Hacker News Reader

Comment by IronWolve | Hacker News Reader

Correct, Take the first round of payouts, always.

Almost every 10+ years a mega company buys the company I'm working for and lays off everyone. The first time I stayed on and didnt take the layoff with my group, was going to merge into the new company. Then after a year, was let go and didnt get the big layoff package, then my manager left.

Totally screwed out of a major layoff package as it was a year later, way past the laws for mass layoffs, was a mistake to stay on, they kept me long enough they only had to let me go under new terms, then promptly closed the group (me and my manager). I was the most senior and long term employee, they saved a bucket load to screw me over.

View on HN

Let’s say you are an employee at a company that does mass layoffs. They do not lay you off like everyone else and keep you on. What is the best course of action to take at that point?

If you have any doubts about the company, you probably want to get serious about your job search.

To expand on why, what often happens after these is there now a round of "cost cutting" which on the surface may look like ok we just don't get as many, or any of the cool perks we used to- which will be true, and you will suddenly realize that work doesn't feel like it has a fun aspect to it anymore. But that's really nothing compared to the next step- when they start squeezing you- and everyone for more hours.

And more hours may not be a direct request- anyone at the periphery of the dev process- in the past this was QA, now gets cut because devs can do it, SWE roles might have to start doing more ops work, etc...

When I last left the financial industry, it was so bad, that VPs- and that was back when it least had some meaning- at least it did when I first got the title around 2010, started having to do mundane weekend work like checking out the system after network/firewall changes, etc.

It can be death by a thousand cuts. Now the financial crisis was way worse because essentially everyone was hurting, and losing money- and interestingly I "got out" of that bad situation by going to tech. But that's just how these bad situations play out and deteriorate.

That said, companies are still profitable. There was a LOT of overhiring in the past few years. I don't expect things to get so bad, at all.

I’d start looking for a new job.

As a recruiter told me, "I can add your resume to the pile." There are too many resumes in circulation right now.

I wonder if this mean a dearth of positions (i.e. a tech downturn is fully underway) or simply loads of applicants and enough open positions, but the recruiters are a bit inundated by the sudden influx and it'll take time to sort things out.

Either way I hope those laid off land on their feet.

Looking for a new job.

The advice to "take the first layoff" is weird, you rarely have a choice, if ever.

The advice isn't so much "take the first layoff", it's "next time will be worse."

If you say that you aren’t plussed, then they will probably lay you off to.

True but there are exceptions. At a previous job of mine, layoffs were happening and my manager was tasked with laying off one member of my team. He sat us in a room and told us about it and the severance package and basically asked for a volunteer. A more senior engineer volunteered and went on his way with a good chunk of cash.

Oh how I wish I had volunteered cuz a year later basically everyone including me had quit anyway.

The last job I had they offered very generous buy out packages to a few thousand employees to lower the head count. We got to decide if we took it or not. id you accepted they would then figure out your exit date which could be anywhere from 2 weeks to 12 months out depending on company needs.

I don't know if it's an industry specific thing but my parents worked for big defense contractors and they would often talk about layoffs in conjunction with offers that people could take to leave voluntarily. Always signed crazy to me. My mom took one in 99, worked private industry for a couple years then came back to defense after the dot com crash for way more money.

It depends on where you work. But I've definitely been at a place where the first email was "we've decided to reduce staff in key functions, please read the attached offering and submit directly to your manager". This was a reasonably generous package, in one case health benefits would be maintained for nearly a year even if you had only worked there 3 years.

The next round was a security guy waiting in your office with a box and a packet of information about how to apply for unemployment.

Ask if there are VRIF (voluntary reduction in force) options open to you. Most of the time there are unless you have some kind of "special" status.

I've never known a company that is in the process of layoffs not jumping at the chance to VRIF an employee because it is a far cleaner termination and honestly less stressful and upsetting for all involved IMHO.

But isn't there an incentive not to do it given the payout they'd have to pay for someone so senior?

Keeping them around is expensive too.

But if the senior person is in a role that the company ultimately wants staffed, they're going to need to hire someone else to replace them, who will be new and less effective? (Though OTOH, given the current macro, maybe they can get away with paying the replacement less?)

In my personal experience some random senior employee isn't even pennies on the dollar when it comes to the total amount factored into the layoffs that are in the hundreds of millions.

