I can’t give more approval for this woman, she handled everything so well.

The backstory is that Cloudflare overhired and wanted to reduce headcount, rightsize, whatever terrible HR wording you choose. Instead of admitting that this was a layoff, which would grant her things like severance and unemployment - they tried to tell her that her performance was lacking.

And for most of us (myself included) we would angrily accept it and trash the company online. Not her, she goes directly against them. It of course doesn’t go anywhere because HR is a bunch of robots with no emotions that just parrot what papa company tells them to, but she still says what all of us wish we did.

(Warning, if you’ve ever been laid off this is a bit enraging and can bring up some feelings)

  • Humana@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    207
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    A story from back when I worked in HR. Finance handed HR a list of teams to reduce. HR saw who had lowest performance metrics or was most recently hired and earmrked them to be fired. Then HR emailed the managers and said, ‘we want you to follow around Angela and Brian today, the first mistake they make, write it up and terminate them’. The company had laid off too many people and several states it operated in warned the company they would seek payment if too many more ex-employees filed for unemployment insurance.

    Most employees skewed right politically and wouldn’t dream of fighting the company for their rightfully due unemployment benefits since they legitimately thought it was their fault, and many thought UI was socialism anyway.

    After witnessing this I immediately began switching careers.

    Remember folks, HR is not your friend, HR exists to protect the company from employee related lawsuits.

    • MiltownClowns@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      111
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      11 months ago

      HR is IT for people. Do you think the IT guy cares about all the laptops in the company? No, it’s a resource he manages. Do you think HR cares about all the people in the company. No it’s a resource they manage. Companies try so hard to make HR look like high school guidance counselors instead of the ruthless hatchet men they are.

      • CaptPretentious@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        59
        ·
        11 months ago

        IT guy here… Uh, no. I resent that you would group us with HR.

        At my work I keep advocating to give our underperforming hardware (aka old hardware) a second life by opening up sales for them instead of destroying them (except hard drives of course).

        When my laptop was acting up and was kind of crappy… I replace the thermal paste and replaced the old failing hard drive with a new SSD. At laptop is now 14 years old (Intel i5-540).

        • Deluxe0293@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          thanks for replacing the thermal paste, I’m POSTing now, but i’m still having trouble with (issue i’ve been told to open a ticket for but am refusing to do). can you fix that please

      • CriticalMiss@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I care about the laptops. I care about them a lot. People return them in a shit state, I clean them up take care of them and then advocate to donate them to schools in the area.

        HR are just that, hatchet men.

    • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I went through a lay off being a manager once. It’s not fun at all. We had the list and the metrics. But we were already pretty small and we really didn’t want to lose anyone on the list except for a couple people.
      So we basically gamed financial. Offered anyone that wanted it part time. Fired the few people people that were clearly not interested in working anyways. We did something else that I can’t remember, and we ended up being able to fucking keep everyone. It was amazing.

      Not even two months later we had to ramp up for the holidays, so everyone that willingly cut their hours went right back to full time. And we were offering OT too.

      Year later the company pulled out of the state. But until that time we kept everyone.

  • alienanimals@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    165
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    11 months ago

    HR are all class traitors. Their sole purpose in life is to pay you as little as possible and protect the people at the top who are stealing everyone elses’ profits. Fuck anyone working in HR.

    • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      100
      arrow-down
      56
      ·
      11 months ago

      That really isn’t true, and you would know that if you were actually familiar with HR.

      HR, for stuff like this, is just the messenger. Some exec told them to fire people, and gave them a directive on who to fire. The HR reps couldn’t answer her questions because they likely don’t know the answer.

      Yes, the job of HR is to protect the company, but mostly that’s protecting the company from the company breaking labor laws.

      But, I’m sure I’ll get downvoted to hell because the hive mind loves to shit on HR, which is exactly what the execs are wanting. They’re scapegoats.

      • alienanimals@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        59
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        I am very familiar with HR at multiple fortune 500 corporations.

        You’re so close to getting the point. You realize HR are the executives’ scapegoats. HR’s purpose is to serve the rich assholes fucking everyone else over. Anyone working HR is complicit whether they’re intelligent enough to realize it, or just a useful idiot. Execs want and need their scapegoats. People should realize this and avoid HR (class traitor) jobs.

        • rwhitisissle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          11 months ago

          HR exists to insulate people with real authority in a business from those who suffer from their whims. In a lot of companies, your job is to get yelled at so some ghoulish C level executive isn’t forced to strain their neurons processing the emotional reality of the fact that their decisions impact real people in negative ways. It might disrupt their “objectivity” and make it harder to issue layoffs next time.

        • ThyTTY@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          Well, if you’re working for that company in any other role your purpose is to serve the rich assholes anyway.

