Hacker News Reader

Comment by rossdavidh | Hacker News Reader

In some organizations, you want to hire big going into the hiring freeze, so that once the layoffs start (and you get told from higher up, "cut x%), you can keep the people you actually care about. Insanity from the point of view of the organization, but rational from the point of view of the mid-level manager.

Don't know if this is what happened at FB, but it happens in some places.

View on HN

Amazon actually has an 'unregretted attrition rate' metric that it holds managers to. Essentially they are expected to shed a percentage of employees annually. This metric gets gamed as "hire to fire" to keep your core team intact.

https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/amazons-controversial-hire-to...

"The problem is, that's not what's happening. Instead, Amazon managers are hiring people they otherwise wouldn't, or shouldn't, just so they can later fire them to hit their goal. "

Oh god, this is horrific. :-/

And at the same time completely expected as per Goodhart's Law.

Just to play devil’s advocate why is that horrific? Presumably the lack of transparency? Would it be morally acceptable if the hiring manager were honest about the scenario and the prospective employee knew to discount equity comp and focus on cash comp and being ready to find a new role?

Edit: Consider if you were offered 200k per annum plus some irrelevant RSUs a year to be fired in 6 months, would you really be offended to take that 100k if you knew up front that those were the terms of the deal? Point being that the arrangement is only immoral if it's dishonest, otherwise it's just basically a gift for reasons that are perhaps odd, but within the giver's rights.

The devil really doesn't need more advocates.

I hate this phrase and I'm not sure why it's getting so much more popular. It's just pithy because it concerns an unliked figure, a devil. We could easily say instead "looking at the other side of the coin" but no one would then say "the coin doesn't need more sides" because that wouldn't make any more sense.

That isn't true, though. The phrase "devil's advocate" almost always refers to taking the other side of an issue where doing so is understood to be negative. When used to low-key argue in favor of the position because one believes in shitty things--and it's usually pretty obvious!--the user of the phrase is merely telling on themselves.

"Well, maybe shitty people doing shitty things is good, actually??" does no one any favors.

I'm sympathetic to your view, but I worry where it leads us too. Is it people never questioning whether they're "on the right side" or doing the right thing? Some of the worst things I've seen done were done by people who thought they were doing good.

Sorry, did I imply somewhere that criticism is bad? Because heck no, and if I apologize. Counter-analysis is important! Critical, even. And there are plenty of ways to do that. Like "if I were to steelman the opposition". Or, if you're going to put your chips down: "this feels incorrect, because X."

That particular phrase is pretty much used for bad faith remarks when one wants to distance themselves from the blast radius. It's hiding the ball. Doubly so when one, as the person to whom I replied did, has to invent a situation where it'd be okay (so as to imply by transference that others are okay).

No, the phrase is most often used to simply mean, "the other side of this discussion." In fact I almost never see it to mean what you said, to take the side of the negative side of an issue where said negative side would condemn one to be a "shitty person." It seems again that the phrasing creates this pervasive idea that the person using the phrase is using it in a fully intended negative way when it's just said off hand without thought. That is to say, it is replaceable with a phrase like "looking at the other side of the coin," as I initially stated.

Examples:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33544320

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6315113#6315483

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2564385

You had to make up a scenario to justify your position.

Instead of doing that, discuss the scenario at hand.

There is no mention that people are being informed up front that they will be fired in 6 months, so your reply is not helpful.

If you can find one example of a hiring manager being honest about the scenario, I'll eat my RSUs

Amazon already discounts equity comp. You vest 5% the first year and 15% the second year, but you get paid in cash equivalents those first two years.

It's a shame you were down voted so heavily for your question. I think it's a good one to consider. Surely at some point it does become a worthwhile deal. Imagine if they offered you $2 Mil/year? I would work my ass off and be damn happy for it for a few months knowing I'll be fired for that kind of money. Even if it were only 3 months long and I pocketed $500k, that would be a good deal to me.

Is that why just a rumor that you know how to code can lead AMZN recruiters to call you every week?

Um - if you are retired, can you take an Amazon job for a couple of months every year or two with the express goal of collecting the paychecks until you contribute to the manager's unregretted attrition rate?

I hope you're joking.

ura means u won't be hired again. so it's a one time thing

That's also why Amazon is running out of people to hire, because it hires and fires people so fast: https://nypost.com/2022/06/17/amazon-could-run-out-of-people...

"Amazon is sounding the alarm over an internal memo which estimates that the retail giant could run out of people to hire and man their US-based warehouses within the next 18 months, according to a report. ... “If we continue business as usual, Amazon will deplete the available labor supply in the US network by 2024,” according to the memo cited by Recode."

Seems like I have been hearing (FM radio) and seeing (online) ads touting Amazon jobs like in the warehouses.

I assume the 'hire to fire' metrics are for engineering; not warehouse. Two different labor pools. I assumed the warehouse attrition rates were due to the work being taxing (and audited). It pays well but you can get much more relaxed atmospheres for not much less $$ if you look.

Go through all the leetcode rounds with the intention to be fired?

I doubt middle managers are coming from that perspective, most likely it's just "empire building", i.e. grabbing all the headcount that you can get as that gives you more clout and influence ("oh X had Y people under him, we have to promote him !")

An additional role for "The Project Scapegoat" in Dilbert.

https://www.dilbert.com/strip/1999-03-15

I would say “hiring big” in the context you mention is nowhere near the level of hiring mentioned in the parent comment.

Ahh the good ol' hire to fire

Reply on news.ycombinator.com