HackerOne lays off 12% of its workforce
hackerone.com
hackerone.com
Sorry my little Hackeronie. I'm afraid I'll be firing you now.
Not even an iota of professionalism.
Should’ve written the firing letter in the following style:
> Hackeronie, I'm vewy sowwy to infowm yu dat due to cuwwent economic challenges, ouw company has been facing diffwicult times. As a wesult, we have to make some hawd decisions, and unfowtunately, we need to wetch yu go.
> We tweasuwe youw contwibutions and effowts to the company, but fow ouw sustenance, we must wemode ouw stwuctuwe. Pwease know dis decision was not made lightly, and it in no way wefwects yu peawsonally.
> We hope yu undewstand the situation and yuw suwvivaw as well. We wish yu the best in finding new oppowtunities, and if ouw conditions impwove in the futuwe, we would be mowe than happy to weconsider yuw. Thanyu fow yuw time with us, Hackeronie. OwO
*notices your lack of employment*
Hackeroni sounds like a pasta, and I'm sure I'd meme the shit out of it if I worked there
I would do the same till they fire me.
I'm not a Hackeroni or a Twittarian- I'm an adult individual who exchanges time and skill for money.
I get paid as long as I'm useful. When I stop being useful the company has no qualms about me not being a Hackeroni or a Twittarian anymore.
From an outsider looking in on this one... I dunno. Firing your beloved hackeronies kind of grates.
There's not much middle ground between "try to have some fun at work because there's no reason not to" and "don't do something someone might take issue with". A completely sterile work environment isn't really any better, and for some it's definitely oppressive and worse.
Is it sometimes an intentional cult-building tactic? Definitely. Is it always? Heck no, people come up with in-group names all the time. Groups of all kinds develop their own terms and memes and whatnot, it's normal.
There’s a whole Earth between no fun and clown fiesta.
What? There is miles of middle ground there.
Keep in mind you can't make anyone uncomfortable, because uncomfortable people come to internet forums and talk about being uncomfortable.
People vary a lot in what they accept. There may be plenty of room for you, but for everyone? I wish you luck.
(To strain the turn of phrase to its breaking point.)
e: I mean, shit, even in the false dichotomy of "make no one uncomfortable" and "make everyone uncomfortable" there is middle ground: making everyone a little bit uncomfortable vs making everyone extremely uncomfortable.
You're saying there are pure non-creepy fun actions for everyone that a business can do. I'm saying it's too gray to make that assertion, not too black and white. So I'm curious what you think is perfectly safe for everyone.
that said:
> You're saying there are pure non-creepy fun actions for everyone that a business can do.
I didn't say that. I don't think you'll please everyone with team-building exercises and frankly some people find the entire concept distasteful which is fair enough. That doesn't mean that all team-building stuff is equally bad (or, equally good).
I mean that "fun harmless in-crowd things" can be disturbing from the outside - context and intent matters. A strange in-crowd name is pretty far down the "there are harmless causes for this" side of things imo. Using it in a layoff announcement is probably not the best place though, unless they honestly think the laid-off feel good about it. A large enough package might achieve that tbh, but that's obviously rarely the case.
I'm honestly not sure if there exists a thing that a business can do that its employees would enjoy that will not be interpreted as creepy by some. Everything excludes someone somewhere somehow, the most you can do is target your crowd as best you can... and people commenting on a forum are not in that target audience, so I find the obsession over the name here to be pretty dumb. (Not claiming you're obsessed, just that it's the majority of the comments here so far)
IBMer back in the day felt natural and inoffensive. But it was also pretty generic.
Organizations of even moderate size and it gets slapped on like a label on your forehead by management… and it starts to feel weird and insincere…. and as they trend towards cutie affectionate names it gets really creepy IMO.
Personally I prefer a little more professional disconnection.
But "digit" to refer to DEC employees never really did.
It's when execs use it that it becomes idiotic and insufferable.
Whereas a company can tell you to fuck off for literally no reason, give you nothing, and shove you out onto the street with no healthcare and no salary, and then sue you if you if you try to do anything about it.
I never pushed back on it because I figured I'd just come across as a killjoy.
That said, management should really not be using those names.
That's not so. I haven't actually worked for a company where the employees call themselves any kind of special name.
I always say "____ employees" or "____ team members" because that's the culture of where I work.
I show I'm part of the culture by working well with my team. What more is really needed?
You can use Foo Corpians in like a invite to the yearly softball game.
In situations like these it gives psychopath vibes.
“make it lean and bony”
Fired 12% of staff
And called them hackeronies
> lays off swaths of workers unceremoniously
> cuts back on perks
> bans political topics and other non-work conversation
> starts rigorously evaluating employees, "it's not stack ranking" but it's just as bad
Hang on, maybe old school professional office culture had a reason... To make people focus on work.
Boy, I sure wish that my current employer banned such conversations in the workplace. They make things really tense and uncomfortable.
I don't think companies like Walmart, McDonalds, JPMorgan, etc have nicknames for their employees. Does anyone know when this all started?
At some point, though, some companies started adopting such language in official communications. In my opinion, that's when it becomes cringe.
That's just basic logic.
Translation: we can't just dump people from one day too the next in these countries because of worker protection laws.
A company is not your friend.
To quote Bob Seger:
"I used her, she used me but neither one cared We were gettin' our share" - Night Moves
That is a corporate relationship. Nothing wrong with it. But always keep it in context... if ya ain't getting your share, go get it elsewhere.
They both know the rules... and they both are enjoying the profits.
If a company wants to make a major commitment to me, I commit back. But note: commitments come in the form of money and actions. Not talk.
If the company wants to have a fling... I consult by the hour too. :)
Mercenary attitude is the healthiest attitude there is. It’s not hypocritical, it’s not elusive it’s what it is.
edit:
> Can you tell us more?
I literally can't actually, at least not as a reply to you, because dang has once again limited my ability to post on HN. Too many left-leaning folks here already, I guess. Here is what my reply would have been:
> If you're happy with the wholly adversarial relationship between employee and employer along with management practices that pit people against each other etc then more power to you. If you think this results in the best outcomes both in terms of working conditions and also productivity, then go off king. I don't think anything I could say here would convince you otherwise, anyway.
...and now I'll be exiting this conversation as I've been given no other choice - see ya!
It's just a consequence of what each person wants out of the relationship. The employer wants to extract as much labor as possible for the minimum price. The employee wants to extract the maximum price for minimum labor.
Many employers have an unrealistic expectation that their employees will have the same passion as they do about the product/company. What makes it especially heinous is that the employer will become wealthy off the labor of the employees, and then be upset when the employees want a piece of the pie.
Can you tell us more?
There's many things, like stability, and how the firm treats you that SHOULD be considered. But they should be considered, as benefits, and given a value.
I faced this on my last job search. I ended up declining a FAANG to goto a small firm. No regrets when the FAANG laid off a few months later like I predicted they would.
... Always watch out for yourself. Money isn't the only thing that matters. Relationships matter etc.
But as always: Business, is business, nothing personal.
I have personal relationships with my coworkers, even with my boss; just not with the company itself.
> strong connections with our fellow Hackeronies
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cutsie
But my use of it predates the internet. I suspect this is a regionalism.
That’s a big red flag in any company when they start labeling their employees like that.
This stuff is just so bizarrely funny at this point it feels like a self-aware postmodern joke.
does this mean the pentest industry as a whole is in decline? or did h1 over invest and is having a hangover now? or are competitors starting to drink their milkshake? or is shift left working?
i do also wonder how this affects their downstream contractors. “flours” to be consistent with their employee naming scheme.
thanks