this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2024
1283 points (97.8% liked)

Videos

14256 readers
247 users here now

For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!

Rules

  1. Videos only
  2. Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
  3. Don't be a jerk
  4. No advertising
  5. No political videos, post those to [email protected] instead.
  6. Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
  7. Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
  8. Duplicate posts may be removed

Note: bans may apply to both [email protected] and [email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I can’t give more approval for this woman, she handled everything so well.

The backstory is that Cloudflare overhired and wanted to reduce headcount, rightsize, whatever terrible HR wording you choose. Instead of admitting that this was a layoff, which would grant her things like severance and unemployment - they tried to tell her that her performance was lacking.

And for most of us (myself included) we would angrily accept it and trash the company online. Not her, she goes directly against them. It of course doesn’t go anywhere because HR is a bunch of robots with no emotions that just parrot what papa company tells them to, but she still says what all of us wish we did.

(Warning, if you've ever been laid off this is a bit enraging and can bring up some feelings)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 43 points 9 months ago (10 children)

why can't corporations just do things in a reasonable and rational way?

Why do they constantly make so many extreme changes all the time? When they need to hire more people, they hire way more than they need, when they need to downsize...or rather when they're tired of paying so many people, they fire way too many.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Graphs. Executives love graphs. Numbers also mean different things to them, and changes better invoke noticeable change, preferably monetarily and with some sort of proof. This is for those quarterly meetings. Larger layoffs are often done for investors. It's a clock's pendulum. Pull back payroll, show the numbers and talk about skimming the fat or whatever, yell "look at us!", profit. Hire a bunch of people, talk about a big product/project, yell "look at us!", profit.

It's the capitalist endgame. You, I, little Johnny, and the kitchen sink if it could talk and move, are all numbers on an excel sheet. Plenty of exceptions exist, this remains the rule, however.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Yup, and this is fundamentally down to the whole system being low-information. Workers, management, upper management and shareholders are all playing it close to the chest because they know they are pitted against one another. So much of corporate life is smoke & mirrors. It's incredibly wasteful of information, of resources, and of the dignity of the people within it.

EDIT: I didn't connect the dots between low-information and graphs: graphs are an attempt to make the unfathomable complexity of many humans working together legible to the managers & the owner class, when they know they can't trust those workers' word for anything. So people make graphs to try to filter information they don't care about - how is Marv from accounting feeling after his back surgery - from information they do care about like KPIs. It destroys most of the information and hence is easily gamed by everyone up & down the chain, which leads to this bizarre yo-yoing that makes the workers' lives and the company worse, but satisfies the graphs.

And it's all because the owning class wants to exploit us, so they have to dominate us. There's no getting around it, as long as this extractive system exists this is how it will inevitably be. No culture change is going to fix things. Only the workers being the owners will fix it.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Because it improves short term profits, so the stock goes up, so both shareholders and execs are happy with their big payouts. The rest is just collateral, they don’t care.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Last I checked the average tenure of a CEO was less than 2 years.

As long as the problems only properly start getting felt a couple of years later, all such "save a bit now, pay a lot later" strategies are ideal for CEOs as they optimize their bonuses.

As for other people, well, these types are usually far into the sociopath side of the spectrum so they don't feel the pain of others, don't worry about the harm for others, and have no shame whatsoever.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

The rest is just collateral, they don’t care.

I know.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Because their bottom line is improved in the short term by firing people

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago

Youre right. Because their bottom line is improved in the short term so that they can say "Look at how much revenue we made last year!"

"And now look at how many people employed to gain that revenue!"

"No, don't look over the whole year! Just look at right now!"

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago (2 children)

It's all about maximizing profit.

[–] UNWILLING_PARTICIPANT 3 points 9 months ago

Yeah in the kind of was that a shitty gambler plays when the "table (market) is 'hot'" they feel overconfident and go all in, ignoring that the pieces they're playing with are people's lives

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

It's about maximizing the bonuses for the executives. A bigger bonus than what they got last year.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago

Why would they care, people are just tools to them.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Because it's easier that way. Rather than protracted recruiting processes that really dig deep into the current needs of the company after detailed evaluation of current projects and current manpower, just hire anyone who looks halfway decent and fire the ones that don't seem worth it whenever is convenient.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Because it’s easier that way.

In the short term, easier. But for long term sustainability, no....But what does that matter when you get a bailout every time you fail?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

What about the way we've seen markets operate makes you believe they care about the long-term? Long-term is someone else's problem.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago
[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

Because the guy who makes the big risky splashy changes to his department gets the promotion. The one who makes small continous improvements without fucking things up along the way flies under the radar.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Quarterly bonuses. Some jackass sees that labor budget is going to go over and he won't get his bonus.