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)
Holy fucking shit American corpospeak is pure fucking cancer. Just fucking talk normally.
I understand how you are feeling, and nothing I can tell you today is going to be able to change that.
I only know American culture from the internet, and knowing all of the memes and blog posts and everything, it’s still mindblowing to see it in action to this degree and in a situation that is probably representative for so many.
As an American it’s a relief to hear there’s a place left on Earth where this behavior would still be unexpected.
Fucking Amen dude. I’ve traveled to other countries and actually cried a little at how straightforward things are there. It’s so easy to forget. This doublespeak shit creeps up on a people.
Seriously. I’m an American who has traveled all over this bigass country of ours, but very little internationally. Last year I got to go to Scandinavia of all places, specifically Sweden.
Obviously I already knew how their culture (and much of Europe) does things with a lot more focus on, you know, the people that live there. However, spending a few days there in person, and seeing the respect for self & others, and the dignity that brings, it changed something in my brain.
Our culture is just fucked, and so many our people actively resist improvements or don’t even believe they exist.
This is, no joke, not trying to exaggerate, exactly the kind of language-as-weapon stuff Orwell was always talking about.
Honest, authentic communication and doublespeak look the same on the surface, but the way they’re generated is completely different. One enhances perception and information processing using a shared semantic context built in the air between people trying their best to accurately describe what they see. The other degrades the quality of the language model in everyone’s heads, due to continually violating the relationship between words and reality, making everyone in the room less capable of understanding literally anything.
Unless the person in the room doesn’t put up with it. Brittany stayed on task and didn’t accept bullshit answers, and so even if there were some consequences to speaking up (in this case it sounds like she had nothing to lose) they’d be less severe than the literal brain atrophy that results from swallowing bullshit with a smile.
The thing that really sticks out is “I understand how you feel”. They never accept that they may be unfair, that her criticism is valid, just “sorry you feel that way.”
It’s not just in America.
This kind of thing is one of the main products of the new style MBAs from the late 80s forward - it’s all about appearances and emotionally managing other people (notice how she says something and the guy goes “I understand”, “100%” or something like that and then just proceeds to not actually answer her question: it’s all about making her feel she’s being heard without that at all being the case, and he’s not even very good at it).
The same perspective into managing companies that brought us calling employees as “human resources” and firing employees as “letting go” (or in this case, “recallibration”) normalized a whole discourse technique of half-truths, evading the question and in general use of Conversational Jiu-Jitsu (anything that comes your way, you just deflect it to the side) to manage a conversation.
You see the same kind of think in modern Politics.
Mind you, I’ve now watched more of the video and it’s really cringey how all sides are behaving: the guy clearly has no power whatsoever, she’s nervous as fk and doesn’t get it that whatever she says makes no difference at all (clearly the decision was already made well above that guy who go given a shitty task to do) and the HR lady is just doing the smart thing which is keeping out of it as much as possible.
In her position I would’ve focused on extracting as much compensation as I could from them (not necessarilly money: something as simple as a great letter of recommendation that makes it clear it wasn’t about ones own performance specifically could be useful) or gone completelly around these people to make my case (for example, via my own director) as that meeting is at best a discharging of fidutiary responsabilities and the people talking to her are definitelly not empowered to keep her on and even if they did, they’re not going to risk their own careers for somebody they don’t know (it’s actually part of why she’s not getting her own director: she has chance at all appealling to these anonynous randos). It’s not by chance that the guy is going so heavy on “I hear you” kind of messaging: she’s supposed to feel listenned to so that she doesn’t cause any problems but whatever she says here makes no difference)
doesn’t get it that whatever she says makes no difference at all
She’s well aware she’s being fired. She’s trying to get them to admit that it’s not about performance and that she’s actually being laid off. She knows exactly what she’s doing and the HR goons are shitting their pants.
Well yeah, the recording of it does make it seem like she’s trying to extract something out of that meeting, but I’m unfamiliar with American employment legislation so I only have some vague that over there might be a legal/compensation difference between being “fired” and being “laid off”.
