination at that point.

If that's true, that could explain some of the age discrimination we see in the hiring phase... "if we hire this guy, we can never fire him". Illegal but impossible to prove, just like the reluctance to hire young women because they might get pregnant.

dennis_jeeves29• 1 year ago

Fortunately I didn't need to be personally impacted by a layoff to find that out.

I really am perplexed with these kind of articles where the author has an epiphany of sorts, Are they living under a rock? My best guess - it's a click bait article.

m0llusk2• 1 year ago

Alternatively the real lesson here is to put less effort into coding and engineering and more into organization. Small groups that handle entire business verticals are the future. Modern tools and machine learning can enable small groups to outperform big organizations without the wretched chaos that leads to ruthless and unfeeling reorgs and pivots. And clients large and small often prefer dealing with small and focused groups more than large and hard to handle giants that currently dominate markets.

nsxwolf• 1 year ago

I’ve been through multiple layoffs in my life and I’m going through them again, but this is the first time I’ve heard the term “impacted” used so often in this context. It’s used 5 times in this article and it’s said constantly in our company town hall meetings when discussing the current rounds of layoffs.

t435622• 1 year ago

Don't burn yourself out for anyone other than you. Companies have no loyalty whatsoever and will not show gratitude.

In general I don't think that the style of work that leads to burnout is desirable at any stage unless if it's for your own startup and perhaps not even then.

One day I woke up and grey haired and not rich. I felt that my youth had disappeared, I had various minor health problems. Why did I work till 2am for a fortnight to solve problem X? The project was cancelled after I left or never made any money or whatever - it was for no great achievements. I got laid off anyhow.

I encountered plenty of people that generated fear in others pushing towards excessive work but I noticed every one of them going home at 5pm. Do you have to take note of these bullies? Maybe not - I didn't notice them being any worse to the people who ignored their pressure.

Don't encourage other people to overwork either - be part of the solution.

It's the people that you work with who will be grateful sometimes, in small ways and overcoming problems with them creates friendships. So you must obviously try to pull your weight - I'm not advocating cynicism.

codr76• 1 year ago

"It feels as though the trust between companies and employees is now broken."

I'm afraid we haven't hit rock bottom yet, they won't change until no one applies anymore.

Huge opportunity for companies willing to do the right thing!

alkonaut4• 1 year ago

These leave-on-the-day layoffs are really strange to me. Unless there was a bankruptcy or something, I'd most likely be convinced by management to stay my entire period of notice (3 months) because the company would need to PAY me 100% my salary for that period anyway. If they thought I was a risk to keep around, or they had no work for me at all, then they could just give me paid leave for 3 months. But more likely I'd be doing handovers and documentation and whatnot for the 3 months. But like, closing down accounts immediately? Do companies really think any laid off employee is an immediate security risk to the extent they need to lock them out as soon as they lay them off?

bluGill19• 1 year ago

Do companies really think any laid off employee is an immediate security risk to the extent they need to lock them out as soon as they lay them off?

Yes. There are a few case (a handful across the world every decade) where a former employee has done bad things in retaliation. Yes extremely rare, but it happens.

alkonaut4• 1 year ago

If I was hellbent on doing that, I’d likely pull it off anyway. It seems like a massive trouble to avoid something quite rare.

elijaht• 1 year ago

I’ve been through several waves of layoffs. Every employee kept on temporarily to transition things over (IMO quite rationally) did the absolute minimum required and I don’t think it was worth the companies money to keep them on. Additionally since their immediate manager was not part of the layoff decision making process, no one cared they were doing nothing.

alkonaut4• 1 year ago

That’s a waste of resources the company pays for anyway.

entropyneur• 1 year ago

I am honestly confused by how much people are willing to sacrifice for the false sense of security of a big company job. Folks seem to see employment as something akin to marriage, while I'm completely unable to see it as anything other than a transaction.

frenchwhisker• 1 year ago

Though it was about the finance sector in ‘07/‘08 and its obviously different circumstances, I enjoyed the way the movie Margin Call portrayed layoffs as the author here described them—cold and myopic.

ubermonkey• 1 year ago

I mean, the author needed a layoff to understand this?

I thought it was a given.

mooreds2• 1 year ago

For those like me who’ve experienced layoffs, work has become just that—work. You do what’s assigned, and if your company squanders your potential or forces you to waste time on unnecessary projects, you simply stop caring. You collect your paycheck at the end of the month, and that’s it. This is the new modern work: no more striving to be 40% better every year.

This is why I've always enjoyed working at startups or being a consultant on my own. You have more risk, but you also reap the rewards of getting better.

seanc2• 1 year ago

I've been in high tech for 30 years, and I've been laid off many times, most often from failed start ups. I _strongly_ disagree with a fully cynical response of working only to contract, leveraging job offers for raises, etc.

There are a few reasons for this, but the most concrete is that your behavior in this job has an impact on getting the next one. The author is correct that exemplary performance will not save you from being laid off, but when layoffs come your next job often comes from contacts that you built up from the current job, or jobs before. If people know you are a standout contributor then you will be hired quickly into desirable roles. If people think you are a hired gun who only does the bare minimum that next role will be harder to find.

On top of that, carrying around bitterness and cynicism is just bad for you. Pride in good work and pleasure in having an impact on customers and coworkers is good for you. Sometimes that means making dumb business decisions like sacrificing an evening to a company that doesn't care, but IMO that sort of thing is worth it now and then.

To be sure, don't give your heart away to a company (I did that exactly once, never again) because a company will never love you back. But your co-workers will.

ericjmorey• 1 year ago

your behavior in this job has an impact on getting the next one

Don't over index on this. It's a small factor among many.

milkshakes• 1 year ago

strong disagree. from extensive experience. it's a huge factor, and good referrals are really the only way to definitely get the job

pknomad• 1 year ago

I respectfully disagree. Parent comment is hardly over-indexing; it's a big factor. The world may be big but the communities are small.

65• 1 year ago

What ends up mattering more is your ability to form good relationships with co-workers at your last job and sell yourself on your resume.

Most of the people who end up getting high paying, high ranking jobs are not very skilled technically, but are skilled personally - even engineers.

So I'd say - do your job as well as you can (don't go too crazy with work), be friendly with people in your company, and phrase your achievements in terms of % value/speed/users added.

creer8• 1 year ago

When you are just starting, yes. But after a while, if you pay attention to cultivating it, you amass a significant network. Small factor initially, big one later if you work on it.

ToucanLoucan3• 1 year ago

but the most concrete is that your behavior in this job has an impact on getting the next one.

[ citation needed ]

Every job I've worked at has specified when we provide references, we're to say "X was employed from Y to Z" and if we would hire them again, yes or no. The employee described here would get a yes from me. The fact that they didn't go "above and beyond" will not help them get a job, at least if they happened to work for any of the companies I have.

If people know you are a standout contributor then you will be hired quickly into desirable roles.

I guess we could quibble over definitions then, because I as a senior dev managing other devs am perfectly happy with someone who clocks in, does the work on-time and to-spec, and then clocks off as a "standout contributor." I've chastised a few people in my time for committing code on the weekends too, not because I don't appreciate their contribution, but because I consider it part of my job to prevent burnout, voluntary or otherwise.

Burned out devs turn out worse work, and they feel worse in the bargain. Textbook definition of a lose-lose. Whatever code is being a pain in the ass today is just that; code. It will be there when you get back from the weekend, it will be there when you get back from a doctor's appointment, it will be there when your kid is done being sick. Life matters. Code... does, but to a lesser extent.

On top of that, carrying around bitterness and cynicism is just bad for you.

Which is why I don't want people feeling bitter about their job, and putting in the extra work to, by your own admission, be just as damn likely to get the axe for reasons that are out of your control? That's embittering as fuuuuuuuck.

Pride in good work and pleasure in having an impact on customers and coworkers is good for you.

False dichotomy. I love what we build, and I want my subordinates to have fulfilling, happy lives. And I proportion my energy to both of those things in accordance with their importance.

pavel_lishin5• 1 year ago

I don't think it's references that matter, as much as reaching out to former coworkers who have jobs elsewhere, and can be your "in" to a new job.

9rx14• 1 year ago

I've chastised a few people in my time for committing code on the weekends too, not because I don't appreciate their contribution, but because I consider it part of my job to prevent burnout

The best way to avoid burnout in my experience is to work when you have "the itch" to do it. If you're feeling it on a Saturday, why not go for it? You might not be feeling it on Monday and will need the break then instead. If you forego the prime opportunity and then force yourself to do it later when you are not in the right mindset, that is when the burnout is going to get you.

_dark_matter_• 1 year ago

FYI that burnout is not "working a lot". Burnout is the feeling of little control, ineffectiveness, COMBINED with stress. Working weekends could instead be an indication of excitement and enthusiasm, which as a manager is worth nurturing. Over time those kinds of people should be given broader ownership and the ability to delegate, where they see fit.

code_for_monkey• 1 year ago

spoken like a person with other people in their lives that they care about. You seem good to work for. Thanks.

seanc2• 1 year ago

We're not as far apart as you might think. Clock time is correlated with performance, but by no means determinative. More important is initiative, enthusiasm, leadership, reliability, etc. All in, I work very little overtime.

And you're right, this is a marathon, and working sustainably is absolutely the most important thing. One can do both. If you love what you build and you're leading a balanced life then I would say you're Doing It Right.

roguecoder17• 1 year ago

If people are seeing the only way to be a "standout contributor" being about putting in more than 40 hours a week, we may have found the disconnect.

I don't work more than 40 hours a week, but when I slack off I just do the work put in front of me. Rather than hours, it's about energy.

If companies want more than 40 hours a week, we can negotiate overtime. But I put extra energy in during the work week not because I think it makes me extra money or protects me from layoffs. I do it just because I think it is better.

the_af3• 1 year ago

I'm very cynical but I also kinda agree with this.

Don't be loyal to the company, because the company isn't loyal to you. Don't overwork, don't neglect family, friends and hobbies. It's simply not worth it, you'll burn yourself out, and it won't save you when the ax falls.

But do a good job, because it's good for you, your self-esteem, your mood and your skills. If you "quiet quit", you're doing yourself a disservice. (Barring extreme cases, of course).

tajd• 1 year ago

Yeah - hard agree with this. There's a lot to be said about giving your best effort in proportion to all the other things you're doing in your life.

deeg• 1 year ago

I'd rephrase this to: don't be loyal to work but be loyal to your coworkers. Be the person everyone wants to work with.

usixk• 1 year ago

Love this distillation!

Spivak• 1 year ago

I would nit and say "quiet-quit" to give you the time to work on finding your next job. Do it as a means, not an end.

slothtrop• 1 year ago

Anger can be a strong motivator. It's a double-edged sword, you don't want to sustain it.

_heimdall• 1 year ago

I draw the line at doing work that I can be proud of. That doesn't mean going out of my way and overworking myself, but it does mean being a good person to work with and writing quality code.

I tend to stick to the scope of work asked of me (though not always) for the reasons in the article, but I don't just phone it in. I put effort into writing good code, tests, and PR reviews.

In my experience, when it comes to getting the next job the only thing that really matters either way are references. If you were a too co-worker and did at least put in the effort to do good work within bounds of the scope asked for, you shouldn't have a problem.

apercu2• 1 year ago

I draw the line at doing work that I can be proud of.

That's important. I spend more awake time working/thinking about work than really else. I don't know that it's healthy, but at least I want to be proud of the outputs if I am going to spend this much time on something. I just can't really show up and mail it in, I'm just not wired that way, and suspect that a lot if us aren't.

djtriptych• 1 year ago

Yeah this is super important IMO. Set your own standards for what that means. Makes it much easier to handle the slings and arrows of normal 9-5 headaches, and to understand when you're being pressed to do things you wouldn't be proud of.

nelblu• 1 year ago

I agree with your comment. I have never been laid off, and I hope I don't ever do or at least I see the signs early on to be prepared.

The way I see "work" is that you are going to spend 8hrs of your day doing it, so you better feel positive about it and enjoy it. I couldn't care less about the corporate lords and I very well know I am just a line on an excel, but when I work I want to be sure I feel satisfied, I enjoy it and build trust with my team and meaningful relationships where possible.

