Hacker News Reader

Could not agree more. The company is not, can not, and will not ever be loyal to you. Ever. They will fire you, lay you off, relieve you of duty instantly for any reason or no reason at all. They've lobbied for laws to do exactly that (in the US anyway).

And they will keep information asymmetrical in their favor. No. Matter. What. In the long run they will be dishonest with you, they will lie to your face, and they will keep you in the dark. You won't know plans until they want you to know plans. They have to. It's the only way it works.

You, as the employee, need to play the same game in the same way. Defensively. Know that you can keep information from them. Know you should only give information that is beneficial to you. Never self- sabotage. Never be weak. Business is a ruthless competitive game, and that includes employee to manager. You have no obligation to be honest in an exit interview. If it sucked horribly, leave with a smile and say it was great. Make it so they'll give you a great recommendation for your next gig. Lie to them like they lie to you. Bluff. Play chess, play poker.

You don't have to care one whit about leaving your teammates with more work. Does the company give one shit about laying you off a week before Christmas with zero notice? No. They don't give a care at all about the disarray this causes for your life. Ultimately you are a cog, and disposable. You are not "the most valuable resource". You must be as ruthless with them as they are with you. It's the only way it works.

Sure, this sounds super cyncial, you can absolutely do this and not be a dick. You don't have to be a dick at all, just think strategically, and know that you are the only one looking out for you, and you don't owe anyone anything.

This is the way.

There are people that will dismiss this as overly cynical because of the presentation.

But it is true.

In a big company, the VP of whatever department may feel bad about a layoff before Christmas, but they don't know you personally, and whatever numbers or major investors are motivating this don't lie.

In a small company, the same is true. They might wait until things are hopeless instead of trending to hopeless, but either way, they'll lay you off when it makes sense for them.

You might like your boss, but informing them well in advance of a departure is generally not a good move. Nice as they may be, they can't unknow that knowledge, and it will affect all their decisions going forward. And you, who are so sure you are leaving, may find that your outside offer is rescinded the week before Christmas (see above).

2 weeks is a reasonable courtesy and an acceptable risk. If your company needs you beyond that, contract billing should start at 5x your salaried rate, 20 hour minimum.

Agreed with everything you and OP wrote until your very last line:

“ If your company needs you beyond that, contract billing should start at 5x your salaried rate, 20 hour minimum.”

Now that’s being a dick. Looking out for yourself does not mean being a dick.

Hey, if they’re willing to pay that much for it; charging any less is charity

I don’t know your situation, but it could also be construed as blackmail depending on the circumstances.

That's what I did and a previous employer occasionally has me do some maintenance work and are glad to pay that rate, especially if I get on it quickly.

This is not being a dick. Before I left a certain job, I had my supervisor (also owner of the company) tell me exactly this. She once quit a job and did exactly this. And was proud of it. Even if I'm happy I no longer work for her, she was completely right about this move.

Your supervisor was once a dick, and proud of it, so it is ok for you to be a dick. Think about that.

To preface my comment, I totally agree with your take away. Prioritize your own success above any other company, organization, or individuals success.

However, I can't help but feel you're painting with an overly broad brush. There absolutely are CEO's out there who would lie awake at night after laying people off a week before Christmas. Does that mean they wouldn't do it? No. They, like all of us, will ultimately make the decisions they need to make to succeed.

It may be comforting for you to imagine that everyone in a position of power over you is some evil super-villain devoid of empathy or emotion, but that isn't always the case. Things aren't that black and white.

Again I agree with your general sentiment. Be greedy and ruthless in your career. Don't make decisions that benefit your employer to your own detriment. Look out for yourself. 100%. I'm just not a fan of absolute statements like yours and wanted to add that businesses are ran by people too, and while some may be complete sociopaths, not all of them are.

I agree with the parent but I disagree with you.

I am a manager in a large tech company and we care about our employees. We will not fire/lay them off/relieve them of their duty for any reason or not reason. We treat them as we expect to be treated. We will support them if they have some unusual circumstances. We do this because it is the right thing to do, and because it makes business sense. These are not mutually exclusive.

Is that the same as saying there's no situation where people will be laid off or let go? No. But it would happen for a good reason.

In a previous large company a decision was made collectively to take a wage cut and not lay people off. Employees got stock options to make up for the cut. In the end that all worked out.

Being ruthless to your employees doesn't make business sense. Who wants to work at a place like that? Does everyone do that? Absolutely not.

It's true a company isn't a person, but a company is made of people, and decisions are made by people, and you want to work somewhere that has good people that give a damn. At least I do.

