Airbnb Was Like a Family, Until the Layoffs Started
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
That's not terrible.
So the complaint is that a travel and hospitality company was not able to weather the storm long enough to keep everyone employed as if it wasn't happening?
Startups have been creating these cultures of “family” for years in order to have a closer relationship to their employees than ever before. This closeness, as many other dynamics of the current labor system in the US, benefit the companies far more than the employees.
The culture of “startup family” made it possible for companies like Theranos to lie to investors for so long while keeping their employees quiet.
The “startup family” culture made it possible for companies like Uber to devolve into a misogynistic, harassment-driven behemoth coming from the top.
The “startup family” culture convinced millions of employees to take lower salaries with the hope that their dead-last-liquidation-preference common shares would turn into a nest egg someday, while 99% of them never did. Most people never even ask or understand the terms of these agreements. That doesn’t sound like family to me.
At the end of the day every company gets your skill and in return compensate with stocks and salary. That’s all there is to it. If they don’t value your skill, you’re fired.
You don’t disown your kids because you don’t value their skill. Family is for life (mostly). Jobs aren’t.
Seriously zero days. The HR person emphasized, in the meeting, that my health benefits were good through the rest of the month. Which came off sounding pretty tone-deaf, since that day was the 31st.
Non-disparagement agreements for sure, but what else?
1. You are not fully trusted until the founder's son personally has some trust in you (this usually involves proving yourself professionally but also making an impression)
2. If you are not fully trusted, the company loyalty is about the same as any other company
3. If you are fully trusted, the company will go out of its way to avoid firing you even if you become ineffective, ie, they will shift you between positions, change you from full-time to part-time, sometimes even completely change your department.
4. Sometimes this trust gets to the point of not really paying attention to what so-and-so is doing
5. The downside is our company is heavily top-heavy, with a lot of people in vague senior positions with ill-defined zones of responsibility. People who are not able to stabilize somewhere into a new senior position usually move on but that can take a while
6. Partly because of #5, the exact responsibilities of senior people can be vague and the chain of command for certain things can be confusing
7. There is a lot of hiring within family and friends, not necessarily resulting in incompetence, but sometimes you wonder if there might be better people for some positions
8. The company is slow moving and stays relatively small, procedures are highly informal
9. Raises are probably below industry average, bonuses are probably above industry average
Altogether, for me personally, the trade-offs are worth it. That being said, I can understand why most companies do not structure themselves this way.
Really, because all the things you listed seem negative. What are the positives?
But I would just wager its far easier to do lay-offs. The path of least resistance...
Unless airbnb was raking in the money, they've probably got a huge loss on the books now and they won't be making money any time so even a six month furlough would seem unlikely long enough to be able to hire back all of the people laid off.
It's actually better to say, start looking for a job now, and here's a three month severence package, then say hold off on looking, we might be able to bring you back.
Also, many workers enjoy working from home, but in terms of approaching the feeling of true alliance that is implied by "We are family" the only places (that I've been at) that have come close have been small startups where everyone had equity and everyone was working in one office.
Mind you, when I say equity, I mean actual equity, not stock options. And to get actual equity, typically a worker needs to bring something to the table, other than a willingness to commit future hours. Typically they need to invest their own money, and become a true partner, or invest something else of value (one of my partners had inherited an old farmhouse and donated that, which became our office).
You don’t build “the family” on the concept of it’s value is purely what you’re getting out of it. You base it on sacrifice and the understanding that the work part is only the mission, the team is the reason you’re there and is probably what matters most.
We have forgotten that the things that matter most in life and the things that build that kind of culture everyone mocks as “not real”, its all built on necessary sacrifice and substance that can not ever be quantified on profit & loss spreadsheet.
Maybe the issue is that people SAY they want a culture that cares, but really it’s just not something you really want to work for. Do your job, collect a paycheck and go home. Maybe people should just be ok with the fact that in reality, that’s all they want. Otherwise, move to a rural area, take a job that pays a little less on a team that has these family qualities. We do exist, I think it’s just not something g you REALLY want or value.
Well maybe you can - by giving everyone significant equity - but no one is willing to write that cheque.
Generally speaking, there is never a "family" in a business. You are all there to make money, period.
I do want to work for a business that cares though. They can show me how much they care by paying me well, treating me with respect, not intruding into my personal life, and by giving me a reasonable level of flexibility in how I organise my working hours and time on site.