        • Fizz@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          20
          ·
          11 months ago

          Just don’t get a job in HR and no one can get fired. It’s that easy guys.

          HR is a legitimate job and serves and important purpose in the structure of a company. You can’t dismiss it by saying their purpose is to serve rich assholes because that’s the purpose of every job at a company. That’s work, that’s most jobs.

          • owen@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            11 months ago

            Except HR’s entire purpose is to insulate management. They’re not exactly producing anything

            • Fizz@lemmy.nz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              Production of goods is not relevant at all there are plenty of valid jobs that do not produce anything. Having an HR department in a large company allows other departments to focus on what they are good at and have HR handle all the employee contracts, hiring, firing, complaints, performance reviews, leave etc.

              • owen@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                11 months ago

                All those tasks you listed are really the responsibility of management. HR is basically the grease between the decisions of upper management and the reactions of the lowly prawns

                • Fizz@lemmy.nz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  They can be the responsibility of management in smaller companies but at scale they require a department.

        • Fushuan [he/him]@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Anyone in the company is serving the rich assholes fucking everyone else over. All the money they are producing goes to the rich assholes.

        • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          Better yet, get a job in HR and sabotage the company from the inside!

          Though, the reality is that most menial HR jobs are like any other menial non-decision maker jobs, in any other area of the business, so your argument is just as applicable to, and just as disingenuous, for most roles in any business — e.g. like arguing janitor’s at EvilCorp are complicit class traitors because they enrich EvilCorp and facilitate it’s success.

          • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            No. Most jobs do not directly involve enacting bad worker related decisions.

            An engineer will never, ever come in and fire you for some made up reason. HR will.

            You are conflating the fact that HR does not need to exist like the jobs that do the actual work need to exist. They are not the same. Ever.

        • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Wouldn’t that also apply to engineers working for those rich assholes? Because there are a lot of engineers working for rich assholes here who like to trash HR, starting with me.

          • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            11 months ago

            No. What? HR does company dirty work. Engineers do actual work. What the fuck is the relation there??

            • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              They both prostitute themselves to serve the rich to get more money even though they are educated enough to have the freedom to choose whom to work for.

              • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                11 months ago

                Ahh yes, and Marx wasn’t a real socialist because he sold books for money… You are choosing to miss the very obvious nuance and that is incredibly stupid to choose to do.

                • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  You’re talking about nuance after the vast generalization you wrote about HR? May beyou could self reflect on that nuance notion.

      • jimbo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Nothing you said contradicts the claim that HR people are class traitors. HR only cares about labor law so far as they can achieve management’s goals without landing the company in legal hot water. It’s absolutely not about any concern for the people themselves.

        • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          No one in any business cares about their customers or coworkers any more than they have to. Why would you think that the person at the supermarket cares about the weird story you have to tell them?

          HR doesn’t care about you because they don’t know you. Your coworkers barely care about you. Do not think people you work with are your friends. HR has no moral reason to do anything other than their jobs. Don’t rely on them for legal advice. They are just a mouthpiece for what has already been decided.

      • ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I’ve interacted with lots of HR employees over the years. And for quite a while my wife worked in that field, so I’ve had some ‘inside’ insight into the field. And I largely agree with you.

        Like with any field, there are good people and bad people in there. My wife (and most of her colleagues) was one of the good ones. She intervened many times at her old job to stop out of control managers from firing store employees for bullshit reasons. Yes, part of that was to avoid the company getting into legal trouble for it. But an equal part was because she wanted to help these employees, because they were clearly being mistreated by their managers. And while not to that level, I’ve been helped by other decent HR people who went above and beyond company policies to help me during things like bereavement and healthcare needs.

        I’ve also dealt with some absolute shit-heel HR people. People who would spend almost all day spying on employees using CCTV to try to catch them doing something - anything - that they could write them up for. People who would go out of their way to hide and ignore evidence of managers vindictively punishing employees who they (the managers) didn’t like. People would use their power as HR professionals to exploit vulnerable employees for sexual motives.

        It’s a mixed bag. To say all HR people are good is facile (side note: I know you weren’t doing that). And equally, to slate all HR employees is also wrong.

      • winterayars@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Being a shield against the decisions of upper management is the kind of class traitor work the person above is talking about. HR’s job is taking that kind of decision and turning it into something that can be executed with the least likelihood of an office shooting or lawsuit. Whether either of those things are warranted or not.

      • ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Yes, the job of HR is to protect the company, but mostly that’s protecting the company from the company breaking labor laws.

        No, it’s protecting the company from the consequences of breaking labor laws like the WARN Act, which may well apply in this employee’s case.

        Companies love to break the law. Wage theft is bigger than any other form of theft in the US. What companies don’t like is to be exposed breaking labor laws, or suffer wage audits, or having to answer to pesky individual suits from disgruntled workers they assume couldn’t fight back but miraculously did.