I am not a religious person, but there is a famous saying in Hinduism - कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन | मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भूर्मा ते सङ्गोऽस्त्वकर्मणि|| It roughly translates to "You have a right to perform your prescribed duties, but you are not entitled to the fruits of your actions. Never consider yourself to be the cause of the results of your activities, nor be attached to inaction."

I love the last line of it where it says "don't be attached to inaction" which means just because the fruit of labour isn't in your control, doesn't mean you can just start behaving like a someone who doesn't care.

qnleigh2• 1 year ago

I read the Bhagavad Gita a few years ago, and this quote is much of the core lesson that I took away from it. It's one of the most impactful texts I have ever read.

I would take 'duty' in this context to refer not to your obligation to your employer, but rather to people your work is ultimately intended to serve, your coworkers, and perhaps also to yourself. If you've prioritized your efforts well, then you won't regret failure or gettin laid off, because you did the best you could given the information available to you at the time.

scarface_7451• 1 year ago

I’ve also been working in tech for almost 30 years - 28.5 to be exact.

Work is purely transactional, I give the company the benefit of all of my accumulated skills and experience for 40 hours per week, they put money in my account and I then use that money to exchange for goods and services.

Whenever one party or the other decides that the transactional relationship is no longer beneficial, we part ways.

If I find a company where the transaction is more beneficial - pay, benefits, work life balance, etc - depending on my priorities at the time, I go work for that company. I’ve worked at 10 companies in the past almost 30 years and 6 of those have been in the past 10 years.

Sometimes that means making dumb business decisions like sacrificing an evening to a company that doesn't care, but IMO that sort of thing is worth it now and then.

Uh yeah that won’t happen unless it benefits me in some way like I’m learning a new to me technology or finishing a project I am leading will look good on my resume.

I made an exception when I was working for a company that sent nurses to the homes of special needs kids and they wouldn’t get paid on time if the project wasn’t done - before Christmas. They would have gotten paper checks that they would have had to either pick up from their central office or get it mailed to them and when I was working for public sector clients during Covid and it helped them get their disability and unemployment checks on time.

franczesko• 1 year ago

I can relate. My perception is that a company is for me, not the other way around. This really flips how work is handled.

charlieyu1• 1 year ago

Don't really agree. The benefits you mentioned are already there for 50-70 percentile employees. Like doing a bit more than minimum, occasionally helping others, not slacking too much so others had to pick up your work etc. No benefits to bust your ass to be the top 5%.

And when more and more people are like this, the average quality goes down, so it is even easier to be average.

Pride in my work? Sometimes I have pride in my work. Doesn't mean I should open myself to be exploited.

maiar2• 1 year ago

It’s worthwhile to “go above and beyond” for individuals who will help you, who may exist in a company… but never for the company itself. A company is no less and no more than a pile of someone else’s money that will do literally anything, including destroy your life, to become a bigger pile.

You should do a good job for individuals who will repay you later on. Companies themselves these days can sod off—they stand for nothing.

harrison_clarke2• 1 year ago

that's true with publicly traded C-corporations

for private companies, it literally is the people you work with (and whatever legal enchantments they've decided on). some of those people will still fuck you over, but it's not a legally-conjured sentient pile of money the way a C-corp is

B-corps are an interesting attempt to avoid being a sentient pile of money. in theory, it's an egregore that is capable of valuing things other than money. (they haven't really been tested in court. and they might fuck you over in pursuit of some other value, even if they do work. or fucking you over for money might not conflict with its other values)

CydeWeys3• 1 year ago

"Going above and beyond" at a big company, if done in a smart strategic way, is the best way to get promoted, and getting promoted results in significantly higher pay. I've gotten promoted twice at my current employer over the years, which has roughly doubled my total compensation, and none of that would have happened had I just did my previous level's responsibilities and nothing beyond.

amykhar• 1 year ago

I don't think this is true of all companies. My current company doesn't base bonuses on individual contributions, and even went so far as to reduce the number of "story points" that top contributors did in sprints so that the rest of the team wouldn't look bad.

Suppafly• 1 year ago

It’s worthwhile to “go above and beyond” for individuals who will help you, who may exist in a company… but never for the company itself.

That feels like the correct way to think about it. Everyone else seems to think it's one extreme or the other but really thinking about it on an individual level vs a company level seems more accurate to my own experience.

roguecoder17• 1 year ago

I don't think it's just about who will repay you. Our responsibility to each other is not nearly that transactional.

For example, the individual who is most likely to live with the consequences of your decision is... future you.

Future-me isn't going to pay me back, but I am always grateful to past-me when I set future-me up for success.

s1mplicissimus3• 1 year ago

I think your comment bears some truth in that turning to bitterness is only going to tint a persons worldview towards an overall undesirable shade. Also it is absolutely necessary to keep up that "above and beyond" image for coworkers/managers to improve chances of a next successful hire. Mix that with the reality as described in the article and you get the play-pretend so many of us find exhausting

4fterd4rk2• 1 year ago

Why would I recommend a standout performer for a position at my company? So they can outshine me? I never recommend the "true believer" tool, always the average performer I got along with.

sim7c00• 1 year ago

true corporate strategist here... i recommend people i trust and beleive in and want to work with. if they can outshine me i can get better by working with them. i dont give a rats ass about my performance reviews. just quality of work and nice collaboration , preferably with people better than me.

psunavy03• 1 year ago

I bet you're a joy to work with.

scarface_7451• 1 year ago

"A players hire A players and B players hire C players”.

I’m not saying I am necessarily an “A player”. But I am secure in my skills and the ability to convince someone to pay me for my skills. I was instrumental in hiring three people at a job who were all better than me at the time. I learned so much from them while I was there, it helped set me up for my next job that was my first job as a lead.

Why would I want someone that can’t help me be successful at my current job and whom I can’t learn from?

Even there I would ask my then former coworkers first advice.

reactordev• 1 year ago

It should be about raising the bar, not lowering it. You’d grow if you weren’t the smartest person in the room. Unfortunately this stance prevents one from seeing that.

jimbokun• 1 year ago

So you don't have to spend a lot of time cleaning up their messes.

jmull• 1 year ago

Pride in good work and pleasure in having an impact on customers and coworkers is good for you. Sometimes that means making dumb business decisions like sacrificing an evening to a company that doesn't care...

Right.

The company doesn't care.

But I do.

I don't work hard on my craft, push myself to be better/smarter/have more impact, or go above and beyond for my employer.

I do it for myself.

v3xro• 1 year ago

Indeed. Although I find it increasingly hard to find work that aligns with my expectations about technical excellency (too many companies chasing big returns on half-finished products for example) or even methods of creating software. This is hard to manage from a personal perspective but I guess life goes on... I wholeheartedly agree with the author - life's too short to be wasted on work that may get you some good words in one quarter and not matter the next.

trentnix• 1 year ago

Well said.

harimau7772• 1 year ago

My experience has been that caring about your craft is a great way to get in trouble. As a previous co-worker once told me "it turns out that the less I care about this job the more happy my managers are with my performance."

akudha• 1 year ago

The quicker we make peace with the fact that hard work alone will not get us ahead (in most cases) the better it is for our mental health. We can put as much effort into our jobs as long as we accept that the only guaranteed result is our own joy, pride in our work and nothing else (not even a thank you from suits) is guaranteed.

If we are not able to accept that, then just do the bare minimum like most people. OR find a better job, but there is still no guarantee the new job would actually be better than the old job. But hey, at least we might get more compensation in our new job, so there's that

creer8• 1 year ago

Perhaps. Pay attention to the time you spend "doing the task well" so that YOU are satisfied. You are now smarter (say) but is your hierarchy going to promote you for this? Or park you and make you do this indefinitely, or blame you for the rest that didn't get done? Is your network as a whole now more inclined to hire you out in their next venture?

turbojet13215• 1 year ago

The question to ask yourself then is: why is it that the behaviour that brings you pleasure/meaning/satisfaction happens to align exactly with what the company wants?

I spent most of my career with a similar attitude to yours, and TBH it's still my default. The question I find myself asking more and more is: can I maintain/increase my level of satisfaction while giving less of myself to a company that simply doesn't care?

scotty792• 1 year ago

That smells like something a person with very little choice would say. At least I was saying similar things to myself in times I had very little choice. It's a very good way of regaining illusion of agency.

sam0x17• 1 year ago

There are a few reasons for this, but the most concrete is that your behavior in this job has an impact on getting the next one

This is completely false. I literally haven't seen someone do a reference check once in the last 10 years. Early 2010s it was more common but this practice is dead. Now every company is a new slate. In fact, I've seen people repeatedly rewarded for jumping ship and build there career on that. Companies have stopped investing in devs, so why should devs not reciprocate?

And there are so many startups. More than you can count. There are more new ones every day than you could ever have time to apply to. They don't all have time to talk to each other.

Not saying it's not good to have pride in your work, but within reason, and within a framework of fairness and quid pro quo. Don't let people exploit you any more than you exploit them. Employment is 100% transactional and the moment you forget that is the moment you get taken advantage of.

collingreen• 1 year ago

Their point wasn't reference checks it was the power of a network of people who want to work with you again because they know your work is more than just transactional.

sokoloff• 1 year ago

The effect’s source is much more direct than that.

It’s not a reference check to see “is sam0x17 a good dev?” at the end of a hiring pipeline, but rather “I’ve got an open role and remember that sam0x17 is one of the best devs I’ve ever worked with; let’s get them into the company!”

krainboltgreene• 1 year ago

Can confirm 17 years in, past performance has never impacted future job prospects.

AlunAlun• 1 year ago

This is completely false.

It's not completely false at all - but it does depend greatly depends on which country you're based in.

Where I am, in Spain, your network, and your reputation within it, are _everything_. Good jobs will sometimes not even be advertised, as the first thing a hirer will do is ask around their network for recommendations, and those recommendations count for _a lot_. On the other side, when you are looking for work, the first thing you do is ask your network for an intro - and again, that intro counts for a lot.

That's not to say that the traditional interview process will be skipped, but candidates coming from recommendations will have a massive head-start over others.

rmah• 1 year ago

It's not about references. It's about building a network of colleagues who respect you and your work. Many years ago, when I started doing consulting/contracting work, literally all my of my jobs came through people I had previously worked for or with across a variety of companies. And if you play your cards right, as the years roll on, you won't even have to apply for jobs other than as a formality. Instead, people who's respect you've gained will try to bring you into where they work.

CydeWeys3• 1 year ago

They're talking about referrals, not reference checks. Getting good referrals is hugely important, especially at smaller companies that don't the capacity to do a rigorous hiring process.

educasean• 1 year ago

I spent the last few months interviewing at various bay area startups for senior SE roles. About half of them wanted references. This was my experience so YMMV

knowitnone2• 1 year ago

reference checks are pointless if employee gives you a list of favorable references

the_af3• 1 year ago

This is completely false. I literally haven't seen someone do a reference check once in the last 10 years.

I understand this might not be your experience, but it's far from being "completely false".

I have had background checks/reference checks done on me (thankfully my would-be boss told me they were a formality and nobody cared about the results. I say "thankfully" not because I had anything to hide, but because the contractors doing the background checks asked for the dumbest things). I was also contacted by US-based consulting firms and asked to provide references on a former boss of mine, who was now applying for an engineering position... and to my surprise, the reference check involved getting on a call with me!

More recently, a relative was applying to a fintech and was asked for references for all her pasts jobs since she started working in the relevant field.

I know lots of companies don't care, but many others do.

Besides, like other commenters said, it's not only about formal references checking. It's also about the networks you build with coworkers whom you can potentially meet again in other jobs, and whom you want to speak favorably of you. I know I've informally vetoed coworkers whom I knew were terrible at their jobs and I heard recruiting was thinking of making an offer to. Likewise, I've enthusiastically recommended past coworkers who I would enjoy working with again.

hobs• 1 year ago

It happens all the time as you get higher and higher on the org tree, I had jobs not only call my references by ask if they could also speak to my former bosses.

When the money is seriously on the line people care.

wing-_-nuts• 1 year ago

I'm not sure which market you're in, but companies here absolutely do reference checks. They will even reach out people you didn't list if they're a shared connection.

