Patagonia gave its staff 3 days to decide to relocate or quit | Hacker News Reader

Patagonia gave its staff 3 days to decide to relocate or quit

businessinsider.com

84 pointsA4ET8a8uTh088 comments

Open articleView on HN

>"The reality is that our CX team has been running at 200% to 300% overstaffed for much of this year," she added. "

It's a thinly veiled lay-off.

Agreed, especially given the other info:

- The severance package is apparently very generous

- The relocation package is just $4K, not at all generous

- They’re giving ppl just 3 days to accept the relocation option, too little time for most people to decide on a major life move

Sounds like what they really want to do is a layoff, which is fine (especially if the severance package is strong), and a normal part of businesses. But they didn’t have the guts to just do it, and instead are doing a thinly veiled layoff that makes it seem like the employee’s choice.

Imagine showing up to one of the hub cities ready to work after your manager assumed you were toast…

“Oh hi Mark”

Especially awkward if your name is Tom.

This is definitely better for employees who are on H1B than a regular lay-off. At least, they have the option to keep their job while looking for a new one. Otherwise, the 60 day clock starts and the employee may have to leave the country. Which is much worse than relocating to another state.

I would expect better for a company owned by nonprofits.

Ok so how would they have to formulate it if it was true? I really dislike these large corporations and their mechanical way of treating employees like cattle, but Patagonia really isn’t that.

All this “see? They are not the angels they say they are!” I see in the comments here really feels disappointing to me. We should be happy such companies exist, as opposed to H&M for example.

No company is "good" forever, companies are only "good" for as long as it is good for business.

I disagree, it’s a gross generalisation across millions of companies worldwide, and a very manichaean one at that.

“Good for business” is not something that is easy to measure and hence sometimes you make a decision without knowing what is better for business, which leaves the door open to ethics and moral values.

Example: „let’s reduce the waste we produce by reutilising more, which is going to cost us more in terms of logistics but if we can advertise it as green maybe it helps our sales” => impossible to conclusively verify, so what is going to drive the decision? Ethics, values (good or bad ones).

And all companies are not 100% unabatedly profit maximising machines. Some are, most of all the ones where faceless stock holders hold the power.

No company is anything "forever". What kind of statement is this, or is it just /r/antiwork propaganda.

Can you not just lay people off with a good severance package in America? Is there a reason for the charade? Maybe supposed to be better optics but definitely just looks worse

What? I've been laid off a couple of times without any kind of severance package. The severance package is the exception not the rule.

I was subject to a layoff at one point in my career and it is really up to the management. We ended up with severance, a year of warning the end is coming and some informal help with finding a new position. Then again, the company was removing its presence from state and it needed our help to make sure transition was smooth. I guess in this case, management felt there was no need for any niceties.

> The company hopes to bring staff together at the hubs at least once every six weeks for in-person training, company gatherings, or "Activism Hours".

For 90 people it can’t be that expensive for a company of Patagonia’s size to expense travel every 6-8 weeks.

With REI’s union busting efforts it seems that two of the biggest outdoor companies I respected for their values have gone by the wayside. I’ll be buying more from the cottage makers going forward.

"Activism Hours" - WTF is that?

Patagonia is involved in a lot of environmental activism, so I assume it's time for the company to discuss things like that.

https://www.patagonia.com/actionworks/about/

Not only this, but they are owned by nonprofits (The Patagonia Purpose Trust and Holdfast Collective organization) which uses income they get from the company for environmental causes.

If my employer ever setup “Activism Hours” the first words out of my mouth would be “let’s unionize”.

Idk what other type of activism would even make sense in that setting

It’s sad their employees are paying the price for the corporate mission that got the company so much good press. No one would fault them for donating slightly less if it meant taking care of their employees. Happy employees are good employees, which should lead to more profits, and thus more donations, in the long run.

