Hacker News Reader

Comment by SamReidHughes | Hacker News Reader

Well that is gangsta. It's an unlikely coincidence that these three people had poor performance with such timing that led to firing in the same week or two. You gotta space out the firings to give the cover story more plausibility.

View on HN

Regarding Moore,

> The company told staff that Moore had been on a performance improvement plan

He'd apparently been at Kickstarter for six years. Being on a PIP after that long seems unusual.

And Redwine,

> But current and former employees with knowledge of the firing told me that management didn’t establish a “performance improvement plan” for Redwine, despite her being told she would have one.

Not quite sure how to read the second. Was it being used as a formality so the firing looks genuine, or was she actually under-performing, and they just ripped the bandaid off?

I've known several people at different companies who departed because of performance reasons.

Every one of them got a PIP. The PIP was pretty much always pro forma, but I've never heard of a company letting someone go without a PIP, unless there's active malfeasance involved.

Rookie move on Kickstarter's part, regardless. Even if Redwine had basically decided to stop working, it's probably less costly in reputational damage and legal risks to go through the usual process and give them a couple months pay. I'm pretty sure if Kickstarter had a relationship with a good union busting firm, they would have handled this in a much less damaging way.

The inconsistency with Kickstarter is at best odd, and they either did wrong by that employee or screwed up hiding what they're doing.

But I've been at a place that fired without PIPs, so it does happen.

It just depends on the severity of the problem. Some problems can be fixed (PIP), while others don’t warrant the attempt - just use your imagination. If employer is an at-will, they certainly have more flexibility to fire quickly. They may increase the odds of a wrongful termination suit by doing this, but that’s what insurance is for. Nobody wants to pay a wrongful term suit though, and usually a company dousing an employee will have enough of a reasonable cause they can piece together after the fact. Shit gets dicey if employee age is above the mean or is on FMLA, but generally an at-will employer has a lot of flexibility to drop an employee.

My experience with PIPs is that they're essentially an advance notice that you're getting fired and a grace period while you finish up outstanding projects and look for another job.

There's a lot of flexibility with at will employers, but even for clear firings with just cause, it's often less risky to eat the cost of that grace period. Aside from the risk of (frivolous) legal costs, there are reputational and morale risks from departures that aren't adequately "managed." No one is ever walked into an office and fired on a Friday morning for performance reasons without lots of warnings, including a PIP.

Critics of unions would point out that under-performing employees are more likely to benefit from unions, so they're more likely to try to organize them.

I have no idea if this is actually the case. It certainly makes it hard to sort out what's actually going on, here.

I remember a story my father told me when he started working (in Belgium). It was a bit before 9am, and everyone was standing in front of their workbench. My dad, a farmers son, thought it was weird and started working on his task. A colleague came up to him and said "we only start working at 9". Since then he, like all the others, stood there doing nothing until it was 9 o'clock.

Unions have a "us vs them" mentality, where the boss tries to pay you as little and try to get as much work out of you, and you do the least amount of work for the most pay.

I myself like to see a cooperation more as a win-win situation, where you do something for me and I for you. The more we do for each other, the better for both of us.

Would the workers have gotten paid more if they started before 9am? If not, it wasn't a "the more we do for each other" scenario, it was a "the more the workers do for their employer, with no additional compensation" scenario.

When you are trying to build a friendship with someone, do you only pay for coffee if they did it for you before? Or do you out out a good faith effort and buy them coffee or lunch a couple of times? Companies and employees are the same way. Companies will sometimes overpay someone in the hope for extra effort, or an employee may put in extra time in the hope for future rewards.

A win win approach is much better than a zero sum mindset to relationships and employment.

My employees who have a win win approach have been massively rewarded over time, those with zero sum mindsets don't last long here or anywhere else and never get beyond entry level.

It's a total waste when you are there to not already start working. If you have such mentality, what is your boss going to answer when you ask "Can I leave earlier today?" It always works both ways. In game theory, tit for tat is still the best strategy.

My dad was always a hard worker, and he had a nice company car starting from the 80's, one of the first carphones, we got a computer from his work etc. So yeah, an employer does his best to keep the good workers, because if not, they will go somewhere where they are appreciated.

Three? Last I checked, there were only 2. Has a third person been fired?

Yes, it's mentioned in the first reply to the linked tweet.

https://twitter.com/taylordotbiz/status/1172260257613123608

Last week another member of the organizing committee, @ClarissaRedwine was also fired, and today a third prominent member of the union was told there is no place for him at the company. I stand firm in solidarity with my friends and colleagues.

> give the cover story more plausibility

Do they need to?

Many employers would rather publicize it: we don't tolerate a union.

Retaliating against someone for trying to unionize is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act, as well as New York state law (Kickstarter is headquartered in New York) – hence the need for a cover story.

Yeah, but for legal purposes it doesn't matter if "everyone knows" about the real reasons.

The company gets to have it both ways. Send a message that unionization isn't tolerated, while saying in court that unionization had nothing to do with the firings.

The whole court case will be about the plausibility of the company's performance claims. So, responding to the root comment: yes, the company very much needs to establish plausible reasons for firing.

You are so right and it's quite Machiavellian. Specifically, chapter 18 - "In what way princes should keep their word".

Oh, interesting.

There was an episode of the U.S. version of The Office where an exec said they'd all be fired if they got "even a whiff" of unionization. And really openly to dozens of people, not in any sort of wink-wink way.

I figured this was a legit threat in the U.S.

I'm guessing that in some states it might be legally questionable while not federally across the board

It's illegal anywhere in the US; the NLRA is a federal law.

IIRC, Jan didn’t threaten to fire them. She simply asserted that unionization would cause them they would lose their jobs because Dunder Mifflin would close down the branch if the workers unionized, as apparently had happened at another branch.

So not advocating that we use The Office (a sitcom) as a reference for American labor law, but I think Jan’s statements might be permissible. As long as her reasoning is that the increased cost of the workers being in a union will lead to the branch closing, not that the branch would be closed in retaliation, it would be fine.

Companies can and often do complain that if workers are in a union, the company’s operating costs will increase, which will consequently have adverse effects on the workers like layoffs, plant closings and so on.

To be clear, this is my understanding of legal issues in a sitcom. I am not necessarily advocating Jan’s point of view, our labor laws as they stand, or anything else.

That's a pretty fine line to draw:

"Due to increased costs (read: unions), we're reducing/eliminating employment."

"Due to decreased productivity (read: FMLA), we're reducing/eliminating employment."

I guess it works. I don't really understand this stuff.

"You don't look like us" - Illegal.

"We don't think you fit in with our culture" - Legal.

I think this is why any crime where the intention is part of it is so hard to prove, like discrimination, hate crimes, etc.

As someone who worked in insurance, legal decisions seem to live and die by fine distinctions. The difference between a payable claim and an unpayable claim could be a single word.

As they say: The devil is in the details.

Closing an entire office/branch for unionizing - legal.

Firing the individuals who are trying to start the union - illegal.

Yes, but.. if the employee is using work time and company resources to print recruitment material and disrupting meetings, etc., etc., that’s an actionable offense. I mean, an employer has a lot of leeway around disruptive employee behavior. The employee can probably get a settlement in such cases if they’re willing to fight long enough on the wrongful term suit. For example by showing that the company was generally tolerant of company equipment being used for personal stuff, etc. But behavior is a tougher matter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com