[Jensson]

If they asked most of the fired people to come back you would have a point, but they just asked a small fraction of the fired people to come back. That doesn't seem unreasonable, you will make errors and it is good to admit when you made an error.

Would you think the whole ordeal was done better if they just refused to admit that any of the firings were in error? Nobody makes no mistakes when firing. There are many issues with the Twitter firings, but asking some of them to come back isn't a negative sign at all.

[buildbot]

No that is in my opinion, still insane. Laying someone off and then being like, "oops, you were actually important", is indicative they have no clue. Maybe they could have waited a bit to figure shit out instead of scorch-earthing everything.

[jrootabega]

Maybe. Maybe once those plans were noticed, they would have been resisted and thwarted by people who wanted to retain their power within the organization. Political struggles happen even in "healthy" companies.

[simplotek]

> Maybe once those plans were noticed, they would have been resisted and thwarted by people who wanted to retain their power within the organization.

I'm perplexed by the mental gymnastics you had to resort to to try to deflect any responsibility from Musk, let alone the despair to omit any reference to the extremely poor judgement and outright incompetence it takes to pull this sort of stunt, and instead fabricate this theory where this impulsive shot in the foot was actually a brilliant plan to thwart entrenched interests.

Occam's razor and Musk's track record reject this hypothesis. Musk f-ed up, just like he keeps on f-ing up, like the recent shit fest of Musk posting a stream of brain dead and profoundly I'll advised tweets trying to publicly smear a employee with disabilities.

[jrootabega]

You're really worked up about the simply proposed possibility of how someone might (MIGHT) go about firing a lot of people, especially in an organization already hostile to new ownership. It seems like you need a devil figure to channel anger against, rather than someone who does some stupid stuff and maybe some not so stupid stuff.

[908B64B197]

> but they just asked a small fraction of the fired people to come back.

That we know of (meaning they posted publicly about it). The real number could be way higher.

> but asking some of them to come back isn't a negative sign at all.

It's a very negative sign, especially at the scale it happened (as I said, we know about the cases where the person accepted to go back or publicly stated they were offered to come back).

[GVIrish]

If you fire people hastily but then are forced to ask them to come back because you discovered they were actually key personnel, that speaks to incompetence. The speed of Twitter's layoffs were completely under the control of Musk. There was no crisis or external factor that made them cut people so quickly.

Mistakes certainly can happen, but they're much more likely to happy when things are done chaotically without proper planning.