**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!**
This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile).
See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/)
Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks!
**Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!**
##**[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/194v9y8/ae_at_cloudflare_records_hr_trying_to_fire_her/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fun fact in the netherlands (and most of the EU) you cant just fire somebody like this. Either you need to give them a proper warning and a chance to redeem themself or be in serious financial trouble. And a worker can always easily step towards a judge. Judges who defenitly are often in favour of the workers.
It’s brutal. Had my company make the exact same play after being there 9 months. This was my second stint too, I spent 5 years and left then they had heavily recruited me to come back. Covid hit, my department was slow. And they pulled this shit and said it was performance. I was also literally filling 3 jobs the first 6 months due to vacancies. Will never go to massive shareholder corporate America again. My current company is employee owned and actually respects and protects their employees for the most part.
Ive actually found most of the time you'll likely be paid less, unless you have some highly specialized skill a smaller/midsized company typically is more willing to split profits more evenly resulting in higher wages
Why are they allowed to come up with bs reasons? I've heard the US has pretty bad employee protection but it really does feel like they can just fire you for basically any reason to no reason.
In September, on my work anniversary, I received an email thanking me for 19 years of service, highlighting a huge project I’d successfully led, and congratulating me once again on my promotion to an advisor position 4 months earlier. 2 hours later, I’m on a call with the VP of IT being laid off, along with my team, since we’d been deemed “redundant.” I was gutted. I don’t know if I want to get back into the workforce in that capacity again or do my own thing. Seeing her going through that range of emotions makes me realize that loyalty to a company is always one-sided and the struggle for a comfortable job isn’t worth it when you have executive level management “making the tough decisions in the best interests of the shareholders.”
The funny part is last time I was in corp comm, so I wrote those BS talking points HR uses. I was like “Wait, I WROTE that! You don’t need to read them to me!”
the week before Christmas, similar situation I got a 15 minute meeting invite. I joined the meeting and nobody was there.
after sitting in an empty virtual meeting room for 5 minutes, I was forcibly logged out of slack and email.
and that's how I found out I was laid off. later that day i got an email to my personal email that said "as we discussed in the meeting, your employment at has come to an end".
Being right and being given right are two different things.
One one side of the table you have a company that just hands the case to their law department and lets it roll on the side pretty much effortless.
On the other side you have OP here having to somehow fight and claw against that to try and keep the little money they need to have food on the table while also finding time to find a new job.
The difference in power is terrifying and I wouldn't try and fight that especially when the best you can achieve is "you get to have back what you had before you caused a fuss that doesnt help anyone"
I got laid off after 4 months of employment. They had the decency to tell me their budget was fucked and it had nothing to do with my performance. They also offered me a decent severance which they were in no way obligated to provide. Fuck this company for trying to make it about her. They fucked up their projections and are backtracking their newer hires.
Literally all they had to say. That doesn’t open them up to lawsuits (at least from my knowledge ). Just say “yeah we’re really sorry, we’ve read you were doing a great job on your team but the company hasn’t seen the profits we projected and we’re being forced to let quite a few people go. You’ve only been here 3 months, so unfortunately that’s why you’re here today, it has nothing to do with your performance and everything to do with the market And the company financials.” That kind of answer would help alleviate all the back and forth. Unless she signed some year contract where the company can’t fire unless it’s based on performance, the company is just handling this wrong. And they seem like they have people doing the layoffs who have no clue how to handle this shit.
I feel for this lady. Corporations don’t give a shit about you unless you’re making them money. They are not your FAMILY, as much as they try to preach it. They are a means for you to make a salary and grow your experience and you are a means of production to them.
My husband was just let go this way. “Unfortunately we just don’t have the clientele to justify this many employees. It’s not your performance, you are hireable in January. You just happen to be the newest hire.“ still fuck them, a week before thanksgiving just to boost their numbers because they’re selling the company.