Often however remote cultures quickly can fall to least productive employees set the pace of the larger org

My company closed my old office. Most were laid off, but I got to work from home. The larger initiative was to get everyone into a strategic office location, with the goal of fostering these collaborative cultures. Eventually I was forced to relocate to an office. The big new office they built was in a city chosen for its low cost. No one wanted to move there, those who were there wanted to leave. I was originally supposed to go there, but then got routed somewhere else at the last minute.

Fast forward a few years. I’m back to working from home, after ever promise around the relocation turned out to be a lie. That new office they were bragging about never gets brought up anymore. It was in a location people didn’t want to live, they didn’t get great people as a result. Any good people they did find eventually left the company for an opportunity in a better location. The office I left, that I felt forced to move, is about to be shutdown. The brain drain that happened as a result of all of this has been massive. There is no culture anymore, just a revolving door. It used to be common to have a room full of people who had been with the company for 10-20 years. They knew each other and there was a deep culture. Now, no one know anyone, and no one cares, because they won’t be around long anyway.

These office-based business decisions are nothing if they can’t get good people, and they push away all the good people they have. Culture takes time and doesn’t exist with high turnover. At least that’s been my experience.

Why are we acting like this is some egregious attack. This seems like a decent way to handle a necessary staffing reduction. How about we frame it another way:

1) You’re laid off, this is your final week, here’s a generous severance package.

2) Alternatively, if you’d like to keep this job, we’ll pay $4k toward relocation and you have three months to relocate to one of our 8 hubs. Let us know by Friday otherwise #1 is assumed.

Because they're gaslighting their employees, making it seem like the employees are making the choice and are thus responsible for it when they're not.

This has all the hallmarks of manipulation: force a life changing decision without enough time, then weight everything monetarily towards the "decision" they want the employees to make.

It's cowardly and disingenuous.

It doesn’t hurt to have the option

But then call it what it is: You are all fired, but we may rehire some of you if you move to one of our hub.

Firing and rehiring would be very expensive, not to mention more disruptive to employees.

> This has all the hallmarks of manipulation

Why is it accepted as "normal" to have such a relationship with your employer. We accept the fact that HR lies to us, we accept the fact that CEO lies to us, and it's becoming increasingly acceptable for our managers to also lie to us. Imagine saying in 2024 "my husband is good, he beats me only once a week" this is literally the same type of behavior, because we accept the fact that the entity that our lives depend on is fundamentally hostile to us and it's all about who outmaneuveres who

I think part of it may be the surprise at a company like Patagonia treating its employees like this.

> treating its employees like this

This is the point of view I'm struggling to understand. Patagonia is a business, one of many who overhired during the pandemic, and now they need to reduce staff and made a decision to mandate a RTO. Why is there this expectation that an employer-employee relationship is some enduring pact that can never end? If we can trust that severance is indeed generous, how are the employees being treated poorly? An employer is not required to pay any severance, nor are they required to provide a job for them at their in-person locations.

Everyone is just struggling with the fact that traditional employment is dead and outdated. Nature keeps trying to nudge us toward being contractors but most people frame this in their mind as some sort of regression. The real regression is trying to remain an employee (family member) in a world that doesn't favor that.

We are, I think, allowed to be repugnanted by a world which keeps showing us how callous cruel & uncaring it is.

It's up for debate what's regression & what's norm. The tough love crowd loves to pretend like this is how it always has been, but there's just no historic evidence about for showing what totalized every business versus literally every other business on the planet looks like. You have to be a dumb fucking sap to not see that things are different as fuck. (And heartless & brutal, if you accept this is the way.)

Why anyone things we should accept this shit is beyond the pale to me. The purpose of a business is to provide a good way of life for the people in it. Anything else creates irresolvable internal tensions that will not be good for this world, and which will drive a company apart from excellence ongoingly.

$4k is a slap in the face for someone who wants to keep their job.

Only $4,000 to relocate? That doesn't seem even close to the amount it would cost me. Breaking leases, selling your house, moving belongings. Much more than $4,000.

But the good news is that when they fire you in one of these states, they don't have to pay you much severance.