Basically, companies are required to pay for unemployment insurance that funds the government’s unemployment benefits system. If you lay someone off, the employee files for unemploent, and gets paid a portion of their weekly salary while they look for another job (the amount you get paid and whether there’s any additional requirements varies from state to state, with Democrat-controlled states usually being more generous, but generally you have to show you’re actively seeking a new job), and the employer pays a bigger unemployment insurance rate to compensate for the additional burden the former employee is now placing on the government benefits system.
However, if you’re fired for cause–say, you get caught stealing from the cash register–then the employer can contest your unemployment. If the employer can show you were fired for a good reason, the employee can be denied unemployment benefits, and the employer doesn’t have to pay extra unemployment insurance. This meeting is the company trying to cook up a justification for firing with cause, and the employee trying to get them to admit they’re just being laid off, because if the company admits during the exit interview that she’s just being laid off without cause, it’s nearly impossible to contest her unemployment benefits claim later.
Yeah, I can now see why the whole thing is basically the groundwork for a legal fight.
That said she’s an amateur “lawyer” facing pros so the situation is stacked against her, plus she’s very nervous because she’s young and taking it personally, none of which are good for her side of the outcome.
It is extremelly unlikelly that a nervous amateur with a massive stake on the outcome will manage to get anything useful in a legal sense from a professional lawyer for whom the whole thing is just a job.
This might be one of those situations were the right strategy is to refuse to discuss it with the company’s legal team without your own legal advice present, or at least getting some legal advice upfront about what to get from them (say, documentation they’re obligated to provide).
As with everything, not being the “easy pickings” increases your chance that they’ll just give in and pay up simply because it’s not worth the risk - it’s a lot better to pay somebody and have her sign a non-disclosure agreement on the whole thing than risking it going to court, their claims of “for cause” being trashed in a way that affects the entire strategy for laying all those people off and other ex-employees use that to get summary judgements against them or similar.
Amateur trying to get them to admit she’s not really being laid off with cause probably counts as “easy pickings” for the lawyer on the other side.
If there’s something life has taught me (in a very painful way) is to lawyer-up as soon as there are legal implications (fortunatelly, over here firing “for cause” - i.e. laying off - has quite a higher standard of proof for the company and can’t just be on them making claims of underperformance). Mind you, she was there for a short while, so it’s maybe not worth the legal costs.
Basically in a nutshell, if they can claim it’s “performance reasons”, they likely wouldn’t have to pay her a severance if that was part of the contract, and there’s a chance she wouldn’t get unemployment insurance either.
I’m in the US and I’m not even 100% sure how much unemployment the company is liable for paying, but I know it’s a common strategy for any employer to abuse you into quitting on your own so they don’t have to pay it.
If she’s laid off, she gets some support until she finds a job elsewhere. If they admit that, then she wins justice rather than letting them get away with theft.
This is probably why these goons were sent in with zero data. They’re probably telling the truth that they don’t have these mystical “metrics and data points.”
It’s as she said: company hires a bunch of people, probably makes a bunch of promises to them, and then decides they don’t want to pay for them.
These are the kind of sociopaths that can justify just abandoning animals they’re tired of, and society rewards them for it through profits.
Here in Europe being fired “for just cause” does not impact unemployment benefits but does require quite the standard of proof (it’s can’t be just done on “your performance evaluation was not high enough”, and the company has to, for example, prove that somebody stole from it) but they can then avoid paying compensation. Also firing without just cause (i.e. laying off) is not generally possible outside the trial period unless in exceptional circumstances (say, the company has provenly been losing money and hence is firing a fraction of its employees).
This does vary from country to country and is part of the basic employment law, so in places with strong Unions it’s even more strict.
So this kind of situation in this video does not apply because to fire for cause the burden of proof is on the company, not the employee: she cannot be just fired “for cause” merelly because the company claims the underperforms.
Honestly, it’s not just corpo talk.