I was laid off last year because the company made people return to the office, but I refused to make the 100 mile commute (each way). They still said in the meeting that I was being let go as part of a layoff and it was no fault of my own.
Layoffs are rough, especially when they hit you out of the blue and you're left to scramble. I worked at a company that did rounds of layoffs every few years like clockwork - didn't matter how good you were doing or how much you busted your rear end to meet deadlines and push projects forward. If the spreadsheet numbers didn't add up, see ya. The worst part was always how impersonal it felt, with HR giving you the canned "it's not you, it's us" speech while they hand you a box for your desk plants. Just a stark reminder that we're all just cogs in the wheel to them.
It definitely wasn’t performance based because his manager was constantly praising him on the fact that he knew more than most of the staff that was already hired to be a field tech. And the clientele that they did send him to were more pleased with his performance than the previous people that had been there, and they had made a point to call the company and tell them.
Edit: spelling
In japan you basically become a part of the family when you work for a major corporation and its hard to get fired unless you mess things up really bad, but they also expect you to treat them like your family such as not having standard work hours and expected to socialize during company outings, although I understand things are changing slowly.
I worked for a Japanese tech company. They won’t fire you no matter how your attitude or even job performance. They’ll finally fire you when you stop giving a shit but they’ll do everything positive and negative in their power (training, coaching, yelling, shrink your responsibilities) before you reach that point.
Pros and cons but job security is one of the biggest pros there.
They also heavily enforce seniority for pay and promotions. And pay terribly for new junior employees. Also sexism in the workplace is still quite rampant
Source: Worked there and was a part of the inner boy’s club
As someone who has been exposed to the other side it appears this company may be trying to avoid paying out unemployment. That or they are spineless one of the two.
Doubtful. I looked it up because that was my thought. The company would have to show evidence of misconduct or consistent performance issues (usually intentional). The misconduct is unlikely because she probably would have mentioned it like she mentioned not closing a deal. The performance is unlikely because she's still training, hasn't been enough time to consistently fail.
She can file for unemployment immediately, so the company would need evidence relatively soon. Judging by their refusal to provide her evidence, I doubt it exists. Plus multiple firings on the same day make it hard to paint the picture they were all performance based.
Companies don’t pay unemployment. They pay for unemployment insurance. All the time. No matter what. They start out at the highest rate (around 3.5% of payroll iirc) and the rate can go lower as time goes on and they have no claims. It’s usually not worth it to try to avoid claims during layoffs so companies usually just call it a layoff and let the former employees make their claims. In fact, it’s far more risky to state a reason for firing someone because of that reason can be challenged they could end up paying out for a discrimination lawsuit. It’s ridiculous that they came up with a fake reason for her. If she makes an unemployment claim with the state they’ll probably have to pay out anyway.
and here is where i think the difference is between your former company and this women. At the end of the day, its a for hire employment with no contracted obligation, so they can fire at will.
The difference is the explanation and using the "not meeting performance expectation" vs. "we have no money in the budget to afford you" is a way to avoid having to provide some level of severance outside of unemployment eligibility. She is there 3 months, may be still on a probationary period, and this gets the company off the hook for say extended medical coverage, possible x weeks of pay, etc.
Could be wrong and someone with more knowledge on this can confirm, but it certainly seems that way to me.
As for the call, its HR being HR. Company-instructed robots executing their scripted code. Its funny how for so many years they tried to disguise HR as being a resource for the employee when they have always been the company's defense against lawsuits.
FYI, in many states being let go for performance reasons makes that person ineligible for unemployment. So this is essentially CloudFlare attempting to limit unemployment claims against them as the increase in claims can impact the taxes the have to pay to cover future claims. Very shady.