        Every single HR rep I have ever known – and that includes the ones I knew as friends outside work – made a knowing and openly acknowledged choice to check their conscience at the door to accept and keep those HR jobs.

        You can justify it however you like, but it’s a choice, each and every time you lie, and it is for HR reps too. It’s just a more direct path to the paycheck and yearly bonuses for them: they literally get paid to lie, to hide, to fraudulently conceal illegal acts, and especially patterns of illegal acts, taking place within the company they represent, and to destroy and deny the existence of evidence whenever the rare employee who can fight back raises their head above the parapet.

        And as a person who spent years in corporate America, I can’t even begin to tell you the actual illegal (and completely heartless and amoral) shit I have personally laid eyes on, like when I temporarily had to work at someone else’s desk: a low-level but long-term housekeeping employee who was injured on the job had asked to return to light duty for a few weeks in a letter with medical documentation attached, and I had to sit there with it all spread out on the desk in front of me with a sticky note attached to it saying “Let’s draw a line under this, find a reason to fire her” staring me in the face.

        If someone literally wants to lie for a living and be the dog that eats the other dog today, that’s on them. But stop trying to act like that’s NOT exactly how it is.

      • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        “Don’t hate HR! We’re not the master, just his trained attack dogs!”

      • BottleOfAlkahest@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        I worked in HR for a while and 80% of the job was telling managers/execs “you can’t do that to an employee”. It was defending the employee, arguing for better programs, planning events for employees/associates/team members. I paid for a Christmas event out of my own pocket one year because I was told there was no funding. I never got badmouthed or trashed by a manager. But after fighting everyday for associates it was really disheartening to see them say stuff like the person youre replying too. It’s one reason people who aren’t corporate shills get out of HR. You spend your day advocating for people and they turn around and spit in your face. After awhile you just ask yourself why am I turning myself inside out for these people who hate me?

        • TheLowestStone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I’ve literally never worked at a company where HR advocates for the workers. In 20 years, I haven’t seen it happen a single time.

          • asqapro@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            The HR team at the company I work for absolutely advocates for me and my coworkers. Their job is to protect the company’s interests and the workers being empowered is in line with the company’s interests. A close friend and coworker had a PM try to deny her benefits (both PTO and insurance) and HR stepped in on her behalf and forced the company to give her what she was owed. The HR team is always available to answer questions about how insurance works and how to plan for retirement, plus they go out of their way to host a yearly Christmas party and other major events. The companies you worked at might have had bad HR teams, but that doesn’t mean every HR team is bad.

    • thesporkeffect@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      The people doing the firing were lawyers, not HR, but you are absolutely right. If you are told to fire a bunch of people illegally, the only moral response is to refuse and if pressed, document publicly what happened (and quit or be fired yourself).

      Following orders is no excuse.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      It is actually such a shitty job and while good people may find themselves in it, only bad people stay in it for long. If you’re a great person and just spend your time bringing sunshine to employees then you were rolled in luck before you went into the fryer.

    • recapitated@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Ok, cut out the middleman and get fired face to face by someone even more profit motivated and psychopathic and disinterested in your person.

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        Pretty sure they don’t do that in the US cause the 2nd Amendment apparently says that we aren’t allowed to disarm a fucking toddler in this country, so the guns outnumber the citizens.

    • angrymouse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      This is the nature of the HR as a sector, not the ppl that work there. The lumberjack is not responsible for the deforestation. If you dont have any collective to help ppl stand their ground they will only follow orders to buy the milk.

        • angrymouse@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          You literally compared HR workers with the nazis, and you are not the first I saw in this thread, wtf are you all eating? You talk with ppl like that IRL?

              • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                Literally no, moron. You are fundamentally incapable of understanding that workers actually do work and HR literally is tasked with protecting the boss and company. It’s their job. They’d be fired if they were perfectly moral you fucking idiot. They’re REQUIRED to “just follow orders”. That’s the point.

                That’s why we’re blaming the position: The position itself is immoral when the boss is immoral, just like a Nazi soldier holding a gun and aiming at allies is immoral. It doesn’t fucking matter that it’s his job. The problem is the job exists in the first place, you pillock.

                • angrymouse@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  Yeah, so your solution for the capitalism is all HR resign? I love how you feel so smarter even so is completely incapable to think over a simple provocation. You are not even comparing the police, the state force that actually kill to protects the capital, with the Nazis, you are comparing the HR, like firing ppl and killing ppl had a “moral” equivalence to keep a political system.

                  And to glue this shit argument you use this abstract"morality" that have no meaning, exactly like a conservative would do.

                  You are not even aware that your hate against HR is exactly what your boss want, HR and middle managers exists with no other purpose than ppl stupid like you to hate them instead of the boss, and keeps the grindmill running.

                  You are much closer to a Nazi person than an HR that hates his Job, cause your hate is in the exactly place the leader wants, against workers and not against him.

                  You are too far of the reality to being so angry, maybe you should go to Twitter, there is a lot like you there.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        The lumberjack is harvesting wood which the population as a whole benefits from. They aren’t taking a side of one class vs the another class. Sure I would like them to harvest responsibly but even if they don’t they are still adding value to civilization.

        HR is not the same thing. When is the last time they actually helped you? I remember once the employee health insurance was giving me problems covering a medication for my wife and the HR bitch is taking the insurance company side. Telling me how they nice they were at contract time. Yeah mouthbreather of course they are nice, they scammed us out of money and you let it happen.

  • feebl@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    141
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    Holy fucking shit American corpospeak is pure fucking cancer. Just fucking talk normally.

    • Luvs2Spuj@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      11 months ago

      I understand how you are feeling, and nothing I can tell you today is going to be able to change that.

    • Randelung@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      11 months ago

      I only know American culture from the internet, and knowing all of the memes and blog posts and everything, it’s still mindblowing to see it in action to this degree and in a situation that is probably representative for so many.

      • lars@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        11 months ago

        As an American it’s a relief to hear there’s a place left on Earth where this behavior would still be unexpected.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          11 months ago

          Fucking Amen dude. I’ve traveled to other countries and actually cried a little at how straightforward things are there. It’s so easy to forget. This doublespeak shit creeps up on a people.

          • Zink@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            11 months ago

            Seriously. I’m an American who has traveled all over this bigass country of ours, but very little internationally. Last year I got to go to Scandinavia of all places, specifically Sweden.

            Obviously I already knew how their culture (and much of Europe) does things with a lot more focus on, you know, the people that live there. However, spending a few days there in person, and seeing the respect for self & others, and the dignity that brings, it changed something in my brain.

            Our culture is just fucked, and so many our people actively resist improvements or don’t even believe they exist.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      11 months ago

      This is, no joke, not trying to exaggerate, exactly the kind of language-as-weapon stuff Orwell was always talking about.

      Honest, authentic communication and doublespeak look the same on the surface, but the way they’re generated is completely different. One enhances perception and information processing using a shared semantic context built in the air between people trying their best to accurately describe what they see. The other degrades the quality of the language model in everyone’s heads, due to continually violating the relationship between words and reality, making everyone in the room less capable of understanding literally anything.

      Unless the person in the room doesn’t put up with it. Brittany stayed on task and didn’t accept bullshit answers, and so even if there were some consequences to speaking up (in this case it sounds like she had nothing to lose) they’d be less severe than the literal brain atrophy that results from swallowing bullshit with a smile.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      It’s not just in America.

      This kind of thing is one of the main products of the new style MBAs from the late 80s forward - it’s all about appearances and emotionally managing other people (notice how she says something and the guy goes “I understand”, “100%” or something like that and then just proceeds to not actually answer her question: it’s all about making her feel she’s being heard without that at all being the case, and he’s not even very good at it).

      The same perspective into managing companies that brought us calling employees as “human resources” and firing employees as “letting go” (or in this case, “recallibration”) normalized a whole discourse technique of half-truths, evading the question and in general use of Conversational Jiu-Jitsu (anything that comes your way, you just deflect it to the side) to manage a conversation.

      You see the same kind of think in modern Politics.

      Mind you, I’ve now watched more of the video and it’s really cringey how all sides are behaving: the guy clearly has no power whatsoever, she’s nervous as fk and doesn’t get it that whatever she says makes no difference at all (clearly the decision was already made well above that guy who go given a shitty task to do) and the HR lady is just doing the smart thing which is keeping out of it as much as possible.

      In her position I would’ve focused on extracting as much compensation as I could from them (not necessarilly money: something as simple as a great letter of recommendation that makes it clear it wasn’t about ones own performance specifically could be useful) or gone completelly around these people to make my case (for example, via my own director) as that meeting is at best a discharging of fidutiary responsabilities and the people talking to her are definitelly not empowered to keep her on and even if they did, they’re not going to risk their own careers for somebody they don’t know (it’s actually part of why she’s not getting her own director: she has chance at all appealling to these anonynous randos). It’s not by chance that the guy is going so heavy on “I hear you” kind of messaging: she’s supposed to feel listenned to so that she doesn’t cause any problems but whatever she says here makes no difference)

      • modus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        11 months ago

        doesn’t get it that whatever she says makes no difference at all

        She’s well aware she’s being fired. She’s trying to get them to admit that it’s not about performance and that she’s actually being laid off. She knows exactly what she’s doing and the HR goons are shitting their pants.

        • Aceticon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Well yeah, the recording of it does make it seem like she’s trying to extract something out of that meeting, but I’m unfamiliar with American employment legislation so I only have some vague that over there might be a legal/compensation difference between being “fired” and being “laid off”.

          • Eccitaze@yiffit.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            11 months ago

            Basically, companies are required to pay for unemployment insurance that funds the government’s unemployment benefits system. If you lay someone off, the employee files for unemploent, and gets paid a portion of their weekly salary while they look for another job (the amount you get paid and whether there’s any additional requirements varies from state to state, with Democrat-controlled states usually being more generous, but generally you have to show you’re actively seeking a new job), and the employer pays a bigger unemployment insurance rate to compensate for the additional burden the former employee is now placing on the government benefits system.

            However, if you’re fired for cause–say, you get caught stealing from the cash register–then the employer can contest your unemployment. If the employer can show you were fired for a good reason, the employee can be denied unemployment benefits, and the employer doesn’t have to pay extra unemployment insurance. This meeting is the company trying to cook up a justification for firing with cause, and the employee trying to get them to admit they’re just being laid off, because if the company admits during the exit interview that she’s just being laid off without cause, it’s nearly impossible to contest her unemployment benefits claim later.

            • Aceticon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Yeah, I can now see why the whole thing is basically the groundwork for a legal fight.

              That said she’s an amateur “lawyer” facing pros so the situation is stacked against her, plus she’s very nervous because she’s young and taking it personally, none of which are good for her side of the outcome.

              It is extremelly unlikelly that a nervous amateur with a massive stake on the outcome will manage to get anything useful in a legal sense from a professional lawyer for whom the whole thing is just a job.

              This might be one of those situations were the right strategy is to refuse to discuss it with the company’s legal team without your own legal advice present, or at least getting some legal advice upfront about what to get from them (say, documentation they’re obligated to provide).

              As with everything, not being the “easy pickings” increases your chance that they’ll just give in and pay up simply because it’s not worth the risk - it’s a lot better to pay somebody and have her sign a non-disclosure agreement on the whole thing than risking it going to court, their claims of “for cause” being trashed in a way that affects the entire strategy for laying all those people off and other ex-employees use that to get summary judgements against them or similar.

              Amateur trying to get them to admit she’s not really being laid off with cause probably counts as “easy pickings” for the lawyer on the other side.

              If there’s something life has taught me (in a very painful way) is to lawyer-up as soon as there are legal implications (fortunatelly, over here firing “for cause” - i.e. laying off - has quite a higher standard of proof for the company and can’t just be on them making claims of underperformance). Mind you, she was there for a short while, so it’s maybe not worth the legal costs.

          • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            Basically in a nutshell, if they can claim it’s “performance reasons”, they likely wouldn’t have to pay her a severance if that was part of the contract, and there’s a chance she wouldn’t get unemployment insurance either.

            I’m in the US and I’m not even 100% sure how much unemployment the company is liable for paying, but I know it’s a common strategy for any employer to abuse you into quitting on your own so they don’t have to pay it.

            If she’s laid off, she gets some support until she finds a job elsewhere. If they admit that, then she wins justice rather than letting them get away with theft.

            This is probably why these goons were sent in with zero data. They’re probably telling the truth that they don’t have these mystical “metrics and data points.”

            It’s as she said: company hires a bunch of people, probably makes a bunch of promises to them, and then decides they don’t want to pay for them.

            These are the kind of sociopaths that can justify just abandoning animals they’re tired of, and society rewards them for it through profits.

            • Aceticon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Here in Europe being fired “for just cause” does not impact unemployment benefits but does require quite the standard of proof (it’s can’t be just done on “your performance evaluation was not high enough”, and the company has to, for example, prove that somebody stole from it) but they can then avoid paying compensation. Also firing without just cause (i.e. laying off) is not generally possible outside the trial period unless in exceptional circumstances (say, the company has provenly been losing money and hence is firing a fraction of its employees).

              This does vary from country to country and is part of the basic employment law, so in places with strong Unions it’s even more strict.

              So this kind of situation in this video does not apply because to fire for cause the burden of proof is on the company, not the employee: she cannot be just fired “for cause” merelly because the company claims the underperforms.

      • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Honestly, it’s not just corpo talk.

        My mother talks the same way. “I understand that you don’t feel well. But you still have to do this completely brain-dead thing that everybody else is doing.” “Why? Because I tell you so. Do children not respect their parents anymore? I’m your mother. You must do what I say. Once you grow up, you can do what you want. But as long as you live in my house, it’s my rules. No, you can’t keep your door locked. Privacy? I’m your mother.”

    • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      “I hear what you’re saying, feebl, and those feelings are valid today. But unfortunately American corpos will not be able to change the outcome of how fking stupidly soulless they are today mmk?”