All that said ;) if you are leaving, I agree there's no reason to stretch it out. That doesn't help anyone. In any properly managed project any employee leaving isn't the end of the world. There should always be more than one person that know what's going on. Having someone sit around, like a Schrodinger's Cat, that is both there and not there, doesn't really help anyone. It just feels weird. The rules of the game are set (in your contract), you need to give a notice, you give this notice, you're done. We'll take you out for lunch. No hard feelings. People move on for all sorts of reasons.

I hear you, and what I wrote was cynical, because it's safer that way. I totally respect that you treat people like they want to be treated, and that you want to treat people with dignity. That's what we all hope for. You sound like a good boss. That's fantastic.

But, as a small counterpoint, you say: >Is that the same as saying there's no situation where people will be laid off or let go? No. But it would happen for a good reason.

This is what I mean. The company has to do what is right for the company. And ultimately, it's employee be damned no matter how good, or loved or respected they are. You'll still be let go, and your life may go into disarray as a result. THe manager may lose sleep, but that won't stop it from happening. It also doesn't mean the company will hire you back, support you, or even give you a package on the way out other than a box to hold your personal belongings. It's gotta be that way.

All I'm saying, is that the employee has to know this, get it, and be willing to play the same game by the same rules. We're often taught to think that we owe the company or our former coworkers something, when we don't. If that means being less than truthful in an exit interview for example, or not sharing info with my manager so that I can make a move, then so be it. Employees have to do what's in their own best interest first.

I think many workers don't think this way and stay in dead-end, abusive, no-win situations out of a sense of loyalty that ultimately, won't and cannot be returned.

People two levels above me never asked my permission to lay me off. That's for sure.

I hear you, but I have been a consultant for very large companies (even mutual insurance cos, with basically zero profit motive), and at the end of they day they will make decisions for the company and not for the person. As in, we got the CEO to fire some of his direct reports that had been working at the company 20+ years. And then it rolled downhill. Don't get romantic with your employer unless you own the company (or at least 51% of the voting shares.)

Precisely. I have no doubt that there are company that have management that genuinely care.

But they are part of a bigger organization and when it comes time to firing/laying off employees, it’s just impossible not to screw employees over (or at least have them feel like they were screwed over).

You know lay offs are a couple months off but it’s hush hush. Employees will find out in a couple weeks. Your direct report John tells you how excited he is to finally find the right house and he’s about to release the last contingency and can’t back out after. What do you say? What can you say? And even if you could say “id wait another week” John probably doesn’t think he’ll be laid off.

Firing people always makes them feel screwed over. Personal situations can rarely be accommodated with big reorgs. It’s smarter to protect yourself.

What's the benefit to the company of not letting people know in advance if they know? What you are describing sound like a badly run company.

My company has not laid off a single person in two decades AFAIK. (not to say we won't fire a person if that's just not working out, but broad layoffs). two decades is more than some people stay married ;). so it's definitely a relationship. Could it happen? who knows. Sometimes the business doesn't work out.

Next time you interview somewhere ask them when is the last time they laid off a significant number of people... (or just Google it, it typically makes the news).

> Being ruthless to your employees doesn't make business sense.

Until it does.

Not really. It's a market. This is true if employees don't care. But if you avoid these places like the plague then it won't make business sense. Unless you're ok with never getting anyone to work for you.

Now if the company's business is failing it obviously can't keep holding on to its employees. Again there is a market question here. Just don't go work for a company that goes through cycles of bad business, layoffs, maybe it's ok, bad business, layoffs.

So it's really up to you if you want to play that game.

The company I work for, throughout its existence, has never been able to hire as many people as it wants to. Its business is doing great. It has had amazing growth with more growth in front of it. It's maybe not as glamorous as some.

I am sure there are plenty of places where there is a good business and you will be treated well. Let's not make it the norm to not treat us well, it's up to all of us. If none of us give this any consideration, ofcourse the market will evolve to fit what we do (I'm sure there'll still be people/companies that do the right thing anyways, but less).

> I am a manager in a large tech company and we care about our employees.

This is the problem with management roles. Managers opportunity to find new job is so low they are forced to think they are part of the company. The company does not think the same. The same is not true for IC devs, this may not be for long, but currently this the case. I hope people be honest at least over internet.

There's plenty of demand for managers and I can still do "real" ;) work as well.

When I say we I don't just mean "me". I mean all levels up to the CEO. And we demonstrate that all the time, it's not just something we say.

Again, this is still a business, it's not a non-profit, but there is alignment between treating people well and having a good business and finding more great people. Randomly firing people or abusing people, is just stupid. Please don't work at places that do that, not only because you'll get fired, but because that business is hurting its long term success.

> You have no obligation to be honest in an exit interview

Also, you have no obligation to give former employers free insights and advice that they'd otherwise have to pay consultants thousands of dollars to figure out for them. That's what your feedback in an exit interview can be: free insights they'd otherwise have to pay for. There's no reason to give it to them for free.

My experience is you can tell them in the exit interview what you want to, it will be ignored just like your early signals.