The bigger factor is are you in a position that requires the company longer to replace you? If so you may just be in that shit position of being kept on another 6 months until the next round of layoffs and get a package half as good.

As the first poster said always get out first if you can as the packages never get better the worse a company does.

Never fool yourself into thinking you're too amazing to be let go and that is why you 'survived' this round of layoffs. The worst case is as I said, you are too good to be let go of yet.

I'd be nervous about asking this unless I'm 100% committed to leaving the company, even if they say "no". Otherwise, you ask, they say "no", but now you've signaled that you're not especially invested in staying at the company, which feels like a negative thing to signal if you're interested in staying.

(edit: The idea being that you might get fired "normally" as a result, and not get generous severance.)

You don't need to ask your manager, why not go to HR and stress that this is a sensitive topic you don't want making back to your team? No guarantee they'll honor your privacy, but I'd say it's worth a shot.

HR. Is. Not. Your. Friend.

This is sage advice here. Never fall into the trap that HR is your advocate, despite what they tell you.

This 100%.

HR is there to protect the company. Sometimes that aligns with protecting the employee but when shit hits the fan ask yourself does HR work for you or for the company?

I know I sound a bit 'down' saying that but it is an unfortunate reality that companies are not very loyal to their employees when times get tough.

In my experience, HR may act kind, but they are 100% aligned with the company and not you. Giving them a signal that you're open to leaving at a time when they're trying to reduce the cost of resources that are human is a terrible idea if you aren't looking to leave.

Find a trusted friend in the company who is a survivor and ask them. Survivors have strong information networks for office politics and know such info.

That would almost certainly make it back to the person’s direct manager or 2nd-level manager (director, VP, whatever.)

I've never had HR share that kind of information back to me. And I would consider it highly unethical if they tried.

You do that and there will be an email describing the conversation in your boss' inbox before you get back to your desk.

Don’t volunteer to quit if you’re not willing to lose your job is sound advice, even if it’s a bit on the obvious side.

Even in an economic downturn an engineer with Meta on their résumé is going to be well positioned to find employment inside of the three months or more pay and six month insurance runway this deal provides.

So don't ask if you want to stay.

Having said that, if you're going to be worried about possibly/probably losing your job 6 months down the road what does it really matter if you have signalled you're not very invested in staying? The company has signalled they're not very invested either is how I look at it.

>(edit: The idea being that you might get fired "normally" as a result, and not get generous severance.)

Of course I am saying this as someone in Europe where firing someone "normally" is a lot more complicated and time consuming and comes with a whole list of other issues a company needs to make sure they manage properly. They can't just turn round and fire you with no pay because you "showed you were not very invested in the company as you asked if you could be let go when we were letting go of several thousand people". That is a 100% guaranteed legal hell hole no company likes to be in by choice.

In America perhaps that is something you genuinely need to worry about I don't know.

You're definitely not going to get fired for that on its own. Maybe I'm over-estimating how much this ends up mattering. But I think it can matter in other small ways too that can negatively effect your career growth.

Once the redundancies have started, the clock is running: you no longer have career growth at that company. You need to start planning your next career move elsewhere.

I don't think this is categorically true... you think _all_ the companies that have recently announced layoffs are basically sinking ships?

But it does mean your options for promotion and salary increase are clearly limited. And in tech there's strong evidence that more career development happens when you move companies than within a company.

You may find there's nowhere better to go, but switching to "looking externally" rather than "looking internally" for new jobs is definitely a good idea.

> You may find there's nowhere better to go

Yeah that's kinda the rub right now though. Everyone's frozen, tons are laying off. If the only information you have is "my company did a layoff", it's not clear you're better off looking externally vs. internally vs. staying on your current team.

One bad case is you leave your company that just did a layoff for one that has yet to do one (but will need to soon).

I understand your concerns and certainly don't mean to minimise them, this is just my personal experience and opinion after all :)

Do what you feel comfortable with at the end of the day. My original reply was meant as one possible answer that I have seen first hand to work well for both parties.

I will add as another personal opinion though that I very rarely see people that choose to stay at a company going though layoffs hanging around very long.

