Empathy for those laid off shouldn't vary based on visa status. These are real people losing their jobs, searching for another job in an already saturated market.

I completely disagree. Not all job losses are the same, and visa status makes an enormous difference in the consequences of losing one's job.

I've been laid off. At the time, I had plenty of savings and nobody depending on me besides my dog. I took some time off and was later able to find a new job. The company didn't have any H-1Bs at the time, but if it did they certainly would've been in a much worse situation than I was and clearly more deserving of empathy.

I feel that the original post rubbed me the wrong way. The whole "others have it worse, so toughen up" doesn't serve to help anyone.

When I was laid off, I had four months worth of savings and could scraped by longer. No matter how much money that my coworkers had that are here on H1B, they had to find a job no matter what.

Did you feel any empathy when the Disney CEO was fired with a multi million dollar severance package? Things are different for different people.

I don't think they meant different empathy, just visa holders have fewer options around getting a new job

As long as CXO takes real responsibility by cutting their salary to a significant percentage and refusing stock refreshers (or whatever called) I'm fine. By saying "I take full responsibility" but still maintains the original pay is not convincing. Since tech CXOs usually take very large stock and cash compensations (well into multi-millions), just imagine how much cost can be saved by cutting all CXO compensation by 50%.

The company can also initiate a vote of all employees to remove this cut of CXO compensations, so that if CXO is really doing well overall I'm sure he will be recognized and his compensation defended by the whole company.

Based on the people I know who work at Confluent, the messaging at all hands meetings has been that the market conditions didn't affect staffing plans. Employees make decisions based on the expectation of ongoing employment - if the CEO keeps says "we won't do layoffs" and then you buy a house and get laid off, that seems like detrimental reliance.

It's also worth noting many places enshrine in law protections for layoffs because of the power imbalance between employees and employers.

One should never assume anything about his employment status other than that it can end at any moment. Companies’ management might have empathy, but as a rule they absolutely don’t care about employees.

> Employees make decisions based on the expectation of ongoing employment

Then again outside of visa holders they are naive.

I’ve been working professionally for 25+ years and there isn’t a day after my first year after I built up savings that I depended on my employer instead of my employability to support my addiction to food and shelter.

In the case of Confluent, who depends on a non profitable company to be a sustainable place of unemployment? You go in knowing that any given day that you are going to be laid off and save accordingly.

And no when I graduated from college I wasn’t making an above average salary. I started out making $30K and found the cheapest apartment I could until I saved money.

I make a mistake, I get fired.

CEO makes a mistake, I get laid off. CEO takes full responsibility.

Layoffs don't prove the CEO made a mistake. Understaffing and overstaffing are both errors. A small layoff when the SHTF shows they at least didn't understaff. If you're a growing startup in ZIRP, understaffing is arguably a bigger error than overstaffing, up to a point.

I have no idea if Confluent overstaffed. I admit I'm surprised to hear they aren't profitable though.

> Layoffs don't prove the CEO made a mistake

That is irrelevant, since they are taking full responsibility anyway, right?

Just kidding.

And complaining about life not being “fair” is a waste of my energy.

should be able to save enough to weather a brief storm is a huge assumption. What do you do if you have dependents or complex medical needs personally? What happens if you have a personal emergency during your job search? What do you do if you have existing debt from a previous emergency, medical crisis, etc?

While what you describe are serious problems and would be very anxiety inducing for many (most?), the truth remains that it isn't someone else's problem or responsibility.

I'm not ascribing anything but to say that people who are laid off deserve sympathy because you cannot assume their personal circumstances surrounding the layoff. I have no dependents so it doesn't matter to me. My friend's wife is only able to work because of his healthcare, and if she loses his healthcare even if he finds a new job quickly his new health insurance will force the wife into a nightmare of proving she's sick enough to get her medicine again, putting her out of work.

That’s very very unfortunate and warrants sympathy for sure. At the same time, one’s employer isn’t the one responsible for securing your financial stability or future.

> What do you do if you have dependents or complex medical needs personally

You get COBRA through your former employer. Been there done that. I had a pre-existing condition that I couldn’t get health insurance individually (pre-ACA)

> What happens if you have a personal emergency during your job search? What do you do if you have existing debt from a previous emergency, medical crisis, etc?

You talk to the people and make arrangements or you just don’t pay them until you can afford to. Your priority becomes house, food, shelter, car.

How do you think people making much less than tech workers handle it?

> How do you think people making much less than tech workers handle it?

They don't. That doesn't make being laid off not worth sympathy, though! You don't know someone's personal life circumstances. It's not helpful to just presume they'll be okay and therefore it isn't worth advocating for better treatment.

Responsibility would mean cutting executive compensation. If the executives are choosing to inflict suffering on anyone but themselves, that's not responsibility, that's crocodile tears.

> The second point, a job is always transactional

Precisely. Corporations made jobs always transactional. Now the employees and the public are making corporations transactional by affording them no sympathy or loyalty whatsoever.