My standing recommendation to everyone is to do good work and get better at advocating for yourself to make sure you're either getting the experience or the comp you need to achieve your goals. If you're not getting that, switch jobs. It's much much better to switch jobs every few years if that's what you need to stay motivated than to stay, do the minimum and collect a paycheck.

mrgoldenbrown• 1 year ago

Reference checks aren't what matters, it's referrals and getting a job that wasn't ever advertised, because someone knows you're good and offers you the position directly.

Aurornis3• 1 year ago

Reference checks happen a lot. You just don't see them.

Most companies stopped asking for references because everyone just games the system. Managers are afraid of giving anything but glowing references because they want to keep their own network opportunities strong. Giving positive references is basically a networking game these days.

So that's not how people reference check. Now, they go on LinkedIn and look for mutual connections they trust. They check for people they know whose work history overlapped with the candidate's time at a different company. They go ask that person without the candidate ever knowing.

I get probably 10X as many backchannel reference requests as I do formal reference check requests.

turbojet13215• 1 year ago

It's not at all false IME, though I'm not in SV or the US. Most job want up-front references from at least 2 people, one of whom must be your current supervisor/boss (or someone else higher in the chain of command). You can occasionally get away without it, but it's difficult.

groby_b2• 1 year ago

leveraging job offers for raises, etc.

That is a double-edged sword. You can do it, but it really should come from a place where you're fully prepared to leave, and you'd really prefer you didn't. Sometimes, companies underpay. You should be continually engaging in price discovery, and you should demand to be paid what you're worth.

Just be aware that your company may well say "oh well, good luck", and the new company may be worse. In smaller companies, you might set yourself up for resentment if you stay. Large tech companies really will just coldly look at "is she/he worth it? Yes/no", make that decision, and move on.

but when layoffs come your next job often comes from contacts that you built up from the current job, or jobs before.

You build those contacts by helping people, not by helping the company. (Also, referrals are massively overvalued, IMHO. I'm not seeing them happening very often - but maybe my friend group is an outlier. Wonder if there are stats)

carrying around bitterness and cynicism is just bad for you.

Realism, however, is helpful. Your company will throw you away like a used paper tissue. Make peace with it. Don't believe the "we're family" BS, because you aren't. You're at best the equivalent to a sports team. And when the team doesn't need you anymore, you'll be let go.

And that's fine. What makes it painful is lying to yourself, pretending a company could actually care about you as a person. (Small carve-out: Tiny companies, with <30 or so people, still can manage to care)

That doesn't mean phoning it in, or doing shoddy work. It does mean being clear about the fact that you have to look out for yourself, your wellbeing, your health, your career.

You're right in that your co-workers are the only ones who have the capacity to love you back. But I can guarantee you that working harder won't make you more loveable. Work well, but be clear where your boundaries are.

sangnoir• 1 year ago

I _strongly_ disagree with a fully cynical response of working only to contract, leveraging job offers for raises, etc

Would you consider employers to be "fully cynical" about their affairs and interactions with employees? I do. Being a happy little cog is it's own reward, but ine has to be clear-eyed about it.

If people know you are a standout contributor then you will be hired quickly into desirable roles.

You are presenting a false dichotomy - one can be an outstanding contributor while working 40 hours per week.

roguecoder17• 1 year ago

I think employers are, and I think it costs them a ton of money.

My intrinsic responsibility isn't to the person handing me a check: we have an explicit contract. It is first to myself, second to the people whose lives are affected by the software I write, and third to my coworkers.

When developers pretend the relationship with an employer is just the two of them, they are giving up most of the leverage they have to change how their work functions.

jmyeet2• 1 year ago

You are touching on what I would classify as two different kinds of layoffs.

If you're working for a startup, a layoff is a likely outcome. Most startups fail. Those that don't often end up pivoting, often more than once, and cutting costs tends to go hand in hand with that.

Layoffs from big tech companies is a relatively new phenomenon, really only since the pandemic, and they're fundamentally different. It's actually the sort of thing that Corporate America has been doing for decades. In this case, big tech companies make money hand over fist yet they have layoffs, typically ~5% of the workforce every year.

These layoffs will be perpetual because the reasons for them aren't around controlling costs, avoiding bankruptcy or any of the "normal" reasons for layoffs. The goal is suppress labor costs. People fearful for their jobs aren't demanding raises or better benefits. Plus you can dump the work the 5% were doing onto the remaining 95% who won't say no because they're fearful for their own jobs. And that's the point.

The veneer of tech companies being mavericks who were employee-focused is completely over. A lot of the "perks", which are really just part of your cojmpensation package, are getting and will continue to get cut or just made worse through less funding. At some point, you'll start getting charged for those "free" meals.

In 10 years, all the big tech companies will be indistinguishable from Boeing, Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman.

matrix873• 1 year ago

Actual salaries haven't fallen. The point of paying those salaries is you have to earn every penny. If they overhire and a bunch of people start taking the money for granted, that breaks down the social contract

Half of the perks e.g. sabbaticals or sleeping pods don't even make sense in a competitive working environment

int_19h2• 1 year ago

Layoffs from big tech companies is a relatively new phenomenon, really only since the pandemic.

Not really. E.g. I remember the mass layoffs at Microsoft back in 2009, and that wasn't even the first one. Google also had plenty.

Mc91• 1 year ago

Sometimes that means making dumb business decisions like sacrificing an evening to a company that doesn't care, but IMO that sort of thing is worth it now and then.

I sacrifice an evening - but not to my company, but to studying Leetcode to move on to the next company. I also have side hustles that I devote time to.

when layoffs come your next job often comes from contacts that you built up from the current job, or jobs before. If people know you are a standout contributor then you will be hired quickly into desirable roles. If people think you are a hired gun who only does the bare minimum that next role will be harder to find.

I am helpful to most people when they need help, and they remember this. My code is clean and well architected and well tested, and they can see this too. They also know that I know the language and platform we're using, and general programming (and business) knowledge. Few care whether I'm a "standout contributor" in terms of getting many stories done. Actually if I have a good lead or manager I might go above and beyond for them in terms of doing more.

a company will never love you back. But your co-workers will.

Well, this is correct. I help my co-workers.

Things are situational. If I got a job helping set up LLM's or something, I might dive in and work a lot of hours just because I feel it is benefiting me too. On the other hand I can be somewhere where it doesn't make sense to work more than forty hours (if that) a week.

harimau7772• 1 year ago

It feels like that requires an outgoing personality and great people skills that many people just don't have. There's lots of people who are friendly and pleasant to work with, but they don't have the dynamic personality that's going to lead to someone remembering them when an opportunity arises; even if they have they went above and beyond in their work.

akavi• 1 year ago

It's certainly true that the charismatic have a better go of this, but after 12 years in the industry I've built up a solid list of quietly excellent engineers. Whenever I see an opportunity they could shine, I reach out to them.

Fortunately for them (and unfortunately for me), the industry seems to be fairly market efficient, and they're usually already happy at some other highly compensated position (Empirically, 1 M$/yr seems roughly to be the going rate for "Damn, I really wish I could work with that person again")

jcmfernandes• 1 year ago

I can strongly agree with you while understanding how the OP feels (and I certainly don't condone all his advice). IMO, culture plays a role in it; as an EU citizen, layoffs are effectively rare here.

I was laid off once, when I was being widely praised for my work. It's been 5 years, financially it was probably the best thing that ever happened to me, and it still hurts that it happened. So yeah...

billy99k3• 1 year ago

"I've been in high tech for 30 years, and I've been laid off many times, most often from failed start ups. I _strongly_ disagree with a fully cynical response of working only to contract, leveraging job offers for raises, etc."

I've been in tech for 15 years and twice was enough for me. I now take on multiple contracts at the same time and make way more than I ever did as a regular employee.

I also won't work for startups as a full-time salaried employee anymore. They will always try to squeeze the hours out of you because they are usually trying to make a fast approaching deadline to get that next round of funding.

I had a well paying 6 month contract last summer and they wanted to hire me as a full-time, salaried employee. The problem was that I worked closely with their salaried employees and they were always overworked (many working on multiple teams) and working long hours on extremely tight deadlines.

The space was also over-saturated and when I researched the company, they were not turning a profit after a couple of years and continuing to take on rounds of funding.

When I refused the offer and wanted to continue as a contractor, they cut off all contact with me and I haven't heard from them since. It really showed me that they just wanted to overwork me and not pay.

low_common• 1 year ago

What sites do you use to find good contract work?

asdf6969• 1 year ago

You have no self respect.

spandrew2• 1 year ago

This is good advice.

People who do good work, and get good at craft, do it as much for their sense of pride as they do for some kind of reward. Rewards are nice, but the joy you get from them are fleeting. Enjoying the work itself is evergreen.

Work is work. Even at a job you like, you'll have days where you'd just rather be out having a day off. Don't get indoctrinated into hustle culture.

But don't get cynical and start being a pleb about jargon or whatever. It's like a person stuck in traffic complaining about traffic as if they aren't... traffic?

closeparen3• 1 year ago

The most your ex coworkers can do for you at a decently paying corporate job is get you past the resume screen. And even then, there are constant complaints at my employer about our recruiters never contacting our referrals. The person referring can certainly not be allowed even the appearance of influence over the interviews or debrief.

You might be hired on the strength of reputation or recommendation into an early stage startup, but these roles only make sense if you’re 23.

cricketsandmops2• 1 year ago

The referrals come from the c-suite. They can call up board they're on and friends that they have. I was laid off last fall and went straight HR told them where i applied and they reached out to the ceo and he called someone with me in the office. Had a job offer 1 week later

ChrisMarshallNY6• 1 year ago

Pride in good work and pleasure in having an impact on customers and coworkers is good for you.

My thoughts, exactly.

I do good work, because I can’t live with myself, if I don’t.

cricketsandmops2• 1 year ago

My perception of work changed after a layoff last fall. I had the typical C-Suite reaching out and 6 months of severance. After giving over a decade of my time to a company and given 6 months of pay in return my thought process changed. I was offered a job due to their contacts, but I would be in a similar situation with no laws to protect me, so I decided to decline and left the country. I had a contact in Mexico... after reading about their labor laws I decided while the pay was 50% of what i made in USA. I didn't have to worry about layoffs. For perspective had I been laid off in Mexico and worked the same amount of time my severance by law would have been about 3 years salary. That was the bare minimum by law (if the company offered a savings accounts, which most larger ones have here). A friend in HR down here did some calculations and said I would have been most likely closer to 4-5 years because of stipulations in contracts.

whoknowsidont7• 1 year ago

There are a few reasons for this, but the most concrete is that your behavior in this job has an impact on getting the next one.

No it doesn't.

knowitnone2• 1 year ago

"sacrificing an evening to a company that doesn't care...is worth it now and then" That same company will fire you and escort you out but expect you to give 2 weeks notice.

eecc• 1 year ago

The brutal experience of “fire and escort you out” is a consequence of Usonian fondness for firearms: before that, another typical location for mass shootings besides schools was the workplace, where angry terminated employees would lash out bullets at the “sucks being you” managers that just doled out the news.

betaby• 1 year ago

your behavior in this job has an impact on getting the next one

Not my experience.

NotAnOtter• 1 year ago

next job often comes from contacts that you built up from the current job, or jobs before

I've been in this field for ~7 years and have never found this to be true, yet people parrot it all the same. I have never once received a job via reference, and only once was able to get someone else a job by reference. I feel this is only true when you're at the very senior level.

krab• 1 year ago

Only my first job after university was via a regular advertisement and application. The other jobs and contracts happened thanks to:

- one of my bosses

- me talking at an event and meeting another speaker

- getting recommended by a person that knew me

some_furry• 1 year ago

The author is correct that exemplary performance will not save you from being laid off, but when layoffs come your next job often comes from contacts that you built up from the current job, or jobs before. If people know you are a standout contributor then you will be hired quickly into desirable roles. If people think you are a hired gun who only does the bare minimum that next role will be harder to find.

This is an argument in favor of managing optics. Whether people perceive you going above and beyond may matter, even if actually going above and beyond truly does not.

anotheryou2• 1 year ago

Also you get payed 60% for a year on unemployment benifits in germany (or until you find a new job), which is amazing.

bergie• 1 year ago

There is a cap to unemployment benefits, and at salary levels of most tech workers it is nowhere near 60%

Aurornis3• 1 year ago

I _strongly_ disagree with a fully cynical response of working only to contract, leveraging job offers for raises, etc.