My mother talks the same way. “I understand that you don’t feel well. But you still have to do this completely brain-dead thing that everybody else is doing.” “Why? Because I tell you so. Do children not respect their parents anymore? I’m your mother. You must do what I say. Once you grow up, you can do what you want. But as long as you live in my house, it’s my rules. No, you can’t keep your door locked. Privacy? I’m your mother.”
“I hear what you’re saying, feebl, and those feelings are valid today. But unfortunately American corpos will not be able to change the outcome of how fking stupidly soulless they are today mmk?”
You’re absolutely right. It is a cancer, and stupid trends like this spread until there’s no hope of escape and even a freaking gas station manager tries to talk to you like this.
They’re snakes. Dox them.
deleted by creator
Generally, the WARN Act covers employers with 100 or more employees, not counting those who have worked fewer than six months in the last twelve-month work period.
She mentioned in the call that she started working in like August.
It specifies which employers are cover with the WARN act, not employees. It either covers whole company (all employees in company) or no one at company at all.
Cloudflare has 100 employees not counting her.
Ahh my mistake. I misread that as the employees who have not been there for that long would be exempt from this protection.
This is why severance gets offered. It’s a contract that you agree to and henceforth you can’t really fight. And employees would frankly rather take the pay than immediately lose income and then start investing time in a lawsuit against a much better resourced organization, which could take years and may not result in anything. Most companies know how to navigate the laws. Few ordinary people know how to sue over them and win.
love how its hey we will fire you today as a surprise after you’ve been told something completely different but we promise to tell you why later. I really this was just taken legally as an illegal termination. Because if it’s for performance that means you have data, if you have data you should be able to give me graphs and charts, stick figure animations, poorly acted corporate videos.
Fr. If my performance was bad the entire time, why wasn’t I told until now? If I am doing a crappy job but told I’m doing great, why would I ever do better? Either it’s bullshit that my performance is poor, or they’ve set me up for failure from the beginning. Either of which makes them a piece of shit.
I expect and demand a puppet show demonstrating my poor performance
“Snape… Snape… Severance Snape…”
Okay, you got me thats a good one
Internet peaking early today. This is great
“Dumbledore!”
Interpretive dance or GTFO
And it has to be done using the Ride Of The Valkyries as music.
I know they’re not trying to be but that HR speak is so fucking condescending. “I’m sorry for how you’re feeling.”
The “non-apology”
Right? Like apologize for laying me off because you overhired, at least then you’re just an honest idiot.
Not to mention “I hear what you’re saying”. While objectively true, it doesn’t mean that they understand or give a shit in the slightest. I have a very argumentative family member that says that line ALL the time, and all they really want is to get you to shut up so they can say what they want to say.
We fired ~40 sales people out of over 1,500 in our go to market org. That’s a normal quarter. When we’re doing performance management right, we can often tell within 3 months or less of a sales hire, even during the holidays, whether they’re going to be successful or not. Sadly, we don’t hire perfectly. We try to fire perfectly. In this case, clearly we were far from perfect. The video is painful for me to watch. Managers should always be involved. HR should be involved, but it shouldn’t be outsourced to them, No employee should ever actually be surprised they weren’t performing. We don’t always get it right. And sometimes under performing employees don’t actually listen to the feedback they’ve gotten before we let them go. Importantly, just because we fire someone doesn’t mean they’re a bad employee. It doesn’t mean won’t be really, really great somewhere else. Chris Paul was a bad fit for the Suns, but he’s undoubtedly a great basketball player. And, in fact, we think the right thing to do is get people we know are unlikely to succeed off the team as quickly as possible so they can find the right place for them. We definitely weren’t anywhere close to perfect in this case. But any healthy org needs to get the people who aren’t performing off. That wasn’t the mistake here. The mistake was not being more kind and humane as we did. And that’s something @zatlyn and I are focused on improving going forward.
