Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> There's a missing bit of context here about what "laid off" actually means in this person's case. We are assuming it means a non-performance related reduction in force, but it may be something different.

But that's basically the definition of a layoff; the elimination of roles from a company due to reasons unrelated to the performance of the laid off people (e.g. lack of work, economic conditions). If somebody loses their job due to reasons related to their individual performance, they were not laid off. They were fired.



I am aware of and agree with this definition. But...

One company I worked for had two rounds of layoffs - the first round got rid of exclusively low performers (they didn't announce it that way but it was clear) while the second cut across the board. If someone had that insight, they'd be right to consider someone cut in the first wave as a red flag.

But more generally, I don't think people stick to this definition, especially when talking about themselves. "I was laid off from X"... No dude, you got fired for harassment.

Again, all of this is conjecture - we have no idea what the situation in question actually was nor how the person communicated with the company about it.


I have never met a company that was able to reliably gauge performance. And would not put that against anyone unless they were intentionally fired and we're evasive about it.


// I have never met a company that was able to reliably gauge performance

I have had the opposite experience. Every company I've worked for, the employee ranking matched my perception of that employee pretty well on average.


How did you know their ranking? Smells of circularity.


Two ways. Seeing who was laid off in performance rounds.

Also as a manager, sat in plenty of calibration meetings where we lined up rankings across managers.


…sure, but that's what circularity means. You think it's accurate because you set it.

The problem is when people are doing something useful the managers haven't noticed. (Or is successfully bullshitting instead of contributing anything.)


Not necessarily true. I have seen in the past employees be “laid off” solely due to their performance. Rather than fire the employee for performance reasons they opt to eliminate the role altogether, and not rehire for it. The team had a lot of flexibility and mobility in roles, so they could reallocate people to pick up any slack. I think they do this partially for the benefit of the person being let go, and partially because it’s more “paperwork” otherwise.


if a company decided to reduce staff by X%, and they decide to factor in performance when deciding who to lay off…that’s still not being fired.


Legally that would be the same as being fired. There's quite a few stipulations for a company to conduct a legitimate and recognized layoff.


What I've seen happen in practice is the company position it as a layoff in the way you describe, but the folks let go tend to skew weaker.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: