Re:Internal Amazon documents shed light on how company press...
by tinyhouse on Monday June 21, 2021 @03:57PM
(#27583576)
All companies letting some employees go. Why would companies keep employees who are consistently underperforming? such employees usually have negative impact on the company. If you started a company tomorrow, would you keep such employees? As long as the process is fair I see no problem with it (fair = letting employees know months in advance that they are underperforming and need to improve, offering a decent severance package based on tenure, etc)
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Internal Amazon documents shed light on how company press...
by crispyambulance on Monday June 21, 2021 @05:21PM
(#27584683)
It's all in the details of how it actually happens. "Months to adapt" is fine, but if the objective is to get rid of 6% of the employees that can be "made to happen" in various under-handed ways.
The horror stories here are about folks who were doing just fine for months and months, but then end up with a new manager or their manager has a sudden change of mood, and wham, performance improvement plan.
No one likes to be blindsided. I wish more companies would take an honest approach and come up with mutually beneficial exit-plans with employees that aren't a good fit. I suppose that's not feasible in a company of such size and with such growth?