1260
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2024
1260 points (97.7% liked)
Videos
14082 readers
352 users here now
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Rules
- Videos only
- Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
- Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article.
- Don't be a jerk
- No advertising
- Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Being fired without cause means an employee is being let go, but not because of any serious workplace misconduct. Conversely, being fired with cause means the employee committed a serious breach of conduct in their workplace, which led to their termination.
Citing performance is citing cause. You’re wrong and others are right in that citing performance is an attempt to demonstrate cause to avoid severance and/or unemployment. A “layoff” is without cause and entitles them to those benefits.
Again, it doesn't matter what they tell you. It only matters what they report to the government. If it's with cause and you have proof they are lying, you can sue for wrongful dismissal. But they won't do that. They will report it as without cause, because that's just easier. They don't owe her severance because she was only there for 4 months, but she will qualify for at least some employment insurance.
Wrong again. It very much matters what they tell you because by law they’re not required to tell you anything. They can terminate employment for no reason. Giving a reason is citing cause.
The employer might not fight an unemployment claim but if, for example, they cited performance in the termination meeting and then the employee finds out the employer had made age discriminatory comments, kind of like you did, about them, there’s grounds for wrongful termination.
You seem intent on ignoring the fact that the conversation during a termination from the employee perspective is crucial because companies can, and do, lie to protect themselves.
There’s also special conditions and requirements that go along with a reduction in force (layoffs due to overstaffing) that companies try to sidestep by listing a different reason for the termination.
Pointing out the truth is not "age discrimination". It's obvious that she is very upset in the video, and that this is probably the first time she's been in this situation. It's also obvious that the manager and HR person have gone through this conversation many times already. There is nothing that they could say that would satisfy her. The HR person literally says that. They are giving her the response they were told to give her. Yes, its bullshit, but it doesn't matter until it's written down. This video isn't the "gotcha" that she thinks it is. Without the video, it's her word against written documentation. And of course the company is going to protect themselves, that's why they won't report it as with cause. All this video did was show her inexperience. Unfortunately we'll never see the update where she tells us what they reported on the written documents.
Hmm, but the HR people said they didn't have any documentation, and if she hasn't had a bad performance review prior to this meeting then there isn't a paper trail showing poor performance.
If they generate some documentation after this meeting that shows poor performance, wouldn't that kind of be a smoking gun for a fraud case? Because it seems pretty clear that the intent is to defraud her of unemployment benefits by claiming that she was fired with cause.
Yes, if they do that. And then she'll have more evidence for a wrongful dismissal lawsuit. But they won't. They'll report that she was fired without cause. Speculating on the official cause does nothing but allow people to feel upset about it.
The point is, laying all these people off with performance as reason protects Cloudflare in not having to pay extra (which would be legally needed if the employee was not at fault).
This is probably not any kind of proof she can use, but it does make people aware of how Cloudflare operates.
It's understandable companies have to fire people and as an employee you'd probably do best to accept the harsh reality of a business. But if they really communicate fake causes with lay-offs (not only hurting the employee mentally, but also financially bypassing rightful compensation by law), this should be known by the public.
To be fair though, we cannot confirm her statements to be true either. But I think it's an interesting share nonetheless.
The point is that is still comes down to what's written on official documents. Yes, what they told her is bullshit and can have a negative mental health effect. But her mental health is not their responsibility. The two people telling her that she was being let go are simply relaying exactly what they are told to by upper management.
The video was smart to record, just in case. But publishing it was just for other people to feel rage. This is have absolutely no effect on Cloudflare. A few less people may apply, but there is no shortage of people looking for jobs right now. With all the layoffs happening at every company, it's almost like the Dot Com Bust again. I got through it and stayed in IT for another 16 years. She will get through this too.
"This is have absolutely no effect on Cloudflare."
It appears to have gotten the CEO worried enough about brand damage that he felt he had to post some bullshit.
"Matthew Prince, the CEO and co-founder of the technology company, has reacted. “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,” Prince wrote on X, formerly Twitter.
Acknowledging that they were “far from perfect” in this case, Mr Prince said, “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.”
More here..
Acknowledgement, "we're sorry", and then quickly forgotten as the news cycles moves on. This will have no lasting effects. Everyone will have forgotten this by next week.
Edit: You also left this out...
People said that the API revolt on reddit would change nothing and yet here we both are discussing the terrible behaviour of yet another corporation on a completely different platform to reddit that I would never even have known about if it weren't for exactly this kind of story. I believe things do change and I certainly won't forget that Cloudflare did this and I suspect you won't either.
Cloudflare isn't a social media site where all the users discussed the revolt on the site. Most people outside of IT don't even know what Cloudflare is or that it even exists. A lot of people don't even know what Reddit is.
"Most people outside of IT don't even know what Cloudflare is or that it even exists." They do now ;)
And by next week, they'll forget because they don't ever plan to apply there for work. The small percentage of people that will avoid applying there because of this is a small drop in the bucket of people that will still apply. This is no where near as important as some people make it out to be.