The people who say their companies are like families generally fall into two camps in my experience. Those who have no idea what they’re doing and want to signal their supposed intentions (no matter how bad their execution is), and those who want to emotionally pressure their staff into doing more than they’re paid for. If I make friends with some colleagues, well that’s nice. But I don’t want my boss to think of me as family, I wouldn’t even want to be friends with my boss. People are usually aren’t good enough at compartmentalizing for that to work.
One day he got offered big money for a buyout. Took it, ran, left employees to be laid off etc.
But the kicker: the ex-employees still talk of him as a great guy. They brag about how the big man told them he'd always take care of them. Even though he actually screwed them and left them to rot.
So no, I'm not a 'family company' kind of guy. Because I think its emotional leverage and not professional. I understand some folks thrive on that, and not for financial reasons. They seem to need the emotional connection to be happy. Whatever works for them.
Not so explicit, but most laid-off employees are "eligible for re-hire". That assumes, a) the company re-opens your same position, b) you still want to work for the company and haven't found a job in the interim, and c) that "economic situation" improves quickly to allow for the above, which it probably won't.
Because it's all bullshit, whether the founders realized it or not.
Also, a family doesn't get their members to sign nondispargement agreements, unless it's really disfunctional.
That kind of evil is a cult, not a family. Remaining Airbnbers would be wise to ponder those agreements and how ominous they are.
---
As for AirBnB - I really dislike them. They eats away at the supply of apartments available to people for actual rent - you know, to live in - in favor to catering to rich(er) tourists. This naturally drives rents up. So, the employees were part of a somewhat nasty "family".
This depends on who your employer is: if your boss is your employer, and not just a higher ranked employee of the employer’s, your employer can be exactly as much of a friend as your boss is.
>it built a reputation as the polar opposite of its sharing economy peers such as Uber, which prized ruthless competition, and WeWork, which collapsed under a partying culture and its founder’s self-dealing.
>instead, Airbnb stood for earnest idealism.
As I recall, just like Uber, Airbnb created a platform that facilitated breaking laws and regulations in many jurisdictions...and ultimately caused damages to many owners whose property values went down as a result of their neighbors running illegal short term rentals.
Nobody is entitled to their property remaining a certain value. The same kind of argument is why NIMBYs try to stop the development of new housing, artificially propping up property prices and making it hard for new residents of a city to afford homes.
Airbnb works actively to undermine that protection and permit extraction of the short term value, damaging the underlying communities. All I'm saying is that it could be a challenge for short-sighted politicians to look at the economic activity being generated and say "no, we don't want that, take your business elsewhere."
[1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3006832
No, but people are entitled to not be damaged by their neighbours' criminal activities. Is it NIMBYism to be angry at the meth lab next door?
That is not necessarily true. Sure if property values go down as a natural result of supply/demand there is no remedy at law for that, but people are legally entitled to "quiet enjoyment" of their property, which would include enforcement of laws prohibiting short term vacation rentals interfering with your rights and resulting in damages (loss of property value). And under the law violating one's quiet enjoyment to their property results in compensatory damages.
Of course, you can still have a bad effect on the world even with a friendly culture, but I think it's safe to say Uber's culture led to a lot of more toxic behavior (towards drivers, competition, regulation, and ultimately employees).
[1] https://qz.com/work/1123038/uber-has-replaced-travis-kalanic...
I grew up in the 80ies and communities were much stronger then. We had a community run iceskating course during winter, community run 'neighbourhood'-house with games, music etc. We supplemented our schools budget by collecting old paper every six weeks, people just showed up and did the work together ( teachers, parents & kids ).
Our municipality had a very nice pool-complex and library. All gone. Somehow this is all too expensive now.
It's better when companies and managers are honest about the nature of the employment relationship.
GTFO with that family shit.
My current CEO left it for all the directors to tell the rest of the team, a trend I've seen several times in my career. I wish there was a name for a CEO who only gives the good news and leaves the bad news for middle management.
So yeah, we need a name for that kind of abdication.
Heh - I think that's called "Coward"
A job is a job, that's it. You'll be treated like waste as soon as the money runs out.
> "Mr. Chesky aspired to a capitalism that had an “infinite time horizon” and was good for society."
Ah ah ah, what a time to be alive
Kudos