[stavros]

So this is a great example of how to do layoffs wrong. Just tell your employees you can't afford them any more because leadership fucked up, don't lie to them that their one week of work hasn't been good enough.

What purpose does that serve?

[joezydeco]

Unless California has different laws than other work-for-hire states, you don't need to say anything. Your services are no longer required, here's your exit package, have a good day.

The idea that this needs to be a conversation is odd, and many will say opens you up to legal scrutiny. As this case shows.

[aaomidi]

They do if the number of people they’re firing exceeds a certain amount.

[LeeroyWasHere]

They'd have to admit they're incompetent at hiring / running their departments, easier to blame and make someone feel bad.

[ShadowBanThis01]

Yes, they are assholes. But what are we to do with it? This video, unfortunately, does not represent anything particularly out of the ordinary, and shouldn't be taken as "how to handle it" either.

She repeatedly volunteers that she hasn't made any sales, and merely disgorges a wholly subjective review of what she has accomplished... which appears to be nothing. The things she should have hammered them on are

1. No written warnings about performance. Is there a single documented incidence of performance falling short? Likewise, does she have any written accolades from her supervisor? Not that this really matters anyway, especially since she's in the standard 90-day probationary period (which she calls a "ramp-up").

2. The point about her supervisor wussing out and not giving the news himself or herself is valid, but even worse is that these two other people showed up to the meeting UNPREPARED. If they were simply laying her off, fine. No details needed. But since they claimed it was for performance, they invited scrutiny and the demand for specifics... which they didn't bring to the meeting. THEY should be fired for poor performance and embarrassing their firm. If I show up to a meeting in which I'm supposed to give a presentation about something and I shrug and say, "Oh, yeah I don't have any details on that so maybe you should ask later but don't expect an answer," I expect to be fired.

But she strayed from those points and mostly just protested at length that she did "really great."

I guess if the point was to reveal that Cloudflare is run by unprofessional assholes, then I withdraw my question. Otherwise I don't see what the call to action is here, and the promotion of it with breathless headlines like, "RARE footage of a firing!" is dumb.

[stavros]

> Not that this really matters anyway, especially since she's in the standard 90-day probationary period (which she calls a "ramp-up").

She's two months past that.

[DANmode]

> What purpose does that serve?

Limiting financial/legal liabilities - so I hear.

[reaperman]

Completely agree.