I agree 100%. Even if you have a great boss who looks after you, they can be replaced or their boss can overrule them.

Like that quote from Peaky Blinders “Big fucks small. Always, actually.”

It’s a business arrangement, not a family or a friendship. Hold them to the contract. If they ask for more, tell them you’ll need compensation for it.

If they ask you to stick around, have an excuse ready. Don’t lie, because you don’t need to. “I can’t stay another 2 weeks I have a preexisting obligation.” “No, i can’t say what is it’s personal.”

I’ve been through 6 reorgs and been laid off several times. You take it personally at first, but then gain some clarity. The “family” stuff, the promises are all worth nothing. But once you know that it’s ok. You go in with eyes wide open.

Totally agreed. I once gave an ultra long notice because I was going to grad school in six months. I was part of the mass layoffs the next week. Best lesson I ever learned.

Potential employers are sitting on empty positions, all the time. The market is not "red hot" unless you have the resume. This is continually demonstrated time and again as CS students struggle to enter the job market. We whom are paid for our work live in a bubble of success that by it's nature does not get to see the failure.

If companies were actually struggling they would fund education and find people to hire. Overwhelmingly tech refuses to fund education and is heavily competed over for job positions and internships. Just like every company says they make the best products, they say they're always hiring.

To be honest I think we agree about more than you make it seem!

What you did at your last job sounds exactly right to me – you were giving good feedback about what you needed, and when it wasn't heeded you left. Your manager didn't (or wasn't able to) hold up their side of that conversation and you moved to the "you should have left anyway" box. Doesn't sound fun, but we're in agreement on the steps there.

The 10 months thing seems to have tripped a few people up… I might try to rephrase that? Note that the section is titled "Avoid giving too much notice" and lists the reasons that 10 months was way too long. The advice is to match the notice period to the handover period, along with giving your manager ongoing feedback (as you did) if you're heading in this direction. Interestingly, one other commenter did a 12 (!) month notice period and it seemed to work in that situation.

Maybe that is where we've crossed wires on your last point too? I'm specifically not advocating for super-long notice periods, but as a hiring manager I would always respect a candidate who wanted to do e.g. 6 weeks instead of 2 if there was a good reason. For more senior roles, two weeks is not standard, nor is it internationally.

This seems a US-centric view. One or more months is the normal contractual notice period at least in the UK and Europe. The hiring market adapts. If you have reasonable relations with your teammates it might make sense to be less of a dick during a longer notice period. Obviously it's not mandatory but everyone will probably have a nicer time.

In some parts of Europe (Czechia specifically but I heard it worked similarly in other countries), the standard is two full calendar months, so usually about ten weeks. Some candidates request three months and the employer usually can wait.

Because the previous employer will also have to wait for a new hire, he will not want to let you out much sooner. It works the other way round as well. The employer can't fire you with a shorter notice period, unless there was some criminal behavior.

In Britain the notice period is usually one month, but in some cases (eg academia) it can be as long as three months. (I am currently in month 2 of my notice period…)

They actually stated 10 months was way too long and cited many reasons. So that's not advice, that's reporting what didn't work well. I think we're all on the same page here 10 months is way too long including TFA.

> This post is filled with bad and naive advice.

it's also got a very silly title. the way a boss quits is they sell the company.

Yeah, you need to do what's best for your own career. Don't feel bad walking away for a better opportunity. Unless it's a very small company. I promise your multi billion dollar corporation is going to be just fine without you. Believing otherwise is ego.

> been able to be honest with managers about what is or isn't working.

How often do you fellow HNers disagree with management? Is it that common? I think it's probably the worst part of "working for a living".

I disagree with my manager (and other managers in the org) all the time. It's fine, we talk about the tradeoffs involved and figure out the best path forward.

Every time I hear people worried about disagreeing with management, it's because management are assholes. The managers I work with are good people. They're not perfect, but I do (mostly) trust their competency.

I'm also senior enough people can't push me around.

How often do you find that when you disagree with management, the answer is almost always "management vs engineer, management wins"?

When are you ever to get management to do anything you need (or want) from them, or is it always on their own terms?

> How often do you find that when you disagree with management, the answer is almost always "management vs engineer, management wins"?

Management only "wins" sometimes, though I don't really view it through a win/loss lens. Usually there's quite a bit of give and take, as we try to figure out what's best.

I can remember engineers being hard-overruled exactly once. A large customer felt we were giving them poor service. Management upended our roadmap to prioritize things to keep the customer happy. Engineers were unhappy about the sudden change of plans, but we did end up keeping the customer. As much as I personally disliked the whole episode, management was probably right to overrule us.

> When are you ever to get management to do anything you need (or want) from them, or is it always on their own terms?

It's a two-way street, but you're correct they ask more of us than we do of them.