"I'm an agent person. I'm good at dealing with the agents! Can't you understand that?! What the hell is wrong with you people?! I'm good at dealing with the agents!"
My stance is this: Fine, maybe you need to restructure for profit reasons. If that is the case, then it is also beholden upon the people doing the layoffs to understand their responsibility in that.
In an ideal world, a layoff of this scale would also require a shakeup of the management that let it get this bad in the first place.
What's more, the higher up the chain, the less onerous the layoff for the individual getting laid off.
Why should people who are profitable to employ be laid off as well?
It just sounds like you're upset and want to hurt whoever you feel is responsible for making you upset. That's not a productive stance to have on important topics.
I'm not asking for the people who hurt me to be hurt. I am asking that the responsibility of the actions that management layers took be considered in layoffs.
For instance - If overhiring happened, how is this not at least a little bit on the individual that approved of a hiring spree? Why is it that they should be able to yield a baton that hurts the workers they hired, without having to actual bare the brunt of the decisions?
If a business is still unprofitable, a business that touches so much of the internet like Cloudflare, then that is also a strategic failure and should be punished as such.
I feel like your tone in this response was also so condescending.
"Management consultancies" that make sense. I thought that maybe all these higher-up people know each other and share a common "Slack group"
Time to watch Office Space again?
"I'm an agent person. I'm good at dealing with the agents! Can't you understand that?! What the hell is wrong with you people?! I'm good at dealing with the agents!"
Cloudflare has never made a profit.
Is your stance that shareholders should perpetually subsidize it out of the goodness of their hearts?
Cloudflare has never made a profit? The thread commentator said the product he maintained was 95% profit.
My stance is this: Fine, maybe you need to restructure for profit reasons. If that is the case, then it is also beholden upon the people doing the layoffs to understand their responsibility in that.
In an ideal world, a layoff of this scale would also require a shakeup of the management that let it get this bad in the first place.
What's more, the higher up the chain, the less onerous the layoff for the individual getting laid off.
Why should people who are profitable to employ be laid off as well?
It just sounds like you're upset and want to hurt whoever you feel is responsible for making you upset. That's not a productive stance to have on important topics.
What an odd view of what I said.
I'm not asking for the people who hurt me to be hurt. I am asking that the responsibility of the actions that management layers took be considered in layoffs.
For instance - If overhiring happened, how is this not at least a little bit on the individual that approved of a hiring spree? Why is it that they should be able to yield a baton that hurts the workers they hired, without having to actual bare the brunt of the decisions?
If a business is still unprofitable, a business that touches so much of the internet like Cloudflare, then that is also a strategic failure and should be punished as such.
I feel like your tone in this response was also so condescending.