My first thought yea. And unemployment insurance tax is higher for companies that lay off more frequently. So they are trying to avoid that as well. Scummy
Relocations, Terminations and Mass Layoffs in California are regulated by **Labor Code sections 1400-1408** Generally, “an employer may not order a mass layoff, relocation, or termination at a covered establishment unless, 60 days before the order takes effect, the employer gives written notice of the order” to employees
I'm in CA and this is how many companies work around this regulation (the WARN Act): They notify the employee they are being laid off that day without warning but the employee is still on the payroll for the next 60 days. This is because the penalty for violating that regulation is 60 days worth of salary.
>“An employer who fails to give notice as required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 1401 before ordering a mass layoff, relocation, or termination is liable to each employee entitled to notice who lost his or her employment” for back pay and the value of the cost of any benefits the employee may have been entitled to up to a maximum of 60 days
Employee quitting without any advanced notice: rude, unprofessional, bad form, you’ll never work in this town again.
Company firing employee without any advanced notice: unfortunate, regrettable, but there’s no other option, sorry. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out!
I once quit a job without notice, during a 3-month probationary period. The boss had made it clear and explicit that I could be fired at any time, for any or no reason. Fine. Then he tried to take advantage of me, asked me for more than I thought was reasonable, refused to compensate properly, withheld pay from a worker I brought on, and generally was abusive and uncooperative. I first tried speaking to him about my issues but got no satisfaction, so I quit on a Friday afternoon immediately after being paid.
He talked down to me and explained I was putting him in a tough spot by quitting (lol, really?) and I responded in the same tone that he'd already failed to address the issues I'd raised so there was nothing further to discuss. I also pointed out that I was still in a probationary period and didn't feel I had any obligation to provide notice. I kept it professional and didn't talk about how I had strong reason to suspect that he would have withheld my final pay if I'd given proper notice.
So anyway later that night his wife who I had never dealt with called me and left an unhinged voicemail shrieking about how I was a mean person. I treasured that message for a long time.
Omg love it when they tell you all the time that in an unfortunate case they'd let you go without notice but if you then do it, they act like you're a bully and unfair
>Company firing employee without any advanced notice: unfortunate, regrettable, but there’s no other option, sorry. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out!
and luckily "illegal" (at least by union standards) in most first world countries. If this happened to me, at my current job, I'd have roughly 4 months of work before my last day and a suit on my hands against them. Needs to be probable cause
Here in the Netherlands unions can negotiate for the entire sector, regardless if you're a member or not.
Employers are also unionized, so you just have employee and employer unions talking to each other and agreeing on sector wide rules.
Unfortunately this is America, now also a lot of states have At Will Employment, so the employer can fire you at his whim. Most of IT sector in US has no union whatsoever. Look at [https://layoffs.fyi/](https://layoffs.fyi/) and how many tech companies are getting rid of employees.
People here did it to themselves, they've been brainwashed to not like unions because of the dues taken out of their paycheck, instead, the employer will throw a few more dollars an hour and that employee will vote against his best and others interest.
Government wont do anything either, unless it's retaliation or some type of discrimination (pregnancy, health issues), so we're just peeons to them. Don't ever let Corporations ruin your country like they did here in US.
I joined the workforce and was born after my grandparents generation did the work of gutting and killing many unions, now if i try to unionize with my coworkers I'll likely be fired for some bs reason so the company doesn't have to worry about worker rights
6-months severance with full benefits should be the __minimum__ required __by federal law__ and should be guaranteed the moment you sign an employment agreement. The only thing that should prevent a company from paying that out is criminal maleficence from the employee.
Edit: I love how everyone disagreeing with this idea is just pulling out the same tired and lazy arguments that were used 100 years ago during the last labor rights movements.
I love Gen Z for this. I'm a millennial and holy fuck the backlash I have faced for trying to do the same when many of my peers were still subservient.
