Hacker News Reader

Comment by atty | Hacker News Reader

Honestly, what a terrible letter. Did not once say the words layoff or let go. Using phrases like “continue to be part of klarna’s journey”. Good lord, is this a business or a cult? And not a single line about concrete steps they will take to support the layoffs (multi-month severance packages, etc). Hopefully that is what they intend, but as of right now, this is pretty disappointing.

View on HN

From a Swedish perspective this is probably a "varsel" which is prior notice that they intend to do layoffs. You can't just fire people in Sweden so this is a first step. They have to give notice that they intent to layoff people to the different unions and then start the process. In other countries where they operate it's probably very different?

My guess is it will vary a lot how they do this because of first-in-first-out rules in Sweden they will have to get around to be able to layoff the people they want. I agree with the general sentiment though that the language is a bit vague, but this is a partial reason I think.

As one of the candidates to being lay off, not everyone is covered by Swedish law, and in my situation I’ll be completely under the scope of being impacted, which sadness me because the overall experience with the company was the best I ever had. Fucking hell I’m actually pissed.

You a consultant? Or on probation? Or in another region?

Probation and in another region, though I was lucky enough to be in a core team and I was not impacted, it sadnesses me knowing about anyone else not as lucky as me.

> first-in-first-out rules in Sweden

I don't know anything about Swedish labor law, but wouldn't it be LIFO rather than FIFO?

Yes, you’re correct.

Sorry yes LIFO

From Finnish perspective. "Impacted" might also mean role change. That is you are moved to new role or there is some type of other reorganization potentially, not just laid off or mandatory leave...

What is the first in first out rule? Does it mean that the people that joined the latest will be the first ones to go? And also is this a law or something that usually happens but not necessarily? Asking because I work in Sweden and I was not aware of something like this.

(S)he was wrong. There is no first-in-first-out principle in Sweden, neither by law nor by practice. Instead the last to enter _may_ be the first to leave, but the employer can choose to withhold two persons. Also, this arithmetic is determined per "office" so depending on how you organise the workforce you can, at least in principle and to some degree, select who has to go.

Yes last-in-first out. My guess here is that they need to figure the points out that you mention so it's hard to say "we're letting X amount of people go".

What a weird comment. The letter was perfectly fine. Firing a bunch of people is hard, impacts morale, and it's important to make sure people that you keep onboard don't panic. The letter didn't seem culty to me at all, and supporting layoffs was clearly addressed and will be done on regional-specific terms. Lawyers look at this kind of correspondence and tone down the language in some cases.

I agree, I thought the letter was fine. Classy, even.

I don't see a need to have more specific language in the all-employee announcement email.

The right place for that language is in the message(s) specifically to the person's being fired. And, to their credit, they let people know ahead of time what the exact subject of that message will be.

I agree - I read the parent's comment before reading the letter, expecting to see some corporate babble.

But, honestly, I didn't see that. Sure, there is euphemistic language, but the message is very clear:

1. 10% of the company is getting laid off.

2. The CEO was very explicit about how this process would unfold (e.g. stating what the email title would be), which is a lot better than most companies provide.

We can always endlessly nitpick the language choices when a layoff happens, and I don't think I've ever seen a layoff announcement on HN, even ones I thought were extremely transparent and free from corporate-speak, that didn't get shit on by a sizable number of comments.

Layoffs suck. There are really shitty ways to do them, and less shitty ways to do them, but there are no real great ways to do them.

10% is "getting impacted". I find it ridiculous when people use language like this. Especially a CEO. Have some courage and say the thing out loud. He who must not be named has a name, it's Voldemort.

Fine, I concede that point and agree, but at the end of the day it really doesn't matter. Everyone certainly knows exactly what he's talking about - it's not like he's being ambiguous.

I believe that clear, concise communication should live at the top of every message. Thoughts, feelings, explanations; that stuff goes down below.

"Today, I have to announce unpleasant news: in the coming days, Klarna will be downsizing our workforce. If you are impacted, you will receive a meeting request shortly to discuss specifics for your separation.

Even though I've been a CEO for BLAH and this is HARD and BLAH BLAH and you're forever my KLARNA HOMIES and this WAS NOT my fault, BLAH…"

Dude, calm down.

The letter is sent to employees, get impacted is explicit enough for the targeted audience.

Do not conflate perception gap and intended ambiguity.

