Hacker News Reader

Comment by mcntsh | Hacker News Reader

I feel like there used to be somewhat of an unwritten social contract about things like layoffs before the holidays.

Seems exceptionally cruel. Honestly I feel sick to my stomach when I think about it.

The imbalance of power is simply too great. Even for high-value positions, and even in times of high job availability, employers can always afford (by every conceivable definition of "afford") to harm employees more than employees can afford to harm employers.

Edit: A healthy society is a high-trust society where the employee-employer relationship is more balanced due to the regular old humanity that you would expect by default from humans, rather than pure economics. You can't regulate the fundamentals of societal health. When people have less and less cultural attachment to each other and to the societies in which they operate; and less and less respect for the idea of plain humanity; this is the result. The US seems to have been historically above average in this regard, but is coming down fast. A few European countries seem to be at the top of this (highly subjective) ranking.

Unless employees unionize.

Exactly. Unions exist for exactly this purpose and have legal powers no employee will ever have.

Yes, though it really only helps so much with the broader problem.

It's the main building block of any broader solution. You need to have large, pro-worker organizations in play in order to fight for large scale change, whether that's in a figurative sense in the courts and legislature, or in a literal sense, in the streets of Krakow or Barcelona.

Let's do it. My contact information is in my description.

https://code-cwa.org/

https://code-cwa.org/organize

There's been a lot of effort to demonize unions. Many employees won't even try because they think "unions are bad" without ever been in one.

Everyone loves unions during layoffs. But when times are flush they don't want their bonus hindered or to "protect bad apples" or "lazy workers".

Being in a union involves give and take.

I was curious so I went to see what is there in terms of data and found:

1. "Firms and Layoffs: The Impact of Unionization on Involuntary Job Loss" - (2003 with data from 1997) https://ideas.repec.org/p/cen/wpaper/03-09.html

> Results show that the impact of unionization is not significant except for (1) establishments that operate in the non-manufacturing sector; and (2) establishments operating in industries that have major collective bargaining agreements which contain moderate employment security provisions. Under those conditions, unionization decreases layoff rates; otherwise, unionization has no effect on layoff rates.

Does anyone have anything more recent about this?

Point number 2 in particular strikes me as circular - unions did not impact layoff rates except in industries where the unions protected against layoffs.

This understanding of unions is as common as it is wrong. A union allows workers to negotiate contracts, meaning workers can have a say in how performance is assessed and how things like bonuses are handed out.

I am in a non-union workspace. There's no transparency on how bonuses or stock refreshers are handed out. A union contract could codify it.

The owner class wants workers to think unions will hurt our earnings because when workers are structurally unable to shape company policy the bosses can do whatever they want...and what they want is to maximize profits. (Like Elon Musk said: You don't need a union, I'll put in an soft serve machine for you.)

I can repeat as long as one needs. I work in Germany. Every big company is unionized. And guess what!? Bosses told, that 20% of the company will be laid off and it was ok for all union members. Packages were offered in few rounds. Home office forbidden. I didn’t got package, I left for a company with liberal home office ruling. Unions are beautiful cosmetics. When layoff happens it happens just like that.

Even for non-unionised people, labour protection laws in Germany are completely incomparable to the US:

1. Mandatory notice periods (3 months is customary, mimumum 1 month)

2. "Social selection", i.e. you're not allowed to lay off a pregnant person etc. unless you have demonstrated that there were no other people you could have let go instead

3. There needs to be cause. Downsizing can still mean you get laid off, but you can't just fire a team or an individual because you don't like them etc.

Of course, if you left a company because you didn't agree to their rules instead of being laid off, none of these protections apply to you - why would they?

Not completely true. It depends on company size. Big ones have always good lawyers for these times

The law is incredibly clear on these things, lawyers can't help you. The only thing they can do is confuse people who don't actually know the law and their legal rights - that does sometimes happen, but I'd say a small company is just as likely to do so.

Yeah, employees are kinda unfirable which has good sides and bad sides. People don't have to worry about their existencr, but that also means you don't need to do more than the bare minimum. Which many do, and in some way it's a comfortable lifestyle. OTOH you won't find any German companies paying close to what Netflix pays.

Unless employees save up money, then you are always prepared.

Still harms the employee.

Preparation isn’t free, and even if you’re prepared, you’re still harmed. This isn’t some moral lesson on independence and discipline. Companies don’t need any single employee as much as that employee needs their job.

You think you are harmed but if you recognized the alternative you wouldn’t be saying that. Countries with higher protections for employees have WAY lower salaries for everyone.

What if I told you salaries could go up if shareholder profits and management pay packages went down? You're operating from the idea that people with outsized pay packages are exceptional, when more often then not, they are lucky people benefiting from a dysfunctional system. Certainly, skill is involved, but you are weighing it too much from an outcome perspective.

I am a lucky person, but I see it for what it is, not that I am special or exceptional. A lottery ticket is not something you can base broad policy on, most especially considering the aggregate harm being incurred.

If you are not interested in a union, that is fine, it only takes a majority to win a union and 30% to hold a vote. Do you think 51% are making outsized comp and vote no? I'm interested to find out too as someone very curious.

https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em...

https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/what-we-do/conduct-elections

https://newrepublic.com/post/175274/gallup-poll-two-thirds-a...

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-closing-gender-...

Sorry I don’t like the current concept of unions that use coercion either through the state law or demonstrations. I’d rather they used private agreements instead of state law.

You might have to find a jurisdiction more to your liking then. Conversely, I don't like the current brutalist labor environment and do like these government and regulatory levers that can be pulled. Private agreements are worthless based on available evidence. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share. Consider non competes (private agreements) being invalidated, and the evidence they are a detriment to workers and innovation.