      You’re absolutely right. It is a cancer, and stupid trends like this spread until there’s no hope of escape and even a freaking gas station manager tries to talk to you like this.

  • mkhopper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    95
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    If anyone ever thinks differently, this video should convince you.
    If you work for a corporation, you are not a person with a name, you are a number. And that number is the amount of money given to you as pay and benefits.

    And when the corporation no longer likes your number, you can be unceremoniously shown the door, regardless of your past performance.

  • Kusuriya@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    74
    ·
    11 months ago

    love how its hey we will fire you today as a surprise after you’ve been told something completely different but we promise to tell you why later. I really this was just taken legally as an illegal termination. Because if it’s for performance that means you have data, if you have data you should be able to give me graphs and charts, stick figure animations, poorly acted corporate videos.

  • Daqu@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    HR is working their script, or they will be fired too. It’s like a fucking callcenter to destroy people.

    • TheDubz87@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      11 months ago

      Literally looped in circles over and over to avoid answering questions. It was so frustrating to listen to.

    • AlmightySnoo 🐢🇮🇱🇺🇦@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      This. I don’t think people here realize that HR doesn’t really have a say in this, they aren’t the ones deciding on the firing and they aren’t the ones who can undo it since they aren’t the ones providing the team’s budget.

      HR’s job in these situations is to do the dirty part: handle the announcement to each employee and damage control if necessary.

      The girl in the video is saying that her manager was “pleased” with her work and she didn’t understand why strangers in the HR department are doing the announcement to her: that’s the whole point, it’s very likely that it’s that “nice” manager who threw you under the bus when he had to make a choice on which people he needs to keep after top management told him to downsize his team but he didn’t have the guts to tell you that personally.

        • SheerDumbLuck@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Get paid to*. This is labour and we’re all exploited.

          Companies like this often hire external consultants to do the layoffs. They literally have no skin in the game.

  • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    We fired ~40 sales people out of over 1,500 in our go to market org. That’s a normal quarter. When we’re doing performance management right, we can often tell within 3 months or less of a sales hire, even during the holidays, whether they’re going to be successful or not. Sadly, we don’t hire perfectly. We try to fire perfectly. In this case, clearly we were far from perfect. The video is painful for me to watch. Managers should always be involved. HR should be involved, but it shouldn’t be outsourced to them, No employee should ever actually be surprised they weren’t performing. We don’t always get it right. And sometimes under performing employees don’t actually listen to the feedback they’ve gotten before we let them go. Importantly, just because we fire someone doesn’t mean they’re a bad employee. It doesn’t mean won’t be really, really great somewhere else. Chris Paul was a bad fit for the Suns, but he’s undoubtedly a great basketball player. And, in fact, we think the right thing to do is get people we know are unlikely to succeed off the team as quickly as possible so they can find the right place for them. We definitely weren’t anywhere close to perfect in this case. But any healthy org needs to get the people who aren’t performing off. That wasn’t the mistake here. The mistake was not being more kind and humane as we did. And that’s something @zatlyn and I are focused on improving going forward.

    -Matthew Prince
    Co-Founder & CEO, Cloudflare

    Nitter / Mirror | Twitter

    • tias@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      75
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      If he thinks it’s painful to watch then he should apologize personally to HER and her coworkers for traumatizing them, and give them a good severance pay. The way he phrases this as if he’s just shrugging and saying “we’ll do better at some unspecified point in the future, I’m sure” makes him come off as an inhumane piece of garbage with no empathy.

    • ChrislyBear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      11 months ago

      This asshat is also just beating around the performance bush that doesn’t exist, only to avoid calling the firing a layoff. Disgusting.

      • Lemminary@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        under performing employees don’t actually listen to the feedback they’ve gotten

        What feedback?

      • FuzzChef@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        51
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Did he though? I mean he perfectly sticks to individual shortcomings as the reason and even implies that she ignored feedback.

        • kralk@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          implies that she ignored feedback.

          I missed that the first time and now I’m angry all over again 😡

      • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        Dude, he didn’t really admit to any mistake.

        That wasn’t the mistake here. The mistake was not being more kind and humane as we did.

        He’s literally saying firing her was not the mistake. He still believes she should’ve been fired and not laid off. He also believes firing her based on nondescript performance metrics was right. The only thing he believes was wrong was how the firing was carried out. The only thing he’s admitting is that the firing wasn’t “PR friendly”, which is an indirect way of saying the mistake was getting caught.

    • Zink@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      This isn’t the first time I’ve heard “we need to fire people right away because it is GOOD for them!” from a corporate type, and it’s not getting any less ghoulish sounding with repetition.

    • Fades@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      This is the same piece of shit ceo trying to force their workers back to office too. Fuck this asshole

    • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      What feedback?? The feedback that said she was doing well from the people familiar with her work? Or the mysterious metrics she was failing to meet but also had no idea about? God, what an out of touch douche nozzle.