More often than not those people experience a 'depression' (for want of a better word that escapes me as I write this) seeing their friends leave, not having the freedom the had back in the "good old days", little if any progression, the constant "sorry not this quarter, we're still recovering from the layoffs", living in constant anxiety that they will be in the next round of layoffs, etc. So they often leave within a year or two anyway.

Over the years I have played this game and now I am a bit more proactive about exiting before that 'depression' hits me. Of course what is right for me is not right for all, only you can truly decide what you feel is best given your situation.

This nervousness is what companies rely on to keep the ship steady during massive lay-offs.

In other words that same company that in its heyday relied on the person pulling an all-nighter 'for the good of the company' yet failed to ever offer a reciprocal 'sure, take all the paid time off you need buddy' in return gets what it earned.

Although you may hear the 'rats from a sinking ship' and 'you're deserting the company and leaving your colleagues to pick up the slack' shrieked from on down high by management - Fuck 'em. They didn't actually give a shit about you on the way up and they don't give a shit about you on the way down.

Jump fast, jump early, beat the pack

I don't at all mean that I feel guilty about abandoning the company or anything like that, I'm saying this 100% from a place of selfishness. Wherever I am, I want my manager to think I'm engaged, I want to seem like a team-player. I worry that otherwise, I won't do as well at perf, I won't get put on interesting/meaningful work, I'll be relegated to the side and not feel as integrated into the team.

It's possible some of these are unfounded/exaggerated fears, though?

If you're 100% set on leaving with or without severance, for sure ask. But if you think you might prefer to stay if severance isn't an option, asking feels risky.

I think what you are describing is both a reasonable worry and also exactly the kind of ambiguity the company encourages. You have no leverage if you're unwilling to leave, and it's foolish to initiate a discussion like that from a position of dependency.

I'm not suggesting issuing ultimatums, of course, I'm just suggesting that you mentally prepare for needing to quit first, otherwise it takes a real pro to have that conversation. I know I'm not good enough to do it unless I talk about things like that with my manager regularly already.

I do wonder if these are questions you can ask confidentially in a different way. Like I dunno how big your place is but you might find this information easily in a meeting with HR, but HR is there to help the company (not you) so it depends on their priorities a lot. It's a very reasonable thing to wonder about when tens of thousands of people just got laid off from similar positions... I'd think a reasonable manager or HR person would understand that. But I certainly can't argue that managers and HR people are all reasonable!

In general you're probably right. Though once upon a time I tried to volunteer about three different times and never managed to get a package. At one point my manager literally said "Shut up, you're not getting laid off so quit asking!"

When this happens I'm always expected to take on more work without a commensurate raise. That's why I always leave.

Prep hard. My 2c below, not trying to tell you how to live life :)

1. Review your finances. How long can you skip work without feeling financially stressed? This should include full expenses (medical insurance, family, etc.) and will determine the level of risk you can comfortably take with your job.

If you have 5+ years of cushion you can take a lot of risk. Even if the job market and your company both collapse you can downshift for a year or two and work on a new tech as a personal project. Droughts seldom last more than a couple of years. If you have less than 3 months of cushion, look for the lowest risk options (a strongest company you can work for) and try to build it up.

2. Decide whether you expect your current company to do well with the reduced headcount. If your company is publicly traded, read financial statements and analyst opinions try joining an investor call. Look at the outside information, not the HR infomercials.

If the company is expected to do well you can stay. Layoffs in strong companies often mean shakeouts beyond actual layoffs (teams merging and forming, etc.) and you might even be able to move to a better spot. If the company is in trouble, start looking for other options ASAP.

3. Learn what is the job market for your skills and if any adjacent areas have significantly better prospects (if so, buff up your skills). This can change quickly. Talk to your tech friends, especially those in hiring manager spots, to figure out if they are hiring/frozen/RIFfing.

> If you have 5+ years of cushion you can take a lot of risk.

In my own experience I think this is a dangerous attitude: anny other HNers out there that thought this and failed, maybe add a comment about your own experience?

I thought I had cushion. However that attitude led to me reseting my equity to zero when I was about 30, and it took more than a decade of my life before I felt like I was starting to recover.

Perhaps sometimes we had some luck, so we get some savings, and we then think “that was easy, I could do that again” and try something risky. But the environment or our circumstances have changed, and we can’t always replicate our past.