Early in my career I watched a coworker get denied a promotion to management and make a hard turn toward cynicism. To be honest, he was not ready for a management promotion and the company made the right call. However, he was so insulted that he immediately started looking for new jobs and stopped doing more than a couple hours of work per week.

I thought his cynicism was going to backfire, but over the next several years he job hopped almost every year, getting bigger titles at every move. For a long time I was jealous that his cynicism and mercenary-style approach to employment was paying off so well.

Years later I went to a fun networking lunch. His name came up and many of us, from different local companies, said we had worked with him. The conversation quickly turned to how he had kind of screwed everyone over by doing Resume Driven Development, starting ambitious projects, and then leaving before he had to deal with consequences of, well, anything.

He hit a wall mid-career where he was having a very hard time getting hired because his resume was full of job hopping. He was requesting reference letters from past bosses multiple times a month because he was always trying to job hop. One admitted that he eventually just stopped responding, because he'd write a lot of reference letters every job-hop cycle only to have him bail on the company with a lot of technical debt later.

He eventually moved away, I suspect partially because the local market had become saturated with people who knew his game. He interviewed extremely well (because he did it so much) but he'd fail out as soon as someone recognized his name or talked to an old coworker.

The last I talked to him, he felt like a really cynical person all around. Like his personality was based on being a mercenary who extracted "TC" from companies by playing all the games. He was out of work, but asked me if I had any leads (no thanks!).

I'm no longer jealous of his mercenary, job-hopping adventure.

cudgy2• 1 year ago

I’ve known many people like this throughout my career, and I have seen the absolute opposite that you observed. These people are perfect candidates for management positions and their focus on office politics pays off handsomely. It’s not for me; might not be for you; but in reality these machiavellian tactics work if you wanna move up and get promoted in most large corporations.

johnnyanmac3• 1 year ago

If people know you are a standout contributor then you will be hired quickly into desirable roles. If people think you are a hired gun who only does the bare minimum that next role will be harder to find.

That hasn't really been true in my experience. This might be another one of those cultural shifts. work connections in general are looser and you need to do a lot more than just casually chat at work to really "stand out". People are arguably overworked and have no time to perceive who does what work how efficiently unless you're a direct co-worker or a lead.

I agree with don't be a grouch. No one like a grouch unless its calling out bad leadership. But I think being nice is better than trying to be the best. People remember how you made them feel, and current work (epecially WFH) may limit how much you get to impact a specific person's workload.

On top of that, carrying around bitterness and cynicism is just bad for you.

YMMV. how you process that matters a lot. If you use some cynicism you can protect yourself. If youre all cynicism you become a grouch.

Sometimes that means making dumb business decisions like sacrificing an evening to a company that doesn't care, but IMO that sort of thing is worth it now and then.

only in a market as bad as this where you don't want to go back to job searching. But normally, I wouldn't do this. Especially in my industty: give them an inch give them a country mile, and then that "crunch" period has become 70 hour workweeks for 6+ months.

hintymad2• 1 year ago

I _strongly_ disagree with a fully cynical response of working only to contract, leveraging job offers for raises, etc.

Totally agreed. A big downside of taking contracting job is that one does not get equity. There can be exceptions but in general equity is reserved for permanent employees.

That aside, I highly recommend people view the employment as an alliance. When employee aligns with the company, work hard. When the alliance is not there, break apart and no hard feelings.

scarface_7451• 1 year ago

By “equity” do you mean statistically worthless equity in a private company?

Most companies don’t give equity. But even if you are talking about equity in the form of RSUs in public companies. It’s just comp. I’ll take guaranteed cash comp any day. When I was getting RSUs, I had it set to immediately sell as soon as I was vested and diversified.

Employment is not an “alliance” it is a transaction, they pay me money, I give them labor

toast02• 1 year ago

Contractors can get equity, it depends on the contract. But ISOs are available to contractors, and RSUs are too.

creer8• 1 year ago

If people know you are a standout contributor

Yes, each person's network is more important now than ever - as we seem to have achieved pretty thorough uselessness of classical job postings, job boards and applications. Some parts of building that network are simple: do ask people for contact info for example. And another part is simply showing up, doing work and getting it recognized by the people around you - that's more long term effort certainly but has nothing to do with how much you don't respect the corporation that employs you or the least palatable of your co-workers or managers. On the contrary, find the more competent people in that mess around you, and favor them.

Even the people you don't respect might easily some day be among the people in other companies that will need you. You may then do everything you can not to work for them, but even keeping that lack of respect out of sight is in your interest. (And okay, for some of these people it's hard.)

llsf• 1 year ago

To be sure, don't give your heart away to a company (I did that exactly once, never again) because a company will never love you back. But your co-workers will.

Yes, and that hurts that first time. Especially when you gave a lot (like some 70hrs weeks and then you immune system shuts down) or working during a funeral, in the back room...

yieldcrv• 1 year ago

I’ve never been hired from contacts so maybe they all accurately think I’m a sellsword and it hasnt affected anything

I mean sure I’d love smooth sailing at a FAANG interview with all my friends in the process. I know some of you guys are getting on niche teams that way

but in the mid market and other startups, I’ve found there are enough to go around. Reputation doesn't matter one bit, and the “glut” is in entry level and former FAANG employees only looking for FAANG compensation.

I just keep 2 mid market and start up roles at once if I have some financial goal and its close enough to decent FAANG compensation. I don’t put short stints on my resume, and get exposed to a lot more.

My only studying is bombing another startup’s interview process and using what I had forgotten to ace a subsequent one

I could study to get above average FAANG compensation that would eclipse my 2-job situation. but I’m pretty busy with 2-jobs and the market for speculation and trading carries the rest.

scotty792• 1 year ago

The author is correct that exemplary performance will not save you from being laid off, but when layoffs come your next job often comes from contacts that you built up from the current job, or jobs before.

Guess what. That's cynical too.

On top of that, carrying around bitterness and cynicism is just bad for you.

No, it's not. Cynicism is just having the correct model of reality and learning to thrive with it is the best skill you can possibly develop. But the first step is becoming a cynic. Overwhelming bitterness is of course bad, but it's not the end of the road for cynicism, it's just the beginning. A non-cynic can see only this and it looks to him like a cliff that would crush him. Seasoned cynic sits high on top of the cliff of bitterness he climbed, quite happy, having a clear look on both sides. On the world of people who fear cynicism and on the smooth hills on the other side that non-cynics can't possibly fathom.

trod1234• 1 year ago

Realism is easily mistaken for bitterness and cynicism.

The TL;DR of the article is about not doing more than you are paid to do. Not going above and beyond, and that's a reasonable approach to take in today's environment.

Companies have been exploiting these type of people for decades, and its gotten worse in recent years so much so that people have died working for some black companies.

At the end of the day, there is no amount of pay you can receive that is worth your sanity or your life.

qnleigh2• 1 year ago

This is surely a healthier take than the article's, but isn't there more to work than selfishly pursuing what's best for ourselves? If we pursued our careers because we find the products interesting and their objectives valuable, then shouldn't that be a big part of why we work?

Companies will grow and shrink, layoffs will happen, employees will make bad or unfair decisions, but at the end of the day, companies exist because we are more productive as an organized group than we could be on our own. Of course you have to be strategic, but ultimately the healthiest motivation for working I can think of is to just focus on creating something of value.

The core fallacy of this blog post is that he expects the company to value and appreciate him. He gives positive examples of helping customers and coworkers, but concludes that they were for nothing because he got laid off. But a company is not a person that can affirm or reject you. It's just some abstract way of organizing labor with some CEOs and managers doing their thing. It makes no sense to work -for- the company. Yes work for yourself, but also for your coworkers and the people the company serves.

pc8610• 1 year ago

The Myth of Job Security in Germany
Since I was working for a German entity of a company, I want to address a common myth about job security in Germany. Many people believe that it’s nearly impossible to be fired in Germany. While this is partially true for individuals who have completed their probation period, it doesn’t hold up in the context of layoffs. If a company decides to lay off, for instance, 40 employees, German law doesn’t prevent this. Instead, the law enforces a social scoring system to determine who is affected, prioritizing the protection of the most vulnerable employees, such as those with children. In this sense, when it comes to layoffs, the difference between Germany and the US is minimal.

The author decries how he was laid off despite his contribution then - without a hint of irony - says Germany isn't as safe for employees as most people think because layoffs are legally required to take into account information completely disconnected from your contributions at work.

Of course if you have legal structures that make it harder to fire people based on what they do outside of work, you will be forced to lay off people you otherwise wouldn't.

What are the odds the author got laid off despite his contributions precisely because somebody who earned more than him and did less couldn't be fired because they happened to have children? In the US it would be approximately zero. Even if the person picking names knows you have kids - but they don't because they're usually 3-4 levels above you - they have to justify the names to their boss and "J. Doe just had their second kid so let's keep them around until next year" will absolutely not fly.

bluGill19• 1 year ago

The hard to lay off makes it harder to hire as well. Sure you get the 6 month probation period, but it is risky to hire anyone because they might make it past those 6 months before bad times come.

There is no good answer.

pc8610• 1 year ago

You will have a hard time convincing me that at will employment and hire-fast-fire-fast mentality is not objectively better than whatever you might call the German-style system. (Notice I didn't say it's good, just better)

The German-style system seems to treat a job as something the employee is guaranteed, that it's their inherent right to have, rather than something the employer chooses to give them. It doesn't seem to line up with reality.

Eridrus2• 1 year ago

I had the same reaction. This sort of law makes it very expensive to keep ambitious young folk like the author in a layoff.

I am very confused about how this works in practice though. Presumably you're not expected to keep an old accountant with a family over a young childless developer, but where is that line actually drawn? Can you make such a distinction between teams, or are you expected to reassign people from a team that is being disbanded? What if they don't have some experience you would like, are you expected to train them?

jjmarr• 1 year ago

From this article by a German lawyer, "the question will always be whether one employee can replace the other in the event of illness or absence on leave.":

https://www.kuhlen-berlin.de/en/glossary/sozialauswahl

Section 1 (3) sentence 1 KSchG provides four criteria that have to be taken into account in the selection decision: Length of service, age, statutory maintenance obligations and the employee's severe disability.
The employer must first determine which employees work at the same level in the company and can therefore be replaced. The group of employees determined in this way is what is known as a horizontal comparability. Social selection is then carried out in this group on the basis of the legally prescribed criteria. The members of the respective group are then ranked according to their need for social protection.
Older employees are more in need of protection than younger ones. A longer period of employment also increases the need for protection, as does the existence of statutory maintenance obligations and the presence of a severe disability.
Section 1 (3) sentence 1 KSchG does not indicate how the social aspects mentioned are to be put in relation to each other, which is why each of the four criteria is to be given equal importance.
When reducing staff, employers often make use of point schemes through which points are assigned to the individual social criteria. It also gives information through which the need for social protection of the employees in the comparison group can be assessed.
All employees who are interchangeable must be included in the social selection. Criteria that can be used in this examination are the vocational training as well as the practical experience and knowledge that the respective employees have. If there is comparability, these workers are horizontally interchangeable. In practice, the question will always be whether one employee can replace the other in the event of illness or absence on leave.

pgorczak• 1 year ago

If a company decides to lay off, for instance, 40 employees, German law doesn’t prevent this.

At least this part is partially wrong. There is an entire law about how lay offs are only allowed if they are “socially justified” with definitions of acceptable circumstances. An employer can not fire you “at will” in Germany.

mooreds2• 1 year ago

Always keep interviewing. One of the biggest mistakes I’ve seen is stopping interviews after starting a new job, trusting in the company. Instead, continuously explore opportunities so that if a layoff happens, you already have other options lined up.

I personally find interviewing exhausting. I also feel slightly guilty interviewing when I'm happy where I'm at because I have been a hiring manager and know how much goes into a good interview process from the company side. (Not saying don't do that, but it's hard for me to do so.)