-Matthew Prince
Co-Founder & CEO, CloudflareIf he thinks it’s painful to watch then he should apologize personally to HER and her coworkers for traumatizing them, and give them a good severance pay. The way he phrases this as if he’s just shrugging and saying “we’ll do better at some unspecified point in the future, I’m sure” makes him come off as an inhumane piece of garbage with no empathy.
an inhumane piece of garbage with no empathy.
He is a CEO.
This is the same piece of shit ceo trying to force their workers back to office too. Fuck this asshole
This asshat is also just beating around the performance bush that doesn’t exist, only to avoid calling the firing a layoff. Disgusting.
That’s a massive wall of text to say “sorry we got caught”
under performing employees don’t actually listen to the feedback they’ve gotten
What feedback?
Tbf
-
we don’t know if she’s got feedback before getting fired or not
-
he does address that:
No employee should ever actually be surprised they weren’t performing. We don’t always get it right.
She claims she had not and raised it to the people firing her. She says she was constantly reassured that all was going well and even her review periods were good, but not even her manager was present to attest. She wasn’t even put on an improvement plan, or ever told that she was underperforming when she was actually performing above her peers (according to her) which is why she was so upset that they couldn’t give her a concrete reason to let her go. Neither point really applies.
-
?
??
Shocked they actually admitted a mistake here. What will really matter is if they actually change anything.
Did he though? I mean he perfectly sticks to individual shortcomings as the reason and even implies that she ignored feedback.
implies that she ignored feedback.
I missed that the first time and now I’m angry all over again 😡
Yeah, it reads like “our mistake is that there is always room for improvement”
Dude, he didn’t really admit to any mistake.
That wasn’t the mistake here. The mistake was not being more kind and humane as we did.
He’s literally saying firing her was not the mistake. He still believes she should’ve been fired and not laid off. He also believes firing her based on nondescript performance metrics was right. The only thing he believes was wrong was how the firing was carried out. The only thing he’s admitting is that the firing wasn’t “PR friendly”, which is an indirect way of saying the mistake was getting caught.
What feedback?? The feedback that said she was doing well from the people familiar with her work? Or the mysterious metrics she was failing to meet but also had no idea about? God, what an out of touch douche nozzle.
Also, if they’re not a fit but still a good employee, LAY THEM OFF. But who wants to pay for all that messy extra stuff when you can just grind through the workforce?
The way this whole thing went down is absurd.
That said, I had an underperforming colleague who never picked up that feedback was negative. They only latched onto the positive statements. This is either a failing of the receiver to hear the negative when also getting positives or a failing of the feedback giver to be direct.
It’s impossible to say in this situation, though it caught my attention that she mentioned she was close to closing a deal and lost it last second. If we take the CEOs statement at face value, perhaps she didn’t actually meet their metrics.
I can’t say if this is justified or not, but what is abundantly obvious to me is 1) their feedback system likely sucks 2) the hit squad was under prepared with the justification for a termination for lack of performance, 3) she called them on their shit justifiably.
I also agree that it should be expected they give a reasonable severance if this is their hiring model… If you by rule whack people.after three months, they should compensate for another three as people were not looking for new work.
This isn’t the first time I’ve heard “we need to fire people right away because it is GOOD for them!” from a corporate type, and it’s not getting any less ghoulish sounding with repetition.
Honestly the problem I see here is not the layoff, which was disguised as a “lack of performance”. Yes, it wasn’t done perfectly, but still, it’s no tragedy.
What is definitely the problem here is the absolute lack of a social security system in the US. That should be implemented.
Here in Europe the 4 months she was at would be somewhere mid to end of the trial period, during which you can be let go without having to provide a reason on relatively short notice. This is also pretty much the only chance you get to easily let go a specific individual - so if there are indications it’ll not work out doing just that is a good idea.
But having that done by arbitrary HR drones is just crazy, and obviously you’ll be entitled to unemployment benefits or other social benefits after that.
