CEO Jack Dorsey tells workers he’s making it easier to fire them — There are reportedly no more performance improvement plans at Block::Jack Dorsey, CEO of Block and founder of Twitter, reportedly told workers it will now be easier and quicker to fire them.

  • samus7070@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    In my experience a PIP is just a nice way to say it’s not working out, go ahead and start looking elsewhere, you can stay on a while longer until you do find something else. With all of the tech layoffs over the last 18 months, they might as well just dispense with PIPs too.

      • echo64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        People need to pay rent. Honesty doesn’t pay the bills. Outside of America, there are worker protections for this stuff. Worker protections are more important than ceos deciding to raise shareholder values by firing random people.

        • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I get it, but you probably need to pay rent for years and if someone/something zeros in on you at all on the corporate level, you need to know facts and reality before you have to pay a mortgage and the sentiment expressed by the parent comment serves unintentionally as advocacy for obfuscating that fact because its absent any discussion or notion that when a company determines you are a liabillity in any sense, it makes sense on their level to get rid of you.

          Not saying its always to only the truly deserving but you have to agree that that needa to exist on not only a “worsr of The worst” level, but also when they figure out they wanna can you and I feel like you’re already aware of this at the corporate level.

        • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I get it, but you probably need to pay rent for years and if someone/something zeros in on you at all on the corporate level, you need to know facts and reality before you have to pay a mortgage and the sentiment expressed by the parent comment serves unintentionally as advocacy for obfuscating that fact because its absent any discussion or notion that when a company determines you are a liabillity in any sense, it makes sense on their level to get rid of you.

          Not saying its always to only the truly deserving but you have to agree that that needa to exist on not only a “worsr of The worst” level, but also when they figure out they wanna can you and I feel like you’re already aware of this at the corporate level.

      • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yes, it’s malevolent. If they fire you “for cause”, you don’t get unemployment. You don’t get a severence package. You aren’t treated the same as if you were laid off. It also makes it harder to find new employment as interviewers want to know if you were fired “for cause” or laid off.

        • samus7070@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          The answer is always “laid off”. They don’t usually verify because the former employer will only verify that you worked there and your start and end date. They don’t want to open themselves up to slander lawsuits.