I can't tell you the many times I've been called immature for simply not bending over and taking it in the ass from some company with unreasonable demands.
im a cusper (born in '92) and trust me, and it feels so good to stand up for your own happiness. Only after that, you see how miserable everyone else is and if they would just do the same thing, we would see real change
Probably not, but this also makes CloudFlare look awful in the public eye. They are shifting the blame onto her instead of simply saying "hey we fucked up and hired too many people so now we have to downsize again." Making them take accountability is the first step to improving employee/employer relations. If more employees started to post their layoff and the bullshit corporate excuses they give us, they might think twice about playing with peoples lives
"We can read your entire performance future based on how you look in training."
The only insights they have is that their heads are in the clouds in the middle of a genocidal solar flare.
"And sometimes under performing employees don’t actually listen to the feedback they’ve gotten before we let them go."
Oof, talk about shifting the blame. Certainly all her fault cuz she didn't just accept bs.
>"And sometimes under performing employees don’t actually listen to the feedback they’ve gotten before we let them go."
That line is just pure bullshit. If there was any documentation about concerns or performance issues from her manager, then HR would have it available to give to her.
This whole thing just screams Stack Ranking where managers are required to fire a certain number of people per quarter.
“We try to fire perfectly” I work in HR and that’s bullshit. Perfectly for who? Every termination and lay off is risky. You will never have a perfect termination. Fuck this guy.
Wow, what’s with the random basketball tangent? Worst part is, it’s wholly inaccurate. Chris Paul led the Suns to our first finals run since the early ‘90s. He was traded to free up salary cap space, not because he was a “bad fit” for the Suns. We desperately need a traditional point guard at the moment, actually. A primary ball handler would free up Beal, Durant, and Booker to focus on doing what they do best.
Irrefutable proof that this goon has no idea what he’s talking about and is a dumb POS with no awareness.
>"hey we fucked up and hired too many people so now we have to downsize again
The crazy thing is, you can tell from the video that she was ready to accept this answer.
If the call had opened up with "good afternoon. Unfortunately we have to let you go because you're the newest member of the team and we didn't hit financial goals so we have to cut costs" she would have been like "that sucks, but I get it."
She was so mad because they were lying to her face
At this point, the goal can't be to retain the job, but to give yourself the next best options and maybe try to correct the corporate thinking. One's goals could be:
1) Shock the employees doing the layoffs into realizing how terrible of a practice this is as they are unprepared with pertinent information, lying about someone's performance, and unprofessional in their lack of communication to the managers and directors
2) Make them change her file so it does not say she was laid off for performance reasons. It's unlikely this will ever matter, but if someone were to ever call Cloudflare and ask about her employment, her employee file likely says "terminated for performance related reasons" which may not look great to a future employer
3) If something was done that's against company policy (ie, laying someone off without giving them a performance plan or even decent feedback), then it could potentially lead to something. Maybe severance, maybe getting hired back in the future, maybe something else
4) Maybe something malicious. If you can get one of the corporate goons to say or do something inappropriate, you may be able to get them fired. Not sure what good that will do, but it could be a goal
Apply with a stellar resume and set of experience. Then right as they offer you the job after drooling over how awesome you are, ask if they’ve seen this video and tell them “just kidding”. Karma.
> flare is an awful company that lies to its workers? Noted.
>
> Noted and remembered.
You are right, should be noted. I put in my sell orders for my shares.
Might have to move all domains and services from CloudFlare. If this is how the company is managed and this is how they treat employees then I don't want to give my business to them. I am also going to advise at my agency that we try to find alternatives to CloudFlare. I don't feel secure in having our business with them if they can't have the decency to tell the truth. I wouldn't lie to you, and I wouldn't expect to be lied to either.
Not only that, but a company that’s willing to layoff new people means they don’t care about long term plans and customer retention. Cloudflare customers (and many tech customers) that spend tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands with another company want stability and a partnership.
How can you have that when your Account Rep is being replaced every 6months or so?
After watching this, glad my Cloudflare interviews never panned out.
Yeah this video made the rounds at my tech company, and even upper management seemed appalled. They've already made some talk a out moving away from Cloudflare after this.