If interviewing is tiring, another alternative that requires less work is to be active in a larger tech community. Whether that is here, local meetups, or on social media, being active can raise your profile and keep connections warm. This will help if/when you are laid off.

dolmen2• 1 year ago

networking vs interviewing

temporallobe2• 1 year ago

I was laid off recently. I poured my heart and soul into that role and went far above and beyond in countless ways - even working on a critical business proposal while on vacation with my family. In the end no one cares about your efforts, what you accomplished, your certifications, what kind of SME you are, or what potential you have. If you fit the criteria for a layoff, you will be gone without a second thought. After I was informed, my company reached out to me with a “mobility program” where they supposedly helped me to find a position internally. I talked with several people including a VP who promised to find me something only to be ghosted after my official end date. It’s a very cutthroat industry and there is no such thing as loyalty any more. I know I sound bitter. That’s just the way it is. Save as much money as you can, live frugally, keep your resume updated, and always be prepared to jump ship. Don’t stay in a role too long and try to move on voluntarily at the first hint of trouble.

erellsworth• 1 year ago

It was difficult to process what was happening. Just ten months earlier, the company had gone through another round of layoffs. And at the beginning of the year, during the company’s kick-off event, the president assured us there wouldn’t be any more layoffs.

In my experience, whenever a company assures you there will be no more layoffs, there will 100% be more layoffs. Never make the mistake of believing your employer has any real loyalty to you.

inahga• 1 year ago

That matches my experience too. If leadership even uses the word “layoff”, no matter the context, it’s coming.

duxup• 1 year ago

I know some folks that very much take the cynical approach to work. They work very hard to eek out every penny they can from each employer and switch jobs a moments notice for more money.

I feel like this has a strange re-enforcing cycle that they find employers who are just like they are (looking to eek out every hour from their employees) and so they get more cynical.

Always keep interviewing

Man that sounds like a full time job on its own...

CRConrad10• 1 year ago

They work very hard to *eek out every penny they can

*: Eke.

magicstefanos2• 1 year ago

What I've learned is that, for employees, job security is never real. There is only silent risk. You might get lucky and go through an entire career never losing Russian roulette...but you're just lucky.

But I've also learned that there is no security of any kind in life. People who've lived nothing but peaceful lives will never understand, and they'll even lecture you about "making your own luck," when they should be thanking God for their good fortune.

Twizzlewhisker• 1 year ago

I was 15 years in at one company and got an out of the blue mass firing notice over zoom one day. A significant number of developers with over 10 years at the company were let go. It was devastating to think back over the times I decided to work late versus spend those hours with my kids and wife, the times I was at home but decided to "check in" on things at work, and the fact that I had fused my work identity into my personal identity.

I landed a gig at another well known national newspaper and hated every second of that dysfunctional team. I did fully separate my personal life and my work life. I basically punched the clock and worked my 40. Every six weeks or so I had to pull an on-call shift, but the monitoring setup was almost nonexistent so it was cake. I spent just over three years there before they had a significant round of mass firings. However, I did not keep up with interviews and previous relationships made with recruiters during my last round of looking for a gig.

I came pretty close to flat broke in the four months it took to land another job as I had one kid moving to college and another out of school living at home. I'm still at this current gig, and I honestly couldn't care less about it. We are doing so cool stuff, but every Monday I clock in with the expectation of having a mass firing email when I log in. I have kept in contact with all recruiters that were helpful in this last round and I keep applying and interviewing for jobs. I am a terrible interview, but I'm amazed at how well I do when I am interviewing while having a current job. I'm also applying for a wider-range of jobs that I don't quite have the skill sets for and those interviews go well too.

If you are just starting out and think you landed the job you will retire from, I wish you well and hope that works out for you, seriously. It would also be a wise move to prepare for the unexpected by making relationships with recruiters and HR employees at other companies. Don't ever think you are not replaceable. After the first mass firing, our positions were posted to be filled only from Mexico. The second mass firing was to be filled by Brazil.

You owe no allegiance to the company you work for. Do they randomly gift you with extra weekly paychecks for 10 hours of work you did not do? Why gift them with 10 hours of work they don't pay you for?

jll29• 1 year ago

It's important to take pride in one's work, but don't forget one second that the relationship is asymmetric; if you choose to be loyal, the company employing you won't be loyal back.

The worst thing you can do is to feel personally and emotionally vested in the relationship, and then be disappointed that "despite" you going full in and giving everything, going above and beyond the expectations, it still affects you.

As the OP correctly states, the decisions are made by others, and they may not know you. But while some people involved may know and value you (e.g. your direct line manager), they will not stand up and fight for you in 99% of cases, because they don't have much power, and they would like to keep their own job.

that_guy_iain• 1 year ago

One warning sign not listed, if your company has lots of offices around the world and leadership visit your office when they never do before. They're talking about changes within that office which is generally the structure of the office.

the_af3• 1 year ago

However, during a layoff, it seems that who you are and what you do doesn’t matter. In most cases, the decision is made by people who don’t even know you.

I think this is a key observation. I of course cannot speak for every case, but in the couple of layoff rounds I've been witness to, for unrelated companies, layoffs are done without relation to individual skills or contribution.

Or rather: they may start with low performers, but these aren't enough, and then the next people that get axed are good performers (sometimes brilliant in my experience) for areas that the execs deemed not important enough for the company. Key words "not important enough", not unimportant. They are also done by people who don't know the team or its members, resulting in firing people who were later found to be essential, and their manager cannot speak for them because the manager was also laid off.

In the end, remember this when judging your "loyalty" to a company.

joshstrange• 1 year ago

In response to the suggestions at the end:

> Stick to your contract hours. If your contract says 40 hours, work 40 hours—no more, no less. Protect your personal time and well-being.

100% agree, a company is (almost) never going to say "that's enough, you shouldn't work so much". They will say they only want you to work XX hours but they aren't going to chide you for going over.

> Avoid going above and beyond with initiatives. Many companies encourage impactful work to earn promotions, but instead of chasing internal advancements, focus on switching companies to achieve your next career step.

Ehh, I mean don't kill yourself for a company that doesn't care but the idea of jumping companies every few years is not appealing. You might make more money but I kind of doubt you'll be happier, to each their own.

> Always keep interviewing. One of the biggest mistakes I’ve seen is stopping interviews after starting a new job, trusting in the company. Instead, continuously explore opportunities so that if a layoff happens, you already have other options lined up.

Gross. Interviewing sucks and the idea of trying to onboard at a new company while interviewing sounds horrible.

> Leverage external offers for salary growth. Companies often resist giving substantial raises to existing employees but pay top dollar for new hires. Regularly interview elsewhere, and if you get an offer with a 20% or higher salary increase, consider taking it. Many people have seen their compensation triple or quadruple this way in just a few years.

You can do this 1, maybe 2 times at a company before you paint a target on your back. This will work in the short term but not in the long term (At a single company)

> Don’t overthink your résumé. Worrying about short experiences on your CV isn’t worth it. You can always tailor your résumé—leave out brief roles, or consolidate short-term jobs as freelance experience. Ultimately, your résumé is just a starting point; your skills will be assessed during the interview process.

Completely agree, your resume is not your record, it's not "official", you tailor to the job you want. Leave off technologies you don't want to work with, leave off jobs that aren't the type of thing you want to do, etc.

RIMR• 1 year ago

I am in the middle of being laid off right now, and might as well share some of the details, because my situation is a bit weird.

My team of 12 was reduced by half in November. They told us that 6 would stay and 6 would go. I was told I was staying, and that my position was "unaffected", but I was also told that I was going to have an end date in either February or March, which to me sounds like my position is pretty well affected...

They have refused to give any of us an official end date, or discuss our severance terms in writing. Right now, I have been assured that my last day will be 2/28 and that I'll get 2 months if severance, but they could change their mind if they wanted to since they won't commit. I have voiced that this keeps me from effectively planning my next career move. What if I'm offered a job starting in March, and my current employer decides to they want to keep me until April? I'd be forced to choose between receiving a severance vs. accepting the new job.

All the while, they have us training our replacements in India, as if we have the motivation to do anything that benefits the company right now. Most of us are only cooperating at all because we want out in March and don't want to be dragged along for months while they try to keep the product afloat.

And the reason they aren't terminating our entire department and product is because they want to maintain the few million dollars in ARR they get from our customers, even though that ARR is 1/10,000 of the company's total revenue.

And they won't keep that ARR because they're getting rid of the entire customer success team and transferring the responsibility to a call center in India that is demanding to only work on India time (ending business hour product support entirely for our predominantly North American customers). They also have zero experience with the kind of product we make, and have no chance of successfully addressing the kind of work they're going to be expected to do for our customers.

All because the people who made these decisions have absolutely no clue what anyone in our org does. We really are just lines in an Excel sheet. We were a startup a few years ago that this much larger company purchased because they wanted to use our solution massively at scale inside of the company. Revenue wasn't even how we were supposed to be measured, and they're going to actively destroy the entire product that they spent so much time and energy implementing across the business.

talkingtab• 1 year ago

[flagged]

ergocoder2• 1 year ago

I know what you mean, but a 500K software engineering job doesn't seem to match what you say...

dumbledoren4• 1 year ago

Doesnt it? It requires a $180,000~ minimum to get by as a family of 4 including 2 kids in San Francisco according to statistics. Before taxes and unexpected expenses and other things. And VERY few people get that $500k. The rest get shafted by the system like others.

BizarreByte2• 1 year ago

500k/y jobs are not common and as such the vast majority of us are not making that much.

seneca• 1 year ago

You are nothing but slave labor

This is an absurd and out of touch thing to say to a crowd mostly made up of highly paid engineers.

pizzafeelsright• 1 year ago

This is a very negative to look at employment in general:

Whatever the skill - pushing rocks up a hill or pushing code into a repo - someone with power over you is taking half your waking day to generate disproportionate compensation.

I personally see the alternative viewpoint which is I am able to provide for my entire family a life of non-work because I sacrifice 50% of what would be idle time without them.

Ultimately you need something to do during your waking hours. I give 50% to the company and 50% to my family.

hattmall• 1 year ago

Historically the slaves of the ultrawealthy often lived much better lives than common free people.

dennis_jeeves29• 1 year ago

No it is not, just because one slave is paid more than another slave it does not make the former a less of a slave.

But it's good that you think that way. Keeps the system going. We need more of you guys.

ilrwbwrkhv• 1 year ago

I like how Richard Branson does things at Virgin. I have tried to adopt similar practices in mine. Basically we do our best to move you around to somewhere else, but you are never fired. It works really well for us.

gchamonlive• 1 year ago

I think the article, although well built and clearly criticising crucial points in the modern work structure, fails to see the fundamental issue that is at the core of these layoffs.

In fact, the recommendation for those who are still employed is incomplete and therefore doubles down on the issue without realising it.

While everything in the article is true, that you shouldn't romanticise your job, focussing on the job description only, only ever working the amount required and making lean résumés will reaffirm the status quo and aggravate the situation long term.

It does this because it doubles down on what fractured the working landscape to begin with, which is individuality, competitiveness and alienation.

You can't treat an alienating job as if it was already the job you dream of. This is wishful thinking. But going full hostile to your job won't make your situation any better.

Here's what I suggest instead.

Do everything the article says if you identified your work environment in the descriptions in the article.

At the same time do a honest and deep evaluation of your values and what you aim to be in 5, 10 years time. Thinking long term will have first the effect of putting the immediate problems into perspective and will highlight what's missing in your career today in order to get the job you'd want for you.

Invest in your portfolio. Keep doing interviews. Don't compromise on deliverable quality, because if you go down the road of actively crippling your performance, you will eventually become the bad developer you are allowing yourself to be just to get back at the current company that doesn't value you.

Remember, you don't get a dream job and then you become the great developer you think you should be. It's unfair, but the reality is you first become the great professional you want to be and then you get the dream job you want, if you are lucky.

It's never guaranteed. It's always a game of probability. The only constant and the only thing you can control is you and your relationship with your work as an ever flowing, ever changing process.

snozolli3• 1 year ago

Avoid going above and beyond with initiatives.

It's been my experience that accepting whatever dumb challenge management presents is how you get kept on. The advice that "your job is to make your manager look good to his manager" rings true to me. I would add that boosting your manager's ego goes pretty far, too. I find both activities detestable, but necessary in corporate life.