      Also, if they’re not a fit but still a good employee, LAY THEM OFF. But who wants to pay for all that messy extra stuff when you can just grind through the workforce?

  • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    Honestly the problem I see here is not the layoff, which was disguised as a “lack of performance”. Yes, it wasn’t done perfectly, but still, it’s no tragedy.

    What is definitely the problem here is the absolute lack of a social security system in the US. That should be implemented.

    • aard@kyu.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Here in Europe the 4 months she was at would be somewhere mid to end of the trial period, during which you can be let go without having to provide a reason on relatively short notice. This is also pretty much the only chance you get to easily let go a specific individual - so if there are indications it’ll not work out doing just that is a good idea.

      But having that done by arbitrary HR drones is just crazy, and obviously you’ll be entitled to unemployment benefits or other social benefits after that.

    • DarthBueller@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      11 months ago

      Don’t worry, so long as you say the magic word “intersectionality” it will be okay. It doesn’t matter if progressives spend all of our energy on shoehorning every issue into racism and identity so long as we say “it’s okay, bro - INTERSECTIONALITY.” See? Couldn’t you feel the magic happening?

      • Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Say you have no understanding of Intersectional Theory without saying you have no understanding of Intersectional Theory.

  • Aceticon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I only saw the start and the emotional vibes are pretty bad, and not just for Brittany (though, of course, even in the beginning she’s clearly already hurting).

    At least somebody actually directly got in contact with her, personally, rather than firing-by-email.

    If there is a lesson I learned way back at the beginning of my career in Tech back in the mid 90s is that you shouldn’t really go for the whole loyalty to your employee when they’re anything but a little company were everybody works together, because they will screw you over if its in their best interest, sometimes casually so, and those making the decision will never be in calls such as this one and instead send some poor sods like the HR lady and that director guy to do the dirty work for them and fell the hurt from the person on the other side if they have any empathy (which most people do have, which is probably why both the HR Lady and the guy were uncomfortable from the start).

    Also beware of the company trying to manipulate you as an employee to have your workplace be your entire social circle of friends and even like a second family: the whole point of that is to “retain” employees without having to actually pay what the market says they’re worth. This is actually a pretty old trick in Tech HR, dating back to the original Internet Boom.

    The whole loyalty of the companies to employees thing died in the late 80s early 90s and you should be skeptical when it comes to what the company “does for you” and ponder on what’s in it for them: for example, “free pizza dinners” are not at all about being nice for you, they’re about you working long hours for free (which would cost them way more than that free pizza if they had to pay for them) to enhance that company’s profits.

    It’s sad and it’s the World we live in: one were the real power of the land is Money and it’s mainly in the hands of Sociopaths.

    • UID_Zero@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      11 months ago

      My first job out of college was for an global company. I was there just over one year when they announced they were outsourcing us. On the day of announcement, there were two meetings. One way getting hired by the outsourcer, the other was being let go at some point in the next year (after turnover). Since subset of the let go group was booted that day.

      It was a great lesson to learn early in my career.

      My loyalty to my employer extends to the 40 hours they pay me. I accept my on call week three times per year, because I’m in IT and that’s just how it goes. But past that, I don’t care. I do, however, appreciate and enjoy my coworkers. We are friends, and no one abuses that friendship. I would miss working with them if I left, but that’s not enough to keep me where I am. I’ve been looking, but not terribly seriously. For the most part I’m left to manage my stuff, and I don’t get too much hassle from above. There is, however, a ton of corporate BS these days.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        I think what we do is called “professionalism” rather than “loyalty” - they pay us for our time and it’s a questions of professional pride and moral obligation that we are there doing the work for them, in a reasonable professional way to the best of our abilities, but no freebies.

        They might decorate it with “we appreciate your work” hypocrisy and bullshit, but they treat it as a “supplier” business transaction hence I’ll treat it from my side as a business transaction too, which means what’s in the contract is what’s in the contract and if I find a better “client”, I’m off.

        After less than a decade as an “employee” I actually became a freelancer and it has served me well and I never regretted it, even though I was in the middle of each of the industries worse hit by the last to major crashes, first Tech and after that Finance. Job security is an illusion, so you have to build your own security by making sure you’re well paid for your work and hence can fall back on your savings even when the whole Economy plunges and even the few genuinelly good companies to work for still end up firing most of their people.

        • zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Since when does professionalism include lying about the person’s performance metrics as the reason for the layoff? She professionally asked for receipts, they had none. These people seems to think gaslighting is part of being professional.

          • Aceticon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            I think you misunderstood my point if you think I’m defending the people who accepted to work in a job, HR, were they’re going to be firing people whilst trying to misportray it in such a way that the company saves money.