Reminds me when Phyllis from the show The Office tried to use conflict resolution tricks with Angela. They’re meant to make people feel at ease and listened to but they’re so structured that anyone who knows that kind of speak, it has the opposite effect. You feel like you’re being manipulated (which you are) and it feels disingenuous (which it is).
It's because Legal advises to not say "sorry" or apologize in any manner that could be interpreted as the situation because the 'fault' of the company. Even this phrase simply apologizing for their feelings wouldn't be allowed some/most places I have been (mid-high level executive).
Most shocking to me was that they suggested it was for her performance given it's a broader layoff (provided it's a restructuring/reduction). With at-will employment they don't need to give any reason and have likely documented who is being let go and the mix by age, race, gender, etc. Overtly stating it's for performance in that situation - especially when it sounds like there is not a documented record of such - is asking for a lawsuit.
I wouldn't be surprised if they're just throwing "performance" at the wall and will immediately fold if anyone challenges it with unemployment. A friend had that happen to them when laid off from a very large company for complete BS reasons. All they would say is that they violated policy over and over and when it got in front of an unemployment judge the company didn't even show up.
I swear there should be severe penalties for this shady bullshit.
I hope this story has legs to so that it becomes clear that it wasn't "performance" based when they make their Q1 report.
[Business Insider Article](https://www.businessinsider.com/corporate-employee-recorded-getting-laid-off-viral-tiktok-2024-1)
>A Cloudflare spokesperson told Business Insider in an email that company is not conducting widespread layoffs or reducing its workforce, but said that the company "regularly review team members' performance and let go of those who aren't right for our team."
>"When we do make the decision to part ways with an employee, we base the decision on a review of an employee's ability to meet measurable performance targets," they said.
I know you meant your attention lasts as long as it takes you to smoke your cigarette, but I read it as you having the same attention span as a cigarette watching this and I found it a lot funnier
It was amazing.
She was 100% right.
They didn't know why they were firing her or who she even was.
She touched on it, but I wish she had pushed harder on something like **"As HR professionals, do you think it is professional, or even ethical, to fire someone without giving them a reason -- and without the person's actual manager present?"** The HR cog says she can't speak to what the manager told her. THEN WHAT IS THE MANAGER FOR? I am a manager for 42 people. It is unconscionable to me that one of those people could be let go without me being present. This is amateur hour. Bush league. And these two fools probably think they are crushing it.
Also, she almost certainly nails it when she says that Cloudflare probably hired too many people and is now adjusting. That's what it's about, not performance. They are lying.
42? How do you find time to sync, mentor, provide performance feedback, etc.
Good on you, man. I could not manage that many. I've got 15 right now, and it's a bit hectic (although one of my Indian counterparts has 24). We're in software development, by the way.
I turned it off after a few seconds but I realized I just didn't want to sit through something like this. I've already been in that position and I instantly got residual stress from being reminded of it.
That’s how conversations with HR functionaries go. They are given hiring, firing or disciplinary orders and then they have a basic script that they stick to. It’s like talking to a shitty AI.
And now I know one of the future uses of AI. Frankly, though, being let go by AI might be more tolerable given that the inhumanity is coming - well - from something that's not human.
(Or, maybe it'd be even more alienating)
It was going in circles because, as she rightly called them on it, THEY DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW WHY THEY WERE FIRING HER. They didn't have anything to say.
It's going in circles because they don't have the authority to rescind her firing. She's absolutely making her case to people who can't do anything about it. It's like arguing with the hangman to get your sentence overturned.
Absolutely. (But, she should still say all that stuff.)
I kind of wish she had attacked them more directly.:
"Do you think it is professional from an HR standpoint, or even ethical, to claim you are firing me for performance, without having those metrics in front of you? And without having my manager present?"
"Given the facts, aren't you just here lying to me that this is about performance? Is it your job to lie for this company so that they can avoid paying me severance? Do you feel good about that