Always keep interviewing. One of the biggest mistakes I’ve seen is stopping interviews after starting a new job, trusting in the company.

I've never understood how people can muster the energy for this. I'm sure it's a great idea, but I would burn out immediately.

sakex• 1 year ago

I was laid off from Google in January last year alongside 150 people in my extended team. I managed to find a different team in Gemini, so now I'm part of Deepmind. I have very conflicting feelings because on one hand I really enjoy the work, the team, and the absolute genius of people I get to talk to; but on the other hand, I have some resentment for being so inhumanely laid off, I am sad for the people in my team who were not as lucky as me, and I know it can happen again any time.

donatj2• 1 year ago

My company brought on consultants. They were having us do the absolute strangest things. Pointless meetings. Duplicating infrastructure. Documenting processes so deeply entrenched in what we did they'd never be forgotten. Then they hired another small team that did basically the same things we did on a much smaller scale.

Then my department got sold to another company, and it all made sense.

Looking back it's pretty obvious that they were bifurcating while duplicating important infrastructure. At the time going through it though I just thought the consultants were total morons, not understanding the business and that we'd be doing twice the work by having two of everything.

They sold it to us while it was happening that we were the domestic team and they were the "global" team, and we bought it as a concept, but we all thought it was a stupid distraction. We were absolutely certain we'd be merging our departments within a couple years.

Finding out that they had been actively lying to us about what was going on for almost a year really... Changed how I thought about companies. They had been lying to my face every single day for a very long time, that really violated my trust.

1970-01-01• 1 year ago

The biggest indicator of layoff is when sales are consistently bad. You should always get to know your sales teams. They are the canary in your coal mine.

ideashower• 1 year ago

I was laid off from my first engineering role at the age of 22 and it broke me. Poor leadership, and infighting between me and my supervisor who couldn't reasonably manage me and support a new engineer (he monitored my git commit history to see if I was "working," leading me to make smaller and more frequent commits to inflate my work). He clearly was a legacy engineer that didn't code much anymore (I had to teach him how to use Git) and due to his age, was promoted to management. I was mid restructuring the UI on their shitty product and dated codebase when I got the news. Up until that point I had been pretty excited for what was supposed to be my first engineering gig.

My whole view changed on work and tech companies in a second.

libpcap• 1 year ago

It's important to note that not all organizations operate in this manner. My own experience with a layoff last year included a two-month notice period and a severance package equivalent to nearly a year's salary. During my notice period, our manager encouraged everyone to prioritize their job search.

corytheboyd• 1 year ago

Always keep interviewing

Isn’t it going to be incredibly obvious after a while, with all the random 1-2 hour OOO blocks during working hours, that something is off? Any seasoned manager will see right through it, but would never call it out directly to you.

Then, let’s say you get an offer, do you say you’ll only sign if you’re laid off? It’s expected you sign the offer and join reasonably soon. I’ve seen offers rescinded after ridiculous start date doubling down by candidates. You will be actively shooting yourself in the foot if you get an offer and don’t take it, because you just wasted many hours of their time, and they may remember that if you apply again…

Outside of all that… where do you even find the time to ALWAYS be interviewing?! I put (exactly) 100% into my current job, so always interviewing means I have much less free time. It guarantees I am always stressed, and being stressed ruins my life. I like the work I do, but find it incredibly exhausting and dehumanizing after long stretches. Five 8 hour days is enough of a long stretch to make me feel I am wasting my life, I can’t even imagine how always interviewing would ruin me…

The better advice in the same light is to always be networking— or at least making sure you HAVE a network. Referrals are your only weapon against the flood of trash applications.

So yes, yes, I get that I am a row in a database, came to terms with that a long time ago— this is the silly game we play for money. Until society collapses, and we miraculously reform it to something better, this silly game we will continue to play. I just want to scrape joy out of as much of that time as I can.

scarface_7451• 1 year ago

Isn’t it going to be incredibly obvious after a while, with all the random 1-2 hour OOO blocks during working hours, that something is off?

Working and interviewing remotely, it’s definitely easy to work and interview at the same time. No one thinks twice is occasionally it takes an hour to respond to a message.

Heck even when I am not interviewing I close my Slack and email for blocks at a time to do “deep work”

notyourwork• 1 year ago

If a full time job makes you feel like you’re wasting your life, you may never find happiness or solace in life without a winning lottery ticket.

froggertoaster2• 1 year ago

Full disclosure, I've never been laid off.

OP sounds very bitter and - frankly - melodramatic. Getting laid off is terrible, but this person makes it sounds like they'll never heal/never be the same/all companies suck/etc. when none of those things are true. There is an implied business relationship with an employer that can end anytime, and that's expected because it's a two-way street.

I agree with the top commenter - seanc - when he says:

Carrying around bitterness and cynicism is just bad for you. Pride in good work and pleasure in having an impact on customers and coworkers is good for you. Sometimes that means making dumb business decisions like sacrificing an evening to a company that doesn't care, but IMO that sort of thing is worth it now and then.

Finally, income diversification pays huge dividends. I had a startup job where suddenly I found myself with a $65k/year pay cut one week. I had side work from folks who were asking me for more anyways so I quit that same week on Friday. Now I employ 10 people and pull in nearly a million a year. Really makes the emotional part of having lost income that week completely meaningless in the long run.

froggertoaster2• 1 year ago

I appreciate the downvote internet stranger - remember that I'm laughing all the way to the bank. :)

gwbas1c• 1 year ago

Layoffs were uncommon when I started working, and being a developer felt like an incredibly safe job.

I'm in the US.

I'm mid career, entered the job market 22 years ago, and have another ~22 years before I retire.

Layoffs were very common in the 1990s when I was teenager. In the US, if you think layoffs are a "new thing," you're very naive. (Remember, the author is from Germany.)

One thing I did very early in my career was learn enough about business to know that businesses, markets, and products don't last forever. Most don't even last a whole career. Sticking in a job long enough to get laid off with a severance is a good thing: You don't get money when you leave a job voluntarily.

(Granted, there are good reasons to leave before the layoff, but keep in mind that if you loose out on a severance, you've left money on the table, especially if you can get a job before the severance runs out.)

herval• 1 year ago

The last 2 years fundamentally changed how a lot of people perceive work. I've witnessed layoffs in the past, but they didn't seem to hit as many people as hard as they did this time.

That said - having seen how layoffs are organized from the inside (multiple times), I can _guarantee_ that the list of suggestions on this post ("Suggestions for Those Who Haven’t Been Laid Off (Yet)" - particularly the first 2 points) are the best way to get included on the layoff sheet, in almost any organization. They might be good ideas for mental health reasons, but definitely an easy "name on the list" if you're perceived as "just doing the minimum" (I know that doesn't sound fair, but that's how boards think).

lizknope• 1 year ago

The Broken Trust of Modern Work
Layoffs were uncommon when I started working, and being a developer felt like an incredibly safe job. In most professions, the unspoken rule was simple: if you performed well and the company was financially stable, your job was secure.
But today, companies are announcing layoffs alongside record-breaking financial results.

From the author's website:

I've been working as a Software Developer since 2016

I've been in the tech industry almost 30 years. I saw the dot com boom and the collapse. Hiring like crazy in the late 1990's with companies have having signs "WE ARE HIRING!" outside their parking lot where you could just stop on your lunch break and have a new job by the end of the day.

I've worked at companies posting big profits but still had layoffs to underperforming groups. When your profit margin is 10% but another group is 40% they will sell off or shut down the lower margin groups. Sometimes there are offers for internal transfers but it depends on the skill set.

After the dot com collapse I've never felt any trust or loyalty to my company. I have felt a huge amount of trust and loyalty to my coworkers. I still work hard. It can still be fun. But if someone needs a job it is great to have a wide network of former coworkers.

I've worked at 8 companies and only at the first 3 did I just blindly apply. The other 5 were former coworkers who recruited me to join. Then I do the same for them.

I've worked with some people for 15 years at 4 different companies sometimes with gaps of 3-4 years in between but we meet for lunch once or twice a month and keep in touch.

devmor• 1 year ago

I've been laid off many times, for many reasons (mostly startup financial issues), but what I've taken away from it a mantra that's a bit different.

I need mutual respect. I want to believe in whatever the company is doing and enjoy my work there. At the same time, I want the company to respect my personal time and further my career growth. This enables me to give my best effort. I have no delusions about the workforce - I am a cog in the machine as we all are, but I will at least be a well greased cog.

When it's all said and done, I would like to leave a company feeling good about my time spent there, and if I am happy with how I am treated and the work I do from the start to the end, then however it ends, I feel good about it.

dandare• 1 year ago

I keep saying this: A company is a legal person, and you should not try to be loyal to a legal person because legal person can not be loyal to you,

You can, however, be loyal to your boss, and your boss can be loyal to you, as long as this does not conflicts with his duties to the company.

almost_usual• 1 year ago

Always prioritize physical and mental health over work. Only go above and beyond for your employer after you’ve done so for yourself.

jwmoz• 1 year ago

A job is a means to an end.

kazinator2• 1 year ago

LinkedIn bellyaching is hitting HackerNews now, good grief.

terhechte• 1 year ago

I used to work together with Mert at the same company but choose to leave on my own 2 years prior to his layoffs because of similar issues as the one pointed out in this post. Most notably, the lack of vision and the excel table. The company had been dragged down by unbelievably incompetent leadership for some time. You could tell by the composition of teams that employees were not considered based on their qualifications but based on a moving-resources-around-in-an-excel-table strategy. There were also no attempts to gain knowledge from engineers or consider their feedback on decisions. This isn't ultimately something every company needs (bottom up is a double edged sword) but mixed with incompetent management it is a fastlane into chaos.

atmb4u• 1 year ago

This article is wrong in so many ways and not generalizable. I can see on bigger companies, you may be an excel sheet row. But, the reason why someone would get laid-off is the exact opposite IMO - not adding value. But in a smaller early stage company, you are responsible for team's success or failure and you are the only reason why someone are getting laid-off.

dumbledoren4• 1 year ago

The author seems to have just discovered that capitalism does not have loyalty to anyone other than the shareholders. And those shareholders do not care whether you have contributed to their profits much more than anyone in the recent past - if it looks like they can make more profit that quarter by laying you off, they do it.

Maybe we should start calling this the "enshttification" of work? As capitalism is enshttifying everything, it was unimaginable that work would not get affected...

mobilene• 1 year ago

I've been laid off a few times in my 35-year career. Being laid off felt like a betrayal to me for a long time. But I was operating under a false model: that because I worked hard and did good work, that the company would value me and take care of me.

I also used to shake my fist at the bad outcomes of stupid decisions made by people above me.

It took me this long to realize that this is all a game of chance. Me choosing a company to work for is me playing the odds. The decisions my superiors make are bets, too. And sometimes, even good bets don't work out.

It's still worth it to work hard and deliver what your management wants in spades. I've been brought along to any number of new employment opportunities because I'm remembered well for being a person who did those things.

I've come to see my career as a series of stops, and my current stop is just what I'm doing right now.

gmd63• 1 year ago

From my stint at a big corporation, the person I knew most closely who "succeeded" the most (for themselves, not for the company) would routinely interview for competitive offers and threaten to leave. I saw on a few occasions this same person lie in meetings to cover their ass to people who were less technical. I know of one person who has somehow managed to do the bare minimum at two full time remote jobs simultaneously.

To everyone reading the comments that describe corporations as the ones who treat their employees with contempt, it's sadly a two way street. It comes down to shitty people polluting expectations at all levels of society, and people dialing back their expectations accordingly.

With all the Luigi talk in the air, it's important to remember this goes for insurance companies as well. Insurance fraud is a huge drain on the industry and it's folks of all levels of wealth committing it. It's a part of the reason why insurers squeeze harder to keep the profits flowing. That's obviously no excuse for delay/deny/depose tactics--I'm just saying that in an environment of fraudsters who add friction to a company that does business honestly, you will find that the cheaters and bad actors will bubble to the top, more so than usual.

AutistiCoder2• 1 year ago

Hell, searching for my first job changed how I perceive work.

The job market as it is is tough.

Add autism & ADHD to the mix and it gets tougher.

