Accusing them of laziness and stealing, a CEO conducts a 900 person round of holiday layoffs right after closing a huge fundraising round

So, not getting paid to listen to the rest of it? That’d be the moment that I hang up.


It’s 100% narcissistic abuser talk.

“Look what you made me do! I hate it when you force me to hurt you!”


Wait, they can fire you for being lazy at work?

I - uh - I’ll see you guys later…


Somehow I doubt that claim would withstand any kind of rigorous analysis. That’s the trouble with management that reduces work to simplistic (but measurable!) statistics: It encourages bozo math that can “prove” just about anything.

“Fire all the below average employees!”


Might as well re-brand to worse-dot-com with a sociopath like that in charge.

As usual in late-stage capitalist America, a rising tide swamps most boats while those on the yacht barely feel anything.


Simultaneous boing?


I believe, in California anyway, this would be considered illegal and there would already be a 900 person lawsuit claiming wrongful termination, discrimination, and who knows what – a layoff is when your business is not performing or has changed and your employment needs have changed so you must let people go with the implied/bullshit hope of business restoring and you can bring them back.

If you opened the same exact job as you let these people go from theoretically you’d have to contact them and offer it back as a layoff.

People getting their job done in 2 hrs instead of 8 is certainly a resourcing problem on the Managements side but laying them off during the holidays because you overhired, right after raising $750MM when the person at fault was the hiring manager who approved 900 people to do 200 people’s worth of work? This is a dick move.


Not even a Jelly of the Month Club membership as severance.


what he didn’t point out was that those 2 hours were from weekends and holidays

and if you let people have that, they’ll be asking for lunch and bathroom breaks next


Right!?! The one time I worked for a company that laid people off, this was exactly the reason. Of course, their solution was to bring in a “six figure guy” to straighten things out. He didn’t.

And nothing is more infuriating than hearing how firing someone hurts you, personally.

Only if you’re not in the C-suite. Then you’re free to spend literal hours at lunch “meetings”, preparing for tee-time, taking “VIPs” to strip clubs and flying all over the planet for things that could be accomplished via Zoom.

But you, my friend must install HR’s payroll app that tracks your location at all times just so they can assure that when you clock in you’re actually where you’re supposed to be and not a minute late!


Wow. That’s an absolute dick move. and no advance notice? that’s definitely inviting lawsuits. (We had a month’s advance notice of the intention that [ISP] was doing a RIF(reduction in force), and our tiny little department avoided the first round, but in the end, we all knew it was going to hit us and were able to buffer for it when it did hit us. They didn’t do it during the holiday season at all, but waited until after to even announce it.)


Here in the UK companies do that to put existing employees on worse wages and conditions.


Gardening Leave. I have worked for several UK based companies.


There’s no leave because employees are rehired the same day.

Gardening leave is entirely different.


Interesting. I also recall that it was nearly impossible in France to lay people off like this, so the company had to be careful when hiring and not hire someone into a job they didn’t need.


My understanding is that being “laid off” makes it much easier (possible?) to file for unemployment vs. being fired with cause. This CEO is obviously a psychopath with zero leadership acumen, but that may be part of the reason why this was positioned as such. Layoffs generally avoid responsibility and lawsuits around proving cause as well though, so “win-win” I suppose.

A good time to remember that “leadership” is just another skill, and another kind of labor. It’s not more necessary, better nor more valuable. It may take fewer people, but that doesn’t make them “special” and shouldn’t make them harder to pin poor performance on an get rid of.


That’s called a bbooiinngg.


Not illegal

but this will not stop people thinking about and maybe filling a lawsuit,
also the severance agreement will likely have a clause that the employee gives up the right to sue, or when said employees where hired had to sign a mediation agreement


Once upon a time, I worked for a small struggling organization and in the 5 years I was there every December there was a round of layoffs - layoffs that could have easily waited until after the holidays. Their “reasoning” was that they didn’t want people going deeply into debt for the holidays, only to lose their source of income right after the holidays were over.


Instead they went into debt for the holidays and lost their source of income right before the holidays?