The 72 hours is even more egregious to me. You're supposed to make one of the biggest life decisions you'll make (moving your family cross-country) in that time, with 0 advanced notice? Absurd

I assume the thinking was that they had to lock them out (?!?) while they decide, so it has to be a short window.

The idea that you have to lock your employees out is so incredibly antagonistic that I cannot imagine how people stand it.

Imagine telling your kids that they’re suddenly moving away from all their friends and uprooting their lives for a job that obviously doesn’t respect them. What a nightmare.

So Patagonia is going to lose all the talent who have enough skill to find new jobs where they want to live.

Watch, next year there will be even more layoffs as they fail to hit their numbers since all the remaining folk are under-performers who had no choice but to move to keep the job

> Since September 2022, Patagonia has donated more than $71 million in earnings to numerous charitable and political causes, The New York Times reported earlier this year.

https://archive.is/kut8Y

Rough math at 100k / employee / year is 18 million cost over 2 years.

Edit: Patagonia plans to donate 1% of proceeds under the "1% for the Planet" pledge: https://www.patagonia.com/one-percent-for-the-planet.html

Their other past actions including knowingly selling products containing known carcinogens and exploiting slave labor can't be brushed under the rug with some greenwashing or philanthropy PR.

1% has existed for 40 years. More recently, they restructured as a nonprofit, somewhat similar to what Bose did (Bose profits go to MIT, Patagonia to environmental causes).

I’d take the severance. Happily. I don’t want to live in such metros.

"CX employees are now expected to live within 60 miles of one of seven "hubs" — Atlanta; Salt Lake City; Reno, Nevada; Dallas; Austin; Chicago; or Pittsburgh."

All of these places are aggressively poor choices.

The article mentions they specifically didn't choose the corporate headquarters in California as a hub because it wasn't low cost of living

I moved to Dallas from NY last year and am really enjoying it.

In what sense are they poor choices?

Either your living somewhere that is very hot for a good chunk of the year and has a rapidly increasing cost of living, or your stuck in the rustbelt.

Most of these cities aren't renown for their access to mountains or large state and national parks, making it much harder to enjoy the outdoors lifestyle that so many Patagonia customers participate in.

Reno is right next to Lake Tahoe, a very popular outdoor recreation area, and the Tahoe National Forest. It's also just a couple hours from Yosemite.

Salt Lake City also has fantastic wilderness nearby, and one of the best winter sports scenes in the nation. Perhaps in the world - they hosted the Olympics in 2002 and probably will again in 2034.

This is gross. What’s the corporate motivation to not just call it what it is - a layoff?

Because they're doing it for a "vibrant team culture"

The type of culture that caused the company to shut off access to your laptop

They're a "family". And, truly, who among us hasn't turned off a family member's door code and escorted them to the end of the driveway?

Because layoffs are, rightfully, in the spotlight as distasteful, cruel, and usually not based in financial reality right now. They get severe negative press, because they're severe negative actions (while companies rake in record profits - I'm mostly not talking about little seed-A-B-round startups going under here). And so companies are trying to find creative ways to avoid that negative press, IMO.

Yep. It's a passive-aggressive way to blame the victim for not participating in gotcha capitalism.

other than when there's an actual legal implication: why does it matter what it's called?

This sounds like constructive dismissal, which is illegal.

Labelling laying people off as them “quitting” is also illegal.

How is it constructive dismissal, unless you didn't read any of the specifics of the article?

I just remembered there's a bit of a saying here when someone is told to go very far away (or to go f*k themself), "lo mandaron a la Patagonia" ("he was told to go to the Patagonia").

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Send_to_Coventry

Hope nobody fell for it and took the relocation. More than likely they will just pip or lay you off soon after arriving.

“We noticed your performance slipping. Please give us a status report in blocks of 15 minutes daily.”

> The company said it's trying to improve team culture and support business needs.

AKA, "lets force people to quit so we don't have to pay severance and save on payroll this quarter"

According to the article, employees were allowed to take a “generous” severance package if they did not want to relocate.

