Slack has raised our charges by $195k per year

Re:Slack has raised our charges by $195k per year by tomnipotent on Friday September 19, 2025 @01:33PM (#45304280)

So in other words you've never worked at a large org, or been in a leadership position over hundreds of people. So rather than acknowledge that things like this can happen, you'd rather jump to the least charitable conclusion. Clearly the Slack senior leadership sat in a dark room smoking cigars while laughing evil about all the cash they were going to get raising the bills on non-profits. Got it. That explains 0 other non-profits that have had this issue and gone public.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Slack has raised our charges by $195k per year by 6c696e7578 on Friday September 19, 2025 @05:26PM (#45306837)

Large organisations have less excuse, not more. I've worked across the industry, at various levels. The bigger the org, the more layers of compliance that have to be adhered to. A competent and compliant sales team would not be pulling figures at random to extort with. The sales team is normally bonus motivated, normally that type of reward system ensures they're not just chair warming.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Slack has raised our charges by $195k per year by tomnipotent on Friday September 19, 2025 @09:03PM (#45308743)

There's no such thing as "compliant" in this context, you totally made that up which reinforces this is beyond your scope of experience. There's no covenant or other legal obligation they have to be compliant with other than internal systems and controls - you know, processes involving humans which are prone to errors.

This was a process error that you and others have decided to make into something it isn't. If it was systemic we'd be hearing about more instances, but here we are.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Slack has raised our charges by $195k per year by AdieuToLogic on Friday September 19, 2025 @09:33PM (#45309067)

All statements following this disclaimer are unedited reproductions authored by yourself in this thread.

> There's no such thing as "compliant" in this context, you totally made that up which reinforces this is beyond your scope of experience.

What an unnecessarily hostile take.

I see accusations and statements, not questions and discovery. Folks seem too busy grabbing their pitchfork to engage in an honest conversation on shitty enterprise sales tactics.

> There's no covenant or other legal obligation they have to be compliant with other than internal systems and controls ...

So in other words you've never worked at a large org, or been in a leadership position over hundreds of people.

> This was a process error that you and others have decided to make into something it isn't.

There's probably been no less than ~6 executives that have been responsible for sales operations in that time frame, and that the sales process has been revamped and changes to how revenue is generated just as many times.

"Slack" didn't do anything.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Slack has raised our charges by $195k per year by tomnipotent on Saturday September 20, 2025 @08:52PM (#45319032)

So you've got nothing to contribute besides your prior virtual signaling? This is the best you can do? We get it - you're a knight in shining armor that's doing his best posting angry comments on HN, and besides posting angry comments you're going to somehow magically fix the processes of large orgs forever with your incredible knowledge of how things like this work since you clearly have all the answers.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Slack has raised our charges by $195k per year by AdieuToLogic on Sunday September 21, 2025 @09:48PM (#45328345)

> So you've got nothing to contribute besides your prior virtual signaling? This is the best you can do?

All I did was quote your own statements and make it clear this was the case. I cannot claim any "virtual [sic] signaling", as it is yourself who authored everything I posted excluding the disclaimer.

  Wise is the person,
  Who through discourse can see.

  The anger one laments,
  Originates within thee.

As to the rest of your response, I do humbly suggest avoiding ad hominems as they add nothing to a conversation.

[ Parent | on HN ]