            Also, Professionalism and Morals are mostly separate things (though it has been my experience that those who are ok with working a job were they’re screwing other are also ok with screwing those who pay for their work).

            Sure, I can see how somebody in their first job might go into HR thinking its fine, but somebody with a couple of years doing the job either is a complete moron or has figured out what it really is all about, and that’s not about treating people well or even just fairly.

  • intensely_human@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    11 months ago

    You can see first the fear, then the thrill of battle in her eyes. Don’t take any guff from these swine, Brittany.

    • LeadersAtWork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Graphs. Executives love graphs. Numbers also mean different things to them, and changes better invoke noticeable change, preferably monetarily and with some sort of proof. This is for those quarterly meetings. Larger layoffs are often done for investors. It’s a clock’s pendulum. Pull back payroll, show the numbers and talk about skimming the fat or whatever, yell “look at us!”, profit. Hire a bunch of people, talk about a big product/project, yell “look at us!”, profit.

      It’s the capitalist endgame. You, I, little Johnny, and the kitchen sink if it could talk and move, are all numbers on an excel sheet. Plenty of exceptions exist, this remains the rule, however.

      • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Yup, and this is fundamentally down to the whole system being low-information. Workers, management, upper management and shareholders are all playing it close to the chest because they know they are pitted against one another. So much of corporate life is smoke & mirrors. It’s incredibly wasteful of information, of resources, and of the dignity of the people within it.

        EDIT: I didn’t connect the dots between low-information and graphs: graphs are an attempt to make the unfathomable complexity of many humans working together legible to the managers & the owner class, when they know they can’t trust those workers’ word for anything. So people make graphs to try to filter information they don’t care about - how is Marv from accounting feeling after his back surgery - from information they do care about like KPIs. It destroys most of the information and hence is easily gamed by everyone up & down the chain, which leads to this bizarre yo-yoing that makes the workers’ lives and the company worse, but satisfies the graphs.

        And it’s all because the owning class wants to exploit us, so they have to dominate us. There’s no getting around it, as long as this extractive system exists this is how it will inevitably be. No culture change is going to fix things. Only the workers being the owners will fix it.

      • Adulated_Aspersion@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        11 months ago

        Youre right. Because their bottom line is improved in the short term so that they can say “Look at how much revenue we made last year!”

        “And now look at how many people employed to gain that revenue!”

        “No, don’t look over the whole year! Just look at right now!”

      • UNWILLING_PARTICIPANT@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yeah in the kind of was that a shitty gambler plays when the “table (market) is ‘hot’” they feel overconfident and go all in, ignoring that the pieces they’re playing with are people’s lives

    • qarbone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      Because it’s easier that way. Rather than protracted recruiting processes that really dig deep into the current needs of the company after detailed evaluation of current projects and current manpower, just hire anyone who looks halfway decent and fire the ones that don’t seem worth it whenever is convenient.

    • Zink@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Because the guy who makes the big risky splashy changes to his department gets the promotion. The one who makes small continous improvements without fucking things up along the way flies under the radar.

  • net00@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    The worst thing is that there are many bootlickers out there. Worker rights are a joke and companies have infinite ways of fucking you over.

    In this instance the HR snakes were caught with their pants down and looked like imbeciles.

    But for example many people get placed on PiP with unrealistic goals, or harassed by management over petty mistakes. The only goal being saving the corporation some money by claiming low performance.

    A lot of people out there need to get their head out of their asses if they think this is ok.

    • xenoclast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I hear that phrase a lot like it means something. What is “COVID over hiring”? What does that even really mean?

      • hexortor@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Monetary policies and cheap loans from the government that stimulated the economy to counter the effects of the recurrent lockdowns. The opposite of what’s happening now (high interest rates to counter inflation).

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    The only time I got laid off was from a university where I worked. I read in the paper that morning that there were going to be layoffs and I came in and my boss was really apologetic and told me I was laid off. It actually went really well all things considered. I didn’t blame him and he was as nice as he could be about it, saying things like, “if you ever need a letter of recommendation, send me an email.”

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Right. This HR video shows exactly the wrong way to do it. Sometimes layoffs are necessary, but you don’t have to be an asshole about it.

        • maniclucky@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          11 months ago

          Wrong on a human level. On a corporate level, they didn’t admit it was a layoff and so she can’t sue them or get any benefits. Fucking sociopaths are punishing new employees for being hired after they botched the numbers.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          And you don’t have to lie about it. The lies gain you a little wiggle room for a day or two. Then your reputation is lower and everything is harder. These ghouls don’t grok that the lies generate a type of pollution that is far heavier than whatever near term benefit you get from lying.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      See? That’s the thing these HR types didn’t get. Britney’s loss of a job is bad enough, but it’s so much worse when there are lies on top of it.

      “Adding insult to injury” applies perfectly here.