Hacker News Reader

Comment by robin_reala | Hacker News Reader

“every laid off individual” should be “every laid off individual with a LinkedIn account”.

Actually even this is wrong. Every laid off employee with a LinkedIn account that changed their employer on LinkedIn. I typically am not in a hurry to change mine.

Waiting 2-3 months to see if new job is a good fit is usually a smart move.

I don't know if people are still doing the /r/overemployed thing, but I imagine you aren't in a hurry to change it if you are.

It's also possible that the recently-laid off are settling for lower salaries but more employers to make up for it

I guess now managers would be way less willing to accept underperformance though... and more picky on recruitment.

The analysis is full of bad assumptions. For example, the section titled "Top Impacted Countries" is completely off: the article was written in Feb 2023 and in most countries the layoffs hadn't even begun back then (in a bunch of countries, including a couple "analysed" in the article, the layoffs are still to take place as I'm writing this).

If you want a more comprehensive list, here's a list of all the employees anonymized by title that were laid off in California (the only state with google warn filings that publicizes titles in their warn records): https://www.warntracker.com/?company=Google

And only about half of the programmers I personally know have LinkedIn accounts in the first place.

I have one. Although it says I work at a place that shut down in 2017.

Mine says "see my Github".

I wouldn't be surprised if most FAANG and similar tier companies require a linkedin account; mine did.

HR sent policies, and would help you with a headshot, with the idea you'd use that w/ your email, Teams, etc. as well.

Is that requirement to aid in the prevention of double-working?

That is, people who accept two full time jobs and do a half-assed job at both of them.

Usually those people do quarter-assed job at best - unless you literally have work that could be done on upwork.

That sounds spicily illegal to my (admittedly EU-based) eyes, unless it’s literally written into the contract.

Spicily? What is that supposed to mean in this context?

plobably because the user was tricked by spellcheck...

I sort of like it, but I would bet it was supposed to be "suspiciously".

HR can say a lot of things, and you can ignore them.

Neither Facebook nor Google requires employees to have a LinkedIn account.

> I wouldn't be surprised if most FAANG and similar tier companies require a linkedin account; mine did.

What?? Companies do this? Such a requirement is so crazy that I would drop the company as a prospect immediately even if I had a LinkedIn account.

Surprised any FAANG uses teams. I think the only headshot you might need is for your badge, can't imagine any serious company mandates LinkedIn (that would be your boss deciding that and not HR).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com