@toomuchtodo I would say that salaries don’t depend on shareholders at all but on the demand/offer balance of workers for a given job.

This is true, but at least you get what you pay for. I moved out of the US for a lower salary, but a waaaay higher total package. I have actual high speed trains that get me to my destination measurably faster than driving, my employer and I each have to give at least a 6 week notice for either of us to be dismissed, I have actual paid vacation that I can trade for cash (instead of magical “unlimited” vacation), affordable housing right on the water, an actual pension instead of playing a risky, slow moving, stock market game, nobody calls me on the weekends, ever. And so many other things.

So yeah, my bank account might be lower, but I don’t need nearly as much as I did in the US so it feels like I actually have more.

At some point I'm going to need a surgery that costs maybe $50K (and maybe a lot more if there are complications). How many people have that saved up plus living expenses?

I'd like to have "fuck you" (or even "screw you") money, but the healthcare system makes it pretty tough.

Tech that works over time is supposed to reduce the Price of a good or service.

Tech workers and their lifestyles are not sustainable if the Tech actually does that.

I think the power balance is fine compared to what once was or even could be.

Do you give Netflix 180 days notice or additional payments when you quit their service?

I am a W2/FTE and I have a job that I can leave with zero notice or consequence. If I was to get laid off I would imagine I would get some type of severance - even if only two weeks as that would be more than agreed upon.

There is no whip if I fail. No debt incurred if I fail to deliver on my "promises". I could definitely harm my employer with substantial consequences and I think the worst they could do is report my activities to the authorities.

If you act as if your employer has your best interest in mind, you're going to be in for a bad time.

You're the CEO of your life, your employer is a client, and your job is a business deal.

My advice is to do independent contracting for some time and you will have a better handle on negotiating and navigating the dynamics.

If they couldn't make it a couple more weeks without going insolvent, then Netflix is too far gone for me to want to commit to relying on them for a subscription.

There's no good way and no good time to fire someone. A decent exit package can soften the blow.

There's never a good time. It's always cruel.

Doing them on Dec 24, yes that would be a dick move to ruin Christmas day itself.

But mid-December isn't worse than any other time. People get severance so it's not like kids are going without presents -- these aren't hourly laborers we're talking about. And you can use the holidays to take some time to think about your next plan of action.

Depends on the company. A lot of companies only give a few weeks, if any, so you're scrambling for a new job in the middle of the holidays, when most companies aren't hiring anyway.

Netflix is different though. They tend to give generous severance packages.

The unwritten social contract is with shareholders. A layoff announcement is like a Christmas gift in a financial system that rewards workforce cuts.

Blood sacrifice to drive up stock prices, that hopefully stay high into the new year, that can pay the taxes on last years gains.

i think most countries have to pay you when they fire you like that

In Norway you need to have a (mutual) period of notice of at least 1 month, starting at the change of month. (I.e. getting fired now means working until at least 31 Jan). Contracts usually increase this to three months.

This is usually beneficial for both parties, as it gives the employer time to find replacements and the employee time to find a new job.

But we generally have far, far better worker's rights than the US.

https://lovdata.no/dokument/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-62/KAPITTEL_1...

The holidays coincide with the end of the year.

not fiscal year

Netflix's fiscal year aligns with the calendar year.

I don’t agree. A job today is no guarantee or even context for a reasonable assumption for a job tomorrow.

If the month of the year in which you lose your six figure engineering job is a personal factor: you are very plainly saving too little, spending too much, or both. In this economy you should have a minimum of 4-6 months of expenses in savings in cash.

> A job today is no guarantee or even context for a reasonable assumption for a job tomorrow.

This is rolling over in submission for evil men, thinly veiled in the language of badass cynicism.

Submission is living day to day without proper planning and hoping and praying that things will always be as good as yesterday.

I fully agree with that, it should be a very high priority to have 6 months of savings before you go on holiday or to a restaurant or anything non essential.

This is also on the front page:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38629355

Some of the people being fired will have been at Netflix less than a year and 6 figure of college debt and a hard-to-break lease on a $3000/month apartment -- do you expect them to have 6 months of salary saved?

I think it's less about the cash than the PTO. People plan ahead for time off during the holidays. If instead you have to spend the holidays frantically looking for employment, then you're massively stressed during what should be a time of relaxation. The stress placed on the employee simply isn't proportionate to how little it would take for the company to wait two more weeks to lay people off (or plan ahead and lay them off earlier).

To the OP's point. If you have a reasonable emergency savings account you will not have to be looking for a job over the holidays. Also there is no one looking to hire over the Holidays anyway so might as well take a beat, regroup, and focus on enjoying your time off. I know getting laid off sucks and is a kick in the gut, I have personally been laid off a few days before Christmas one year early in my career. Having the emergency fund made it not a frantic scramble and I was able to get another job starting in January.

Also one of the reasons companies fire them before the end of the year is if company pays bonuses and you are an employee at the end of the year you get said bonus even if you aren't employed at the company when they pay them out. I think a few states have laws saying you can't get around that by firing them a few days before the end of the year but I am not sure which ones.

> I don’t agree. A job today is no guarantee or even context for a reasonable assumption for a job tomorrow.

That's called lack of labor laws.

Sweeping generalizations, without any empathy or ability to understand circumstances different from your own is a recipe to become a person that is incapable of understanding others.

I don't see why this has to be some kind of common stance in the tech community. Yes many of us make decent money, but you have no idea what peoples life circumstances are. Learn some empathy before you comment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com