This is literally my only request from management. If you know I'm going to lose my job don't wait until my last day to tell me. Give me some time to set up other options.

You should always have other options. You shouldn’t wait until you’re about to be laid off. I can honestly say there isn’t a single day since 2008 (I’ve been working a lot longer) that if the company I was working for laid me off that I wouldn’t be prepared to look for another job the same day.

That means an updated resume, career document of accomplishments and talking points, an active network and “fuck you money” in the bank. If you live in any major city in the US, and are a software developer with experience, you should be making in the upper quintile of income for your area. There is usually no excuse not to have savings.

A developer in SF is not in the upper quintile.. they can't even afford a starter house. Big cities add huge costs that start making sense with home ownership but will leave a renter worse off.

Good advice on the other points.

The median household income in SF is $92K.

https://sf.curbed.com/2019/2/25/18239828/report-middle-class...

The average software developer in SF makes more then twice that.

https://www.builtinsf.com/salaries/dev-engineer/software-eng...

It's $119,136 not 92k:

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/sanfranciscocit...

And that's of 2020 so out of date.

Yes because I’m sure two year old data is grossly out of date and the median income has gone up greatly enough so that a software engineer in SF is no longer in the top quintile.

That just doesn't make any sense. You can't even rent an apartment for less than $3,000 in SF, let along think about buying the average $2M house. What is the discrepancy? Maybe these folks all ended up buying their houses 30 years ago?

Yet somehow half the people seem to be surviving in SF making that and less.

The number doesn't jive for me either. You would have to go through how the median income number is formulated. It may not be how you think. I can't tell you the number of times I've seen this with broad statistics.

Just maybe in your bubble you think everyone is making a lot in SF?

These are the numbers from the census bureau. It still says $119K

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/sanfranciscocitycalifornia

Median isn’t some obscure statistic that’s hard to calculate.

It’s so tough though - with large layoffs, you want to avoid revenge actions from people who are being let go. Immediate termination / cutoff of access is really the only way to do it. But I agree, it’s not humane. Don’t ever buy companies that talk about being a family. They want you to treat them like family but they will turn around and do what they deem necessary to self-preserve.

If you think your employees will take revenge action after being let go, you need to do a lot better job at hiring people.

I can't imagine many professionals would do something damaging to their employer on the way out. Facing legal troubles right when you are looking for a new job seems very shortsighted.

Also, if you treat the people you are letting go as humans, they will be less likely to retaliate. Ironically, trying to prevent retaliation by treating them like they will retaliate is more likely to cause them to do so.

Delusional. 99% of professionals can come across as nice and respectful in interviews, and have no criminal record. How could you possibly anticipate "a willingness to take revenge".

I’m assuming people you are laying off have worked with you long enough to get an idea of their character. If you are firing someone for cause, that is one thing; you are firing them because they aren’t what they originally seemed, so it makes sense to take precautions.

However, if you are laying someone off simply because the business if struggling, you presumably think they are trustworthy enough to employ. If you trusted them enough to give them the power before letting them go, you obviously trust them. If you are worried getting laid off will make them abuse that trust and use their access to cause damage, how could you trust them before you laid them off?

In Europe, we have layoff terms measured in months. Revenge action is nevertheless very rare.

If your personel has an exit period of a few months, they can take their time to process what happened, grieve, and find a new job, without losing the house or healthcare. There simply isn't that much of a reason for revenge.

Stupid question: I thought in Europe they’d get healthcare regardless of employment status?

True and false. There is a basic package that's good enough to get you trough life. This is one extra reason why being let go is less likely to cause stress for you and damage for your boss.

But bigger organisations give extra insurance. This covers e.g. avprivate or 2 person hospital room instead of multi person rooms. Or private care without waitung lists

Also, as healthcare is getting more expensive, the core package gets smaller. E.g. dental care was a victim in my country, preventative care is still covered but restorative probably not.

The best way for a company to handle layoffs in the case where immediate termination is needed for security reasons is for the company to pay 2-6 additional weeks of salary beyond the termination date -- that way the employee has time to find new work without having a sudden, unexpected gap in income.

This is how ie banking works. Nobody smart/experienced enough even pretends its about more than next paycheck.

Sounds soulless, and for some it is, but there is no place for drama when the day comes.

Being good hearted will eventually backfire - that one employee who feels its very unfair to him, with right access can do so much damage to already faltering company it can even bring it down.

So its a precaution, because 1 (or 5) percent of people are vengeful assholes, and you often find out only when right buttons are pressed.

Severance package is always generous, ie my bank gives in such case 1 salary for every year worked, on top of mandatory 3 ones mandated by Swiss laws.

That's what a severance package is. Good companies pay severance and don't make you come into work.

This can create its own chaos. Having been through layoffs where the news got out early and others where management mostly kept a lid on it, the outcome wasn’t better when some people knew early.

Those who were connected to the right bosses knew more than others. There were a couple leaders who already had new jobs lined up when the news became public while others were stuck scrambling. There was a lot of anger and resentment compared to other layoffs I’d been through.

On the other hand, there were layoffs more of the form of directors making “objective” decisions without the bottom two layers of management knowing much of anything beyond that layoffs were probably going to happen. There was more shock. People had a bad time still but there wasn’t the same toxicity to it.

> When I was an underboss in a firm that was going down, I just told people.

Other than in the mafia, what is an underboss? [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underboss

It's not difficult to infer what OP metaphorically meant from the tree diagram in your linked article.

Why should one need to read an unrelated page posted by a 3rd party in order to infer what someone meant?

It is not-improbable that the GP intended a mafia reference for how the layoffs were handled. Your choosing to infer instead of learning produces incorrect results. i.e. It's best not to assume.

I’ve been surprised at the times companies have wanted me to lie about something, not the lies themselves, but more just how blatant are.

Whatever I don’t usually expect business to be honorable or empathic, but don’t be surprised if I start lying to you too.