I decided to give as much of a shit about the corporate world as it does to me - which is to say, I stopped searching altogether. I decided I'd rather be unemployed.

gsck• 1 year ago

Thats the go getter attitude companies are looking for!

Something to hard? Give up. That's sure to get you hired

Muromec6• 1 year ago

You can still steal the proverbal catalystic convertor even if its not your employer's truck.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF• 1 year ago

I mean...

Strategy not yielding results as expected? Better change it up!

Honestly, good for them.

AutistiCoder2• 1 year ago

I didn't give up.

I pivoted to content creation.

silexia• 1 year ago

Modern finance is the true villain; it removes businesses from the hands of the real founders who understand it and puts it in the hands of clueless MBAs.

throw01272025• 1 year ago

When I read the title, I suspected it might be about Shopify. Unfortunately, my suspicions were confirmed. The company's handling of layoffs left a sour taste in my mouth.

The way Shopify dealt with its staff departures was unacceptable. The lack of transparency and communication during this period not only eroded trust among employees but also created an atmosphere of fear and paranoia. The constant silent firings, combined with the CEO's outbursts during town halls, have severely damaged the company's reputation.

I've seen a similar situation play out in my own experience when new management was brought in. My team members were suddenly being threatened with being put on notice, leading to a nasty shift in morale and productivity.

It's worth noting that Shopify's actions aren't isolated to large corporations like themselves. Unfortunately, this type of cultural shift has become all too common in many industries and companies. Nonetheless, this specific incident left a lasting impact on me, and I actively discourage any who asks me about working at Shopify - something I haven't done for any other company I've left _or_ been let go from.

darafsheh• 1 year ago

This hit home for me, thank you for sharing. I was a bit surprised that you didn't mention or explore a path outside of employment, rather chose the content path of receiving paychecks and wasting time not being very motivated to push yourself. Don't give up on your potential!

asoneth2• 1 year ago

As heartbreaking as they are for those affected, layoffs provide incredibly useful information for prospective employees.

For example, was it a small number of people who were laid off with decent severance, or was it a huge mass of people let go unceremoniously with minimum severance? And were the layoffs due to a sustained period of unprofitability or did they occur during periods of profitability? In the former case why wasn't the business doing well and has that fundamentally changed? In the latter case, did they first attempt to reallocate people to more productive areas?

Everything I’ve shared reflects the current state of the tech industry. It might differ at very small companies, but once you work at a company with more than 100 employees, you’ll likely encounter many of the same patterns I’ve described.

Many tech companies have never needed to resort to layoffs -- not just small companies but medium-sized and/or privately held companies. Personally I consider layoffs of any sort to be a major red flag. It means company management makes poor business or organizational decisions and is willing to tank morale and lose their best people to please shareholders. It means that you're going to be a line in a spreadsheet that can be spun up and down as necessary.

Personally I'd steer clear, but if you choose to enter into a relationship with such a company you should appropriately discount any salary they offer to factor in that risk.

CRConrad10• 1 year ago

layoffs provide incredibly useful information for prospective employees.
For example, was it a small number of people who were laid off with decent severance, or was it a huge mass of people let go unceremoniously with minimum severance? And were the layoffs due to...

Fine idea in principle, but not implementable in practice: Prospective employees don't know who got laid off, and even if they did, they most likely don't personally know any of those people. So they have no way of finding out any of those useful things.

asoneth2• 1 year ago

Prospective employees don't know who got laid off, and even if they did, they most likely don't personally know any of those people.

True, I've never interviewed somewhere where someone I know personally got laid off. But for large companies there are typically news articles about layoffs, their size, and occasionally even their generosity. For publicly-traded companies you can wait for the annual/quarterly reports, but these days there's usually a press release or blog post[1] if it's more than a handful of people. For private companies that are too small to be newsworthy you can still scour Glassdoor and other forums.

But regardless, it's definitely something a prospective employee should ask about during the interview e.g. "Tell me about the last time your organization had layoffs...". Obviously you get a positive spin from an HR or hiring manager, but when I'm interviewing I find those answers most informative.

[1] e.g. https://blog.google/inside-google/message-ceo/january-update...

pards• 1 year ago

they only do what’s strictly required to avoid a performance improvement plan. No one goes above and beyond anymore; no one takes initiative to improve things. Why? Because it doesn’t matter.

I see this at large Canadian financial institutions, too, but for the opposite reasons - employees recognize that it's really difficult to fire people based on performance. It's so hard, in fact, that it's easier to talk them up and get them hired internally by another team and make it someone else's problem.

Muromec6• 1 year ago

You can strike the word Canadian out of it just fine. And anyway, it's not like firing a person is any different -- they just become a problem of somebody else.

josefrichter• 1 year ago

I once contracted for a company that laid off 6 of my bosses in 7 months. The one who hired me was fired 2 days after I started. In the end, they didn't extend my contract, basically because nobody knew anymore where I belonged in the company structure, who do I report to, and who should actually extend my contract :-)

jstummbillig• 1 year ago

As an employer, I remain confused about the common notion that being an employee is somehow safer than owning a business.

The opposite is true.

First, I don't have need unemployment insurance. You are my unemployment insurance. I am hedging against your mistakes, as well as mine.

Second, I assess the situation to the best of my abilities, but also: How I see fit. As an employee, on the other hand, not being able to decide might as well feel like getting struck by lightning. (Here I would only add that as an employer it also feels like that if people fire you — as in: they quit — for any reason. It's just that you get more chances to practice it.)

Reconsidering the supposed safety aspect of an employment (since it's such a sticky idea) is certainly one thing I hope we would do. Unfortunately, when trying to discuss the issue with employees (not necessarily those who work for me), they mostly seem to rather not want to think about it.

Other thoughts. Why I run a company: It's certainly not money. I would even argue I (and most people I know running SMBs) relatively care a lot less about job money than the average employee does. I do it because would hate to work on something I think is bad and where attention is not spent, where it should be (so exactly what a lot of employees complain about in their company).

Best I can tell, a good reason to work for a company is getting to work on stuff that excited you and that you could not do better on your own. But I think more people should consider doing their own things more often! I would welcome more meta-competition in organizing work in a better way.

Points of disagreement with the post:

- People will miss things and systems fail, but I can't think of any reason why a CEO would not want to be able to spot the people who a) are not assholes and b) gel really well with the company. I don't want anyone to work overtime for me, but the above will still hold true. A company is complicated, and you being a considerate human being makes everything so much better.

- Yes, Excel is how you work with numbers, also those pertaining to human beings. That's just the responsible way to organize information about things. But if you think that robs me of my ability to think about or care for human beings, I am mostly confused. Can you not think of humans when you write code, because it's digital characters on a screen? Still, it's of note that even highly analytical people find something dehumanizing in that, when it pertains to themselves.

CRConrad10• 1 year ago

I can't think of any reason why a CEO would not want to be able to spot the people who a) are not assholes and b) gel really well with the company.

The CEO might want to be able to spot that, but in any company of some size they won't be able to spot it. Simply because they're the CEO, and there's far too many people working under them for them to keep that close track of every one. A team lead (of a not-too-big team) may be able to do that, but then they'd have to simultaneously be the CEO. i.e: It only works for companies the size of not-too-big teams.

sghiassy• 1 year ago

Someone once asked Napoleon how he decided where to assign soldiers. Napoleon’s reply was that it’s simple: soldiers are either smart or dumb, lazy or energetic.

* The smart and energetic I make field commanders. They know what to do and can rally the troops to do it.

* The smart and lazy I make generals. They also know what to do, but they’re not going to waste energy doing what doesn’t need to be done.

* The dumb and lazy I make foot soldiers.

The takeaway, is that only after you lose your shiny glasses are you ready to take on larger responsibilities.

Don’t become jaded. Don’t carry around resentment - just get on with it - and you’ll Very much be on your way to career advancement

redlock• 1 year ago

What did he do with the dumb and energetic?

wsgeorge• 1 year ago

My guess, frontlines.

lenocinor• 1 year ago

You get rid of them: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/28/clever-lazy/

incognito1242• 1 year ago

"I shot them", he said.

FaceValuable• 1 year ago

Did he say anything about the dumb and energetic?

incognito1242• 1 year ago

"I shot them", he said.

kbr-• 1 year ago

To the author, if you're reading this:

If you were on such good terms with VP of Eng and C-levels, why didn't you reach out to them and ask what's going on? They could interfere and prevent your layoff.

DebtDeflation2• 1 year ago

There was a time when the word "layoff" referred to a TEMPORARY separation due to a lack of demand with the understanding that when activity picked back up you'd be recalled back to work. This was particularly common in the automotive sector and really across manufacturing. These were cyclical industries and while employers couldn't afford to pay idle workers during periods of low economic demand, they also couldn't afford to lose the skillsets. Oftentimes unions would provide partial compensation to these workers until they were recalled.

Somewhere around the mid 1990s, "layoff" became just a euphemism for permanent reductions in force/downsizing.

cj2• 1 year ago

I think the word you’re looking for is furlough.

rsanek2• 1 year ago

i was surprised when I looked it up too but it looks like this was true of layoffs as well https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layoff

DebtDeflation2• 1 year ago

Nope. Layoffs were always understood to be temporary, up through some point in the 1990s. Furloughs were much shorter in duration, typically days or weeks, and in some cases were partial (one or two days a week).

crhulls• 1 year ago

I’m the cofounder of Life360, a company I’ve grown from seed to IPO, now with about 600 employees. This whole issue can be addressed by embracing a straightforward social contract, something I share openly with everyone I hire:

No promises of lifetime employment. I’m focused on the long-term health of the company, and our needs will inevitably change. If we continue to grow, it’s almost guaranteed that not everyone will be the right fit at every stage.

No expectation of loyalty. The flip side is that we aim to attract ambitious, hungry people, which means we need to provide real opportunities for career advancement. If we can’t, I understand you’ll move on.

If we let someone go after a single bad quarter, that’s on us for being shortsighted. We know people have ups and downs, and we don’t want to be overly sentimental, but we also don’t want to act rashly. On the other hand, if someone’s job-hopping every year, that’s usually a sign of short-term thinking. From 2014–2021, job-hopping didn’t matter much. Now, it’s becoming clear that those signals are important again.

At the end of the day, it’s not about judgment—no good/bad or right/wrong here (aside from obvious dealbreakers like dishonesty). It’s just adults making tradeoffs.

That said, I’ve seen how some companies shy away from being upfront about this, which leads to cynicism. We’ve had moments like that too—at some point, we started calling ourselves “a family.” I shut that down fast. It wasn’t popular, but it helped clarify our stance. You know what you’re signing up for with us.

siliconc0w• 1 year ago

I'm convinced layoffs are a persistent management memetic where we've convinced ourselves these are necessary, good, and magically creates efficiencies.

In reality it's a desperate shotgunning your org chart since you've apparently no better way to figure out what you need or don't. It's incredibly destabilizing and demotivating and creates a culture as seen in this post where you no longer have workers that feel aligned with the success of the company (because you're telling them they aren't). It should be reserved for absolutely existential moments in the company, not when you're seeing record profitability.

meganeko4545• 1 year ago

The author was young and learned the hard way. There is no single country on Earth that is integrated in the ultra-financiarized western economic sphere that is not potentially affected. It is the end of stable jobs and pretty much the end of all economy altogether, except for the crony capitalists that leech off the printer. Every company is owned by Blackrock. They take major shortsighted decissions to the tune of the imaginary casinos ("investors", or "the market") or fund scorings. Productive activity no longer matters. Experienced people no longer matter. The game is a different one and you are not even a player.

matrix873• 1 year ago

Layoffs are just a symptom. Overhiring and easy money are the cause. Companies aren't there to "take care of you", they aren't welfare departments

They hired a bunch of people who took the money for granted, and at some point that's no longer going to sustain itself

ForOldHack• 1 year ago

"However, during a layoff, it seems that who you are and what you do doesn’t matter. "

And that is exactly how corporate America works. Shareholder value before everything. The billionaire keep the stock price up not for the value, but for their simple greed. F** you and your self-worth.