Don’t worry, so long as you say the magic word “intersectionality” it will be okay. It doesn’t matter if progressives spend all of our energy on shoehorning every issue into racism and identity so long as we say “it’s okay, bro - INTERSECTIONALITY.” See? Couldn’t you feel the magic happening?
Say you have no understanding of Intersectional Theory without saying you have no understanding of Intersectional Theory.
No, I’m saying that regardless of theory, popular understanding of intersectionality is actually quite the opposite, a way of siloing off issue areas and the losing issue is ALWAYS labor rights. I’m telling you that in practice, I’ve had SJ groups tell me that food deserts in my overwhelmingly white rural area are the result of racism. And that the vast majority of poor white people of course had their own intersectional issues, but we had to address the racism rather than think about it as an economic and labor issue that impacts everyone. Literally, insisting that they be as ineffective as possible by approaching it in a way that loses everyone except the farthest left.
I only saw the start and the emotional vibes are pretty bad, and not just for Brittany (though, of course, even in the beginning she’s clearly already hurting).
At least somebody actually directly got in contact with her, personally, rather than firing-by-email.
If there is a lesson I learned way back at the beginning of my career in Tech back in the mid 90s is that you shouldn’t really go for the whole loyalty to your employee when they’re anything but a little company were everybody works together, because they will screw you over if its in their best interest, sometimes casually so, and those making the decision will never be in calls such as this one and instead send some poor sods like the HR lady and that director guy to do the dirty work for them and fell the hurt from the person on the other side if they have any empathy (which most people do have, which is probably why both the HR Lady and the guy were uncomfortable from the start).
Also beware of the company trying to manipulate you as an employee to have your workplace be your entire social circle of friends and even like a second family: the whole point of that is to “retain” employees without having to actually pay what the market says they’re worth. This is actually a pretty old trick in Tech HR, dating back to the original Internet Boom.
The whole loyalty of the companies to employees thing died in the late 80s early 90s and you should be skeptical when it comes to what the company “does for you” and ponder on what’s in it for them: for example, “free pizza dinners” are not at all about being nice for you, they’re about you working long hours for free (which would cost them way more than that free pizza if they had to pay for them) to enhance that company’s profits.
It’s sad and it’s the World we live in: one were the real power of the land is Money and it’s mainly in the hands of Sociopaths.
My first job out of college was for an global company. I was there just over one year when they announced they were outsourcing us. On the day of announcement, there were two meetings. One way getting hired by the outsourcer, the other was being let go at some point in the next year (after turnover). Since subset of the let go group was booted that day.
It was a great lesson to learn early in my career.
My loyalty to my employer extends to the 40 hours they pay me. I accept my on call week three times per year, because I’m in IT and that’s just how it goes. But past that, I don’t care. I do, however, appreciate and enjoy my coworkers. We are friends, and no one abuses that friendship. I would miss working with them if I left, but that’s not enough to keep me where I am. I’ve been looking, but not terribly seriously. For the most part I’m left to manage my stuff, and I don’t get too much hassle from above. There is, however, a ton of corporate BS these days.
I think what we do is called “professionalism” rather than “loyalty” - they pay us for our time and it’s a questions of professional pride and moral obligation that we are there doing the work for them, in a reasonable professional way to the best of our abilities, but no freebies.
They might decorate it with “we appreciate your work” hypocrisy and bullshit, but they treat it as a “supplier” business transaction hence I’ll treat it from my side as a business transaction too, which means what’s in the contract is what’s in the contract and if I find a better “client”, I’m off.
After less than a decade as an “employee” I actually became a freelancer and it has served me well and I never regretted it, even though I was in the middle of each of the industries worse hit by the last to major crashes, first Tech and after that Finance. Job security is an illusion, so you have to build your own security by making sure you’re well paid for your work and hence can fall back on your savings even when the whole Economy plunges and even the few genuinelly good companies to work for still end up firing most of their people.
Since when does professionalism include lying about the person’s performance metrics as the reason for the layoff? She professionally asked for receipts, they had none. These people seems to think gaslighting is part of being professional.