No matter how through presented, message can get lost for anyone because of non-overlapping background in understanding. Neither the author nor the readers should feel negatively about that.

I feel it's better to use "fired" or "have to leave your job" or "layoff" or "terminate the employment contract" than "let go".

Because "let go" is to "allow someone or something to escape or go free" so it implies that you are the owner of the employee and you allow him to leave, just like as an ultimate humiliation he has to have your permission to go.

Fired means you did something wrong. Let go means you were let go of your job through no fault of your own.

Wouldn't the latter be layoff? I feel like let go can be used for either; a more polite way of saying "fired" or an alternative to "laid off".

It's an alternative to laid off I think. When I think of let go, I think more contract work or temp workers. They were let go, but they weren't laid off since they weren't permanent employees to begin with.

"Let go" and "layoff" seem to be similar euphemisms. Why does it matter which one is used?

Can we all agree that "impacted" is worse than both of those? It provides no clear information about what is actually happening, relying on the entire audience to make the "aha, we're being laid off" connection themselves. "Impacted" appeared five times, "Affected" once, but it was left to the recipients' imaginations to figure out what they were actually being impacted by. Finally, they get around to framing it as "not being offered a role in the new organization"--another euphemism. I mean, it's one thing to soften the message a little when bearing bad news, but "impacted" is softened to the point of uselessness. George Carlin had a bit[1] about this.

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h67k9eEw9AY

I actually found it a humane way of dealing with the situation.

They let everyone know in advance. Have the decency of individual communication. Anticipated what type of invite to expect. Promised to roll out quickly, in a matter of days.

I mean, probably not the "perfect" layoff, but certainly not close to worse, or even "terrible".

I very much disagree. For people with anxious tendencies, this type of email is absolutely awful to receive, and consider that most of those let go will be at lower rungs of the company, so job security in the current market is going to be a big source of anxiety.

“You are at risk of losing your job, but you’ll have to wait all week to find out”

As commented above, you have to do it this way in Sweden, you have to announce in public that you are going to lay off people and then from there on you negotiate with the union if you plan to not do stack-based firing (last-in-first-out).

There's no collective agreement in place at Klarna.

That’s not what they’re doing though, they’ve announced it and plan to tell people over the next few days, certainly not enough time to negotiate with a union. They’ve already chosen who is being let go, they’re simply delaying the process of informing people because (presumably) managers only have a certain capacity for meetings: they think a delayed face-to-face meeting is better than an immediate email.

For Swedish employees it's not as easy as calling someone into an office and lay them off. You can of course tell someone that you want to lay them off but from there to actually doing it you have to negotiate with the union and/or the employee.

Right, and I’m arguing that informing 700 people today that they’re being laid off is more humane by an order of magnitude than telling 7,000 people they might be laid off this week and to stay away from their peers. There’s nothing in Swedish employment law that dictates this approach by Klarna. The letter clearly states why they made this decision, it wasn’t a legal one, it was a misguided attempt devoid of empathy focused exclusively on external optics because of what happened with better.com etc.

> “You are at risk of losing your job, but you’ll have to wait all week to find out”

I think this is actually pretty nice because it gives you a bit of time to start polishing your resume. Even if you don't get laid off, that's always a good idea.

> For people with anxious tendencies ... the current market is going to be a big source of anxiety

I sympathize, but unfortunately I don't see much of what an employer could do to mitigate. This is just the harsh reality that everyone must live through...

tell them immediately?

Not possible to do it personally for dozens or hundreds of people.

If they did it by email, a lot of people would criticize as well. Perhaps, just perhaps, even yourself in the past has criticized or at least found (in your thoughts) an awful way of communicating a lay off?

You can’t discredit me based on your own hypothetical about what I might believe.

I did not discredit your argument. It's indeed awful. I'm just inviting to reflect that any way will be awful.

How awful each option is perceived is subjective. If they did it by email, many people (perhaps you and I included?) would be here criticizing the lack of humanity and basic consideration to impacted employees...

I don't know if 24 hours can be considered "in advance". It is by definition, but usually in advance means I can take some sort of action to be prepared.

The letter includes this passage:

> However, unfortunately, some of you will be informed that we cannot offer you a role in the new organization.

Seems clear to me once you account for corporate speak

Ehhh I disagree. I think it was a very tasteful letter. Bluntness isn't always the best choice - I say this as an incredibly direct person.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com