RIF. Reduction in force. Spend every end of week, on the clock making three envelopes: your resume, an envelope which says 'blame everything on the previous guy' and the last envelope? 'make three envelopes'

yborg• 1 year ago

At any large commercial organization, you either represent capital or you do not. If you are not part of the ownership class, you are entirely disposable - whether or not you are in actuality critical to the business functioning. There are many situations in which the financial incentives of ownership are directly opposed to those of the hired help. Took me a long time to realize this because most people aren't sociopaths, while corporate management and certainly the super wealthy have a significant proportion.

spandrew2• 1 year ago

I have a friend who went into full-on overemployment mode during the pandemic and never stopped once RTO became a thing. Somehow he juggled 2, and sometimes 3, jobs at one time. Of course he was staving off a performance-improvement-plan (pip) at one of his jobs at all times.

He didn't care about work. It was all about money. That worked for him short-term, but longer term Jack became a very VERY dull boy.

indymike• 1 year ago

I've never been laid off, but once was part of a company that went bankrupt and was one of the last people to leave the payroll (which is like being laid off, but where your employer is dead so at least you can console yourself with being the guy turning off the lights)... That said I did a lot of laying off for that company. Almost everyone ended up much better off after a few weeks or a month or so of searching. People would rightfully worry about if their actions caused it or why me instead of ___. The truth was that it was really about spreadsheets.

For me, I ended up getting a much better job that paid 2x what I made at the bankrupt company. But the feelings of having your livelihood rug-pulled are really difficult.

inerte• 1 year ago

Once I read May 4th and 2 emails, I knew it was Shopify. I was also affected.

My view of why it happened is a bit different than the author, but my conclusion is wildly different. I've been on tech for almost 20 years, 11 of them in the US.

On average, I do see people that work hard and on important things getting recognized and promoted. I don't have this bleak view that nobody should do anything, it's all random, nothing matters.

I do agree at the end of the day we're just numbers on a spreadsheet for large companies. Most of the time it's not personal, and Shopify probably decided having engineers in Germany wasn't worth, no matter how good they were (and I personally knew a handful that were really, really good, live there, and lost their job).

Those things aren't contradictory. You can work hard and be promoted and get more recognition, and you still can be cut due to decisions completely out of your control. The opposite is also true. Average people get lucky to be on the right project at the right time, sometimes multiple projects in a row. Peter principle and all.

But on average, companies to reward the people that bring value to the company (and its owners)

softwaredoug• 1 year ago

Layoff culture will create companies full of Dyatlovs from Chernobyl, covering their ass, not that brave, not that innovative. Focused on maybe a promotion or surviving the next round of firings. It's sad to see the tech industry self-sabotage this way.

rmk• 1 year ago

It feels like a lot of people who joined the workforce after 2008-2010 are experiencing their first "tough times". It's natural to respond in this manner. But there is an important caveat: one must seek out good work and deliver in order to stay employable, and have access to good opportunities. Or, they must develop a good network and essentially hop from one job to another with the exact same set of people (this is much more common than you'd think). For the former, you still need to show up and go above and beyond every once in a while, so getting excited about work is still a prerequisite.

dowager_dan992• 1 year ago

> ...to the company, I was just a row in an Excel sheet.

TL;DR it won't make you feel better but you're not a row in a spreadsheet; you're a fungible generic resource.

At a certain level and/or for specific events, executive leadership is playing checkers not chess. You see this in overall staffing, budgets and lay-offs. Your executive is tasked with very excel-like tasks, such as "cut n people" or "trim your budget xx%". They then get political and attack specific initiatives or teams, or peanut-butter it across everyone. By definition they need to work at a generic level to "scale". When it gets to selecting the actual people, it's either done by the people who DO know individuals but you might not have credibility and a good reputation (or worse, they actively target you), or at an even less related metric, like a calc that provides the perception of "fairness" (true story: I saw HR try and calc how much "experience" we could get for each dollar of salary). IME only if it's a very small layoff (~ < 10-15%) and selected by the front-line manager do you see the high performers saved, and it's still political.

Context: I report to the CTO but still have lots of direct interaction with ICs. I struggle to meld these worlds at the intersection almost daily. I've been involved it doing the lay-offs at two companies.

Aside: there are TWO failures in doing what is the incredibly unpleasant job of laying people off:

1. Everyone knows you only get one lay-off before it's all over. After the second round nothing gets done. You almost always hear "this is the only round" and I believe leadership actually believes this, there's just know way they can know for sure.

2. Botching the order of operations. You need to get your sh!t in order and not do stuff like send out the laptop return courier before the announcement, or cause extra panic and confusion with timing and poor messaging. Ignorance, Incompetence or Schadenfreude; I have no sympathy for less than perfect behaviour and execution here.

ivanjermakov• 1 year ago

Stick to your contract hours. If your contract says 40 hours, work 40 hours—no more, no less.

Why not work less?

saos• 1 year ago

Op missed a sign..."Sudden C-Suite departure". Just be sure a lay-off is near!

mattapcba• 1 year ago

The guy mentions layoffs between Germany and US are the same. They are not. After probation is harder to lay off people (you have 3 months notice) and usually good severance packages. I have friends who were laid off and actually they made a buck.

sim30n• 1 year ago

You’re Just a Row in an Excel Table

Usually those just above the layoff line will have a fun time inheriting the work of those below the line.

paulhodge• 1 year ago

Agree with the headline but I think the takeaways are a little too cynical. You don't really have to take such a confrontational approach with future employers.

IMO the biggest takeaway I had after a layoff: Always try to navigate your career so that you are doing something valuable to the business. You can tell based on a lot of clues whether you're in a position that's valuable or if you're forgettable. Moving "toward the money" not only helps job security but it helps your compensation too.

Say for example your team has a stretch of a few months without any new high priority requirements or requests. A young developer might think, "Yay, finally we have enough time to do all that refactoring in the backlog." But in reality, that situation should make you very concerned.

CRConrad10• 1 year ago

Agree with the headline

Which of them -- the original (and still on TFA), "Once You're Laid Off, You'll Never Be the Same Again", or the current one here, "A layoff fundamentally changed how I perceive work"?

(And YTH did it change to something else??? Weird.)

bitbasher2• 1 year ago

Getting laid off was the best thing to ever happen to me.

It woke me up from a dream I was in. I believed if you worked hard and provided great value to a startup you would be valued and have a place.

After five years at the company (as employee #1), I was laid off. I realized my mindset was delusional and I swore to never work for anyone ever again.

Several years later, the founder that laid me off asked if I wanted to co-found a new company he was creating. I sorta felt vindicated then :)

insert godfather meme

CRConrad10• 1 year ago

So, did you join him, or did you mean your vindication was "No way; fuck you, too!" ?

bitbasher2• 1 year ago

I heard him out and considered it. I ultimately decided not to join him.

kartoolOz• 1 year ago

"कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन | मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भूर्मा ते सङ्गोऽस्त्वकर्मणि" - Bhagvad gita, chapter 2, verse 47.

You have a right to perform your prescribed duties, but you are not entitled to the fruits of your actions. Never consider yourself to be the cause of the results of your activities, nor be attached to inaction.

Anamon• 1 year ago

3. Lack of Vision from Leadership

I think layoffs at my employer have been imminent for 5 years...

steeeeeve• 1 year ago

This really seems to me like a big warning that says to avoid hiring people that were laid off.

Better advice. Be who you are. Work for and with people you like. Do what interests you where you are valued. You will spend a lot of time at work. Try to make sure it feels good.

isaacremuant• 1 year ago

I skimmed this and I'm glad this person learned this.

I don't think you need to be laid off to learn this, you can just OBSERVE reality and will find this to be true easily. I did and hopefully don't get to suffer what OP did but I know it's just one random event from happening.

I'd add another: don't trust future plans or promises. Get yours now or assume it won't happen because "circumstances changed" is a typical trick that's pulled on people.

WalterBright• 1 year ago

The author's advice to do as little as possible will ensure a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In every company I've worked for, everyone knew who the "little as possible" workers were. They were not respected by their coworkers. When people left to do startups, those people were not invited. When layoffs came to town, those people were the first to go.

If you're confident in your abilities, use the layoff as the kick in the butt needed to found your own startup. Invite the high performers at the previous workplace. (I've known people who did this, and would relate to me much later how the layoff was the best thing that happened to their career.)

SaintSeiya• 1 year ago

That's why all of the bootlicking wording from employees now makes me puke: "teamwork" "passionate about my work" "making an impact" "standups" "going above and beyond"... all of that is bs. Go to work, collect a paychech and leave as early as possible. Reserve teamwork for your group of friends, passion for your hobbies, raising a family or having fun out of work. And never, ever give them 2 weeks notice. When you find a better job, just walk away and email them when you are at home. Fire the company that will not give you 2 weeks notice for layoffs.

Tokkemon• 1 year ago

I was laid off about a month ago. I worked as a software designer and one of the top experts in the world on the software and its subject matter. Didn't matter, they broomed me anyway.

Broken trust, indeed.

keeptrying• 1 year ago

Do NOT work only your contract hours. It might seem like the logical choice but it rarely is because of following reasons :

1. You cannot build strong skills working just contract hours. 2. You cannot market your achievements by working only 40 hours. And in turn this makes you dispensable and more disposable. 3. You can't control your work which is probably the most important element of all this. 4. you can't search for great positions with the new skills you achieved if you only work 40 hours ...

Work in such a way that you get recognition for the hours worked.

Do important projects, not crappy side projects and MARKET THE HELL out of your work. Everyone should know what you are doing.

Every day at a job is a campaign to increase your salary massively - either at the job or somewhere else. (Btw, this is how most people in NYC think thought they may not admit it.)

You have to do impressive things and then use 3x your time marketing them to everyone else in the company. Everything else - money and promotions will follow. (Process won't be pretty - but you won't be floundering nearly as much as others who don't take this advice.)

dangoodmanUT• 1 year ago

Stick to your contract hours. If your contract says 40 hours, work 40 hours—no more, no less. Protect your personal time and well-being

If you want to be mediocre and/or don't care to get promoted sure?

hsuduebc2• 1 year ago

Purpose of corporations is to make money. It's a tool. Nothing less and nothing more. Using people work is the way they are doing it. Expecting something different is very naive.

I think the only wise way to cope with that is maximize your output and minimize your input. If you are here not for experience or mission itself there is no point in undercutting yourself. You can't expect loyalty from a tool. You can expect common decency from a management but that's different story.

Don't become only cynical. It's just how it is. It's an opportunity for you to get more money and experience. From finance perspective it's usually a win.

Good luck! :)

TheCapeGreek• 1 year ago

It's hard to read posters in this thread that disagree with the article when citing their 15+ years of experience. Sounds like a mix of time healing all wounds, survivorship bias, and maybe a little Stockholm syndrome.

"Just be positive" about wasting almost 1/2 of your waking hours a week once the curtain drops doesn't sound like a very sustainable solution to life to me.

Or maybe it just hasn't been long enough since my burnout and layoff ;)

RamblingCTO• 1 year ago

Sorry to hear that. I could imagine that leadership actually didn't know you were being laid off. So the VPs and C-level execs might actually be pissed that someone laid off their go to person. Another perspective I'd like to offer is one of renewal. You can move forward and find something that suits you even more. Something I am quite envious about right now to be honest. Maybe a sabbatical?

dennis_jeeves29• 1 year ago

Without reading the post. Why is the person changing their view of their relationship with their job in the first place?

Doesn't he/she know of people who have been laid off before, among their family/friends etc? Even reading anecdotes of layoffs on the internet will reveal that one ought not be too psychologically entrenched in one's job.

dennis_jeeves29• 1 year ago

Click bait.

I'm sure that the author who is capable of writing such a post is also capable of reading other post/articles of people who have had layoffs in the past, and hence none of anything that happened should be a surprise for him.

So my guess is that he has written it for the clicks.

jimjag• 1 year ago

"You should never worry about betraying your workplace because given the chance, your workplace will definitely betray you. Loyalty to individuals. Relationships. That's what makes the world go round."

- Raymond Reddington.

htrp• 1 year ago

Layoffs were uncommon when I started working, and being a developer felt like an incredibly safe job. In most professions, the unspoken rule was simple: if you performed well and the company was financially stable, your job was secure.

Seems like the author has only been through an up cycle

arsi42• 1 year ago

good blog!

A layoff fundamentally changed how I perceive work

Related Stories