I think you misunderstood my point if you think I’m defending the people who accepted to work in a job, HR, were they’re going to be firing people whilst trying to misportray it in such a way that the company saves money.
Also, Professionalism and Morals are mostly separate things (though it has been my experience that those who are ok with working a job were they’re screwing other are also ok with screwing those who pay for their work).
Sure, I can see how somebody in their first job might go into HR thinking its fine, but somebody with a couple of years doing the job either is a complete moron or has figured out what it really is all about, and that’s not about treating people well or even just fairly.
They need a union.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The rest is just collateral, they don’t care.
I know.
Because their bottom line is improved in the short term by firing people
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!”
It’s all about maximizing profit.
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
It’s about maximizing the bonuses for the executives. A bigger bonus than what they got last year.
Why would they care, people are just tools to them.
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.
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?
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.
capitalism.
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.
deleted by creator
Quarterly bonuses. Some jackass sees that labor budget is going to go over and he won’t get his bonus.
You can see first the fear, then the thrill of battle in her eyes. Don’t take any guff from these swine, Brittany.
So glad she eventually got to the “how the fuck are you so clueless about this, you’re the ones firing ME” part.
The worst thing is that there are many bootlickers out there. Worker rights are a joke and companies have infinite ways of fucking you over.
In this instance the HR snakes were caught with their pants down and looked like imbeciles.
But for example many people get placed on PiP with unrealistic goals, or harassed by management over petty mistakes. The only goal being saving the corporation some money by claiming low performance.
A lot of people out there need to get their head out of their asses if they think this is ok.
Yikes. This kind of thing is happening all over the industry as it pulls back from COVID over-hiring. https://layoffs.fyi
I hear that phrase a lot like it means something. What is “COVID over hiring”? What does that even really mean?
Monetary policies and cheap loans from the government that stimulated the economy to counter the effects of the recurrent lockdowns. The opposite of what’s happening now (high interest rates to counter inflation).
The only time I got laid off was from a university where I worked. I read in the paper that morning that there were going to be layoffs and I came in and my boss was really apologetic and told me I was laid off. It actually went really well all things considered. I didn’t blame him and he was as nice as he could be about it, saying things like, “if you ever need a letter of recommendation, send me an email.”
Which is all it need d to be. Layoffs always suck, but your boss did it the right way
Right. This HR video shows exactly the wrong way to do it. Sometimes layoffs are necessary, but you don’t have to be an asshole about it.
Wrong on a human level. On a corporate level, they didn’t admit it was a layoff and so she can’t sue them or get any benefits. Fucking sociopaths are punishing new employees for being hired after they botched the numbers.
And you don’t have to lie about it. The lies gain you a little wiggle room for a day or two. Then your reputation is lower and everything is harder. These ghouls don’t grok that the lies generate a type of pollution that is far heavier than whatever near term benefit you get from lying.
Right. You can piss on my face, but don’t tell me it’s raining.
See? That’s the thing these HR types didn’t get. Britney’s loss of a job is bad enough, but it’s so much worse when there are lies on top of it.
“Adding insult to injury” applies perfectly here.
HR is working their script, or they will be fired too. It’s like a fucking callcenter to destroy people.
Literally looped in circles over and over to avoid answering questions. It was so frustrating to listen to.
This. I don’t think people here realize that HR doesn’t really have a say in this, they aren’t the ones deciding on the firing and they aren’t the ones who can undo it since they aren’t the ones providing the team’s budget.
HR’s job in these situations is to do the dirty part: handle the announcement to each employee and damage control if necessary.
The girl in the video is saying that her manager was “pleased” with her work and she didn’t understand why strangers in the HR department are doing the announcement to her: that’s the whole point, it’s very likely that it’s that “nice” manager who threw you under the bus when he had to make a choice on which people he needs to keep after top management told him to downsize his team but he didn’t have the guts to tell you that personally.
We’re all complicit, but HR volunteered to be complicit.