Judging by their $4000 relocation offer, I'm not sure the word "generous" is appropriate. "Hey! How'd you like that juicy $500 severance package?"

They have 3 days to decide but 3 months to make the move. Not as bad as it sounds at first..

Say yes and then just don’t show up at the end.

That probably disqualifies them from the generous severance package.

Unbelievable. Such hostile management tactics feel like a layoff strategy in disguise. Relocation grants are all very well but those could easily be swallowed up by a renter having to break their lease conditions.

Em I only one who finds their clothes ugly? Without their big Patagonia logo on those clothes, I think most people wouldn't pay attention.

RTO ultimatum means they're definitely a soulless corporation. Oh and don't forget their history of use of carcinogenic materials and slave labor.

@Dang

Why was this post kicked from the main page? Is there an explanation on why to moderate like this to move it next to posts 2-3 days old?

74 points, 73 comments, 9 hours ago posted but #350.

I read it earlier and wanted to come back to it later and could not find it. I was logged out and was able to find it from [new] and through search. Thought it was a bug then clicked more and ctrl+f until it showed up on the main news link page 12.

https://news.social-protocols.org/stats?id=40834305

A rational answer would be 100% staff resign suddenly, not only for them but for all enterprises mandating RTO. Aside new website listing "anti-progress enslaving firms" with a "hall of shame": guys do not even send a CV to them.

If this happen for real RTO disappear, if not... You know that the sole purpose of the office is keeping people in dense cities to keep financial capitalism alive on the shoulders of all. Choose.

I honestly wish WFH was a movement that had a face ( that could be trusted ) to pull something like that off. I would love to see it, but it would require actual coordination.

Well, modern IT seems to be the best tool to coordinate... And most potential WFH people actually are in or anyway use, so should at least know enough, such powerful tool...

My fear is that people today is unable to unite in general, for no matter what.

You do have a point. Tools are there. What this suggests is kinda depressing though: 'People are unable to think in terms of their own self-interest when it means acting as a group'.

edit: I am expressly not volunteering, because I am not a leader and have a charisma of a wet noodle. I do, however, perceive a strong need for someone, who could rally WFH people.

edit2: There are, naturally, risks including that of corporations starting to equate WFH with union organization ( and I almost wonder if it is part of the longer term strategy ). but that one seems more far fetched.

>Workers were offered $4,000 toward relocation costs and extra paid time off. Those willing to relocate were told to do so by September 30.

It looks like just saying yes buys you an extra 3 months and paid time off to interview to find a new job.

Do that and you'll lose your severance

which is fine if you have another job lined up imho

Yeah but why bother if the severance is that good? Just take the money and run.

it's often easier to get a new job when you already have one. the severance would have to be worth a significant number of months of pay before it pays for the longer time looking for a job afterwards.

You usually need to return relocation costs if you quit within a year, and they'd lose out on the severance as well.. But yes, it does make sense for some people especially ones on a work based visa.

I moved cross-country in 2012 and got 12k to relocate. For. an. internship.

The times have changed for sure.

If they don’t want them anymore why not just lay them off? Why this beating around the bush, slimy bullshit?

Seems like a scummy tactic to force people to quit (so Patagonia doesn't have to pay severance or unemployment). Guess they aren't quite the wholesome do gooders they market themselves as.

They’re paying severance to anyone that says no.

Patagonia is just a tax haven now that the founder passed right?

He's alive

You are correct, my mistake, but the company is a tax haven now.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-15/patagonia...

[2] https://qz.com/patagonia-s-3-billion-corporate-gift-is-also-...

It was the North Face founder that passed.

That doesnt mean that this company is not a tax haven now. (I thought he had passed, but just change the company to keep his kids safe from taxes when he does pass)

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/patagonia-big-climate-donati...

[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-15/patagonia...

[3] https://qz.com/patagonia-s-3-billion-corporate-gift-is-also-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com