Yet the CEO felt the need to try to do some damage limitation. Clearly he doesn't share your confidence about the lack of impact this could have on the company's reputation.
Again, a little PR to brush it aside is all that was. Come back to me next week and show me the impact.
If it was nothing why brush it?
To get ahead of it and control the narrative. They were publicly accused of a wrongful dismissal. That has huge legal connotations, whether she realized that or not. But the corporation has all their legal ducks in a row. She hasn't exposed anything but her own inexperience. Really, if she did have a wrongful dismissal case, she likely overplayed her hand by publishing the video so soon. She'll get employment insurance, but that's all she'll get at this point.
I'm finding this confusing. On the one hand you are adamant this will have no impact for them but then also say this could have huge legal connotations for them. Which is it? It can't be both.
No, it has huge legal connotations for her. If she had a wrongful dismissal case, then she should have brought the video and the documentation to a lawyer instead of blasting it out to the world. Now the legal department that has a team of lawyers working to advise the CEO and making sure she doesn't have a case, whether she actually had one or not. That's why it will be reported as fired without cause. If she was told she was fired with cause but it's reported as without cause and she can still claim employment insurance, then she has no case. If she had kept her mouth shut and let them process the termination, she might have had something combined with the video. Now she has nothing, and this will be forgotten by next week.
Patience is a virtue, especially when you're being fired.
"Now she has nothing" - You shouldn't underestimate the impact of going viral. If she'd kept quiet no one would have ever known about the way Cloudflare behaved. Now she's gone viral globally and her 1 day old LinkedIn post about this situation has (so far) collected 4,260 reactions, 547 comments and 128 reposts. You can bet your bottom dollar that Matthew Prince is not sleeping soundly tonight. It's going to be rather interesting to see what happens next...
Again, come back to me in a week and show me the impact. Prince isn't losing any more sleep on this than the other 39 people that were let go. It's just business to him.
Alright, let's play this game. Firstly a week is nothing so let's make it 3 months and let's begin by being clear about what "no impact" means. It seems to me twofold. On the one hand there's the impact on Cloudflare's share price and then more directly the impact on Brittany Pietsch. If she gets no more job offers than she would have if she'd kept quiet then I guess that would be "no impact" number one. Cloudflare's share price has risen since November last year from 54.95USD to its current price of 79.37USD. If there is no great change in three months then that would be "no impact" number two. Let's see what happens ;)
What happens to Brittany Pietsch at this point is on Brittany Pietsch. It's up to her to show how she can be a valuable employee.
This will have absolutely no effect on the share price. To think that laying off 40 people out of a huge organization, even if one went "viral" for a few days, will have any effect is wishful thinking. Speculating on the possible effects is only an exercise for the people that want to feel outrage over something. People in this thread are talking about having PTSD from episodes like this. It's just a whole lot of complaining that will go nowhere, just like it has for decades. Cloudflare customers will not care about this, and that's all that really matters. And unlike Reddit, Cloudflare hasn't pissed off their products and drove them away to other platforms. The company will be fine...
Ok, let's see.
So it's been a week. Cloudflare isn't in the news anymore. No one on this site is talking about the incident anymore. Brittany Pietsch has done nothing but complain and "hit back" at the comments 4 days ago. And the stock price has gone up.
I don't expect you to acknowledge any of this, but knowing that I was completely 100% right is reward enough.
Yeah... seems like you didn't read the conditions of the test I proposed. See you in 3 months ;)
I saw it just fine. Nothing will change in the next 3 months. I look forward to being completely 100% right yet again.
Looks like something changed so let's review. The conditions were that this would have no impact on Cloudflare or Brittany. Apart from Cloudflare looking like dicks in the most public and embarrassing way imaginable, Brittany's landed a nice new job most likely thanks to all the visibility she generated. I would imagine she was offered a ton of jobs the minute she went viral and is only now officially able to announce the one she picked. Well done her. You mentioned being used to being 100% right so you must know the feeling well. I have to say, I see why you like it so much cos I'm certainly enjoying this ;)
Yet the stock price is still going up. And still no one is talking about it except you. No one cares. Even I forgot about this.
Seriously, just let it go. You were wrong. That's not a bad thing unless you make a big deal about it, like you are right now.
I mean, you asked me to come back to you if something happens that demonstrates "impact" and I did. If you don't care about this why don't you take the high road right now and just not reply...
Ok, let's see.
You are wrong. Just stop.
Your opinion isn't binding. Please show me the documented proof that she was fired with cause. This video is nothing but rage bait.
Alright, walk on then.
This is plain wrong dude, it's with cause, it's performance. They'll try to get her to sign a paper saying so, she can refuse, but either way they "have a paper trail" and even you refusing can be made to sound like "see they were insubordinate".
She can go get unemployment, the gov will check, and they will show their paper trail showing she doesn't qualify.
Stop trying to say it won't make a difference. It will make a huge difference.
Until we see that paperwork, it's all speculation. Getting upset about it will change nothing.