The other aspect is that I think we underestimate risk: for example when I was younger I would think creating a business worth a million dollars would be unbelievably great. Now I see that opportunity costs of a $X00,000 loss of income require a 10x return ($X million) to break even (to only just cover your risks). Also you need wayyyy more return than 10x to cover the fact that your time investment is not diversified: a 10x return on a game you can only play a few times is a massive gamble that you end up with nothing. You don’t want to end up with nothing after say 40, because the world starts to randomly switch into extremely-hard-mode sometime after ~40 (and everybody is unaware they were playing on easy-mode until after the switch changes).

I wonder if we are talking about different risks. If I may ask, in your case did you go through your savings over several years by using it for regular living expenses or by pursuing a business/investment idea?

I have seen people go from a good sized bank account to zero quickly by buying something expensive (a house, a boat, etc.) or by trying to start a business. One can always lose money on risky investments or outright gambling.

But I have never seen someone deplete a 5-year savings by downshifting for a period of time. I was talking about the second case: I do not have to worry about losing a job if I have 5+ years of living expenses. If I lose my job and have to cool heels for a year, so be it; there are still have 4+ years of cushion. My 2c.

Sure. Travelling lots led to low equity, then I got involved with a business that went nowhere which led to “having nothing”, followed by cofounding another business (zero money investment but plenty of time investment). My income went to nearly zero and my spending went very low for a couple of years: for example I was living in an abandoned building with some dodgy people. I still had backstops (I could get a job, parents could have supported me, and I live in New Zealand which provides social welfare). The second business I helped found is mildly successful (I think it will pay me back for its risk plus a little, but it cost over a decade of my life plus some other even heavier costs).

My opinion is tempered by watching so many others flame out when trying to start businesses. Early flame out is often way better financially than many years of not quite succeeding (a friend just sold a business for peanuts after nearly a decade: costs and benefits but didn’t get the success they wanted).

Part of my comment is related to something I just read: a summary of Warren Buffett’s investing as:

RULE #1: don’t lose money.

RULE #2: don’t forget rule #1.

I”m not suggesting we shouldn’t chase rainbows - dreams are awesome even though they are usually social constructs driven by status. I guess my comment could be summarised as: don’t advise people to take risks. Either they are risk averse, in which case if they flame out due to your advice, that is bad. Or they are risk takers, in which case they need the opposite advice - try to be more sensible and less gambling.

The median return from people investing time into a business is probably nearer to zero than I would like to think. The average return is insanely skewed by the 1 in 1000 outliers. https://80000hours.org/2014/05/how-much-do-y-combinator-foun...

I mean, the world needs founders, but I strongly believe it is not a financially sensible risk for the vast majority of people that become founders. I am assuming your comment was aimed at potential founders.

Edit: I just noticed this relevant note in https://www.sequoiacap.com/article/sam-bankman-fried-spotlig... about Sam Bankman-Fried:

  Here, SBF realized, was the rub: When he applied this principle to his own life, he came up short. There was little chance he’d get himself fired from Jane Street. Thus the decision to stick with Jane was a risk-averse preference. It was the logical equivalent of being offered a choice between $50 and 50 percent of $100, and saying, “Give me President Grant.” SBF was risk-neutral on behalf of Jane Street, but not, he realized, for his own life. To be fully rational about maximizing his income on behalf of the poor, he should apply his trading principles across the board. He had to find a risk-neutral career path—which, if we strip away the trader-jargon, actually means he felt he needed to take on a lot more risk in the hopes of becoming part of the global elite. The math couldn’t be clearer. Very high risk multiplied by dynastic wealth trumps low risk multiplied by mere rich-guy wealth. To do the most good for the world, SBF needed to find a path on which he’d be a coin toss away from going totally bust.

Also makes me think of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg_paradox

I dont know the law here, but it seems you can ask to review your contract, and insist that they include a minimum employment term or guarantee a severance package. They have two ways to say no. They can fire you then, in which case you get the severance, or you're free to look for another job in the period before they're no longer legally obligated to give you severance.

It seems that you should take as much advantage as possible of your legal status.

Well, if you're in a 'critical' position and you want to take a more 'wait and see' approach, retention bonuses are usually a thing for folks they don't want to lose in a first-round layoff. You approach that conversation like so, "I really love it here, but with the layoffs and uncertainty..."

Ask for a retention bonus.

Are employees able to “take” a layoff even if they don’t receive an email telling them they are among the affected group?

I was wondering about this as well, would be nice if someone could clarify!

It depends on the company and situation. Sometimes they ask for volunteers and you can request the package, most times you don't get a choice.

The writing is usually on the wall for a while before the layoff actually happens, so there's time for you to let your manager know that you wouldn't mind getting the boot.

Not usually in layoffs. In acquisitions or for old fashioned pension based companies sometimes there are voluntary “buyouts” which look like that.

If you're pretty close with your Director/VP, you can volunteer to be first on the list. Frame it as a sacrifice that you're willing to make to spare another member of your team.

Good advice, I have done this and it has worked.

It was petty, but I worked with a dude who got fired for doing that.

When he volunteered to get laid off (with the intention of getting a severance), the person he said that to fired him on the spot for "not being a team player."

Eventually, every last one of us were laid off. But it took six months and I used the time to find a new role and I also received a four month severance.

The "If you're pretty close with your Director/VP" part is probably important :)

Sometimes voluntary buyouts are offered before the layoffs. And they typically will make it seem like the buyout option will have better terms than the eventual severance package, to entice people to take it rather than risk getting fired down the road.

Yeah this is what I’ve seen at previous companies. Basically, they need enough headcount for it to not eventually proceed to full layoffs. It actually seems beneficial if you meet the tenure requirements, are still relatively young, and have a good network. I saw several people make out like bandits from those types of offerings.

Yep. I knew several people at a previous employer who got 1 year full pay packages and had a new job lined up within a week. One guy took an early retirement package, worth probably $250k at the time, left for two years and worked at a startup for a while, then came back and within 18 months took ANOTHER early retirement package.

In situations like this, it's usually too late.

Sometimes voluntary layoffs are announced, but really you need to be able to read between the lines and smell that something is coming before the layoff is announced. (The reason is that layoffs are usually kept confidential because no one wants to incite panic.)

What I did a few years ago was have a 1-1 with a VP and basically implied that I was ready to do something different. I ended up with a great severance package right as the pandemic was taking off.

I've never understood why people in middle management seem to be blindsided by layoffs. I've even listened to a manager tell the CEO this. Are they that oblivious they can't see the writing on the wall? Or is it all just a weird act?

You don't get to be middle management by NOT doing a weird act all the time

I'm not saying there won't be more layoffs, but I don't think this advice makes sense for people at places like Meta. They are generating a ton of revenue and profit even with the current economic conditions.

Not to be contentious but some people may ask, "How much of that revenue is real?" and, "How much of it is inelastic?"

In the case of Meta, Mark Zuckerberg has set the controls for the heart of the Sun. It has no future because Zuck will lose everything in the quest for a product nobody wants.

There's actually a bunch of us who do want it. I work in VR 5 hours a day. It's the dream for me.

There is VR and there is the Meta version of it. One can succeed despite the other, in fact, the Meta version of VR endangers the success of VR in general. Specifically, Zuck is working overtime and spending his shareholders money to convince people that VR is somewhere between Axie Infinity and watching paint dry.

Most of the VR advocates I know are no fan of Meta:

https://www.youtube.com/c/ThrillSeekerVR

What is missing from Zuck's vision is any of the understanding that can be had from or had about fiction. If he was willing to listen he should take a sabbatical and go watch Ready Player One and all of the Sword Art Online anime and then he should buy a Switch or a PS5 and get a serious gaming habit. At some point he might get some insight about virtual worlds that aren't just a pale shadow of the real world but rather a place you might really want to work or play in.

You're just not the target of the product.

Have you heard anybody say anything positive about Horizon Worlds?

If you believe that Superbowl commercial for Horizon Worlds is representative of what they think the market is it for people who feel like they are over the hill, the best is behind them, and they can recapture what it was like to live back in the day? (Is that you Zuck?)

I am very interested in getting a VR headset to help with some 3D GFX development I do, I like the Oculus hardware but I nuked my Facebook account a long time ago so it's not for me. I game plenty too but I try only to play games that are fun. (I am a little vulnerable to grindy RPGs, my son will smack me if he catches me…)

> Zuck will lose everything in the quest for a product nobody wants.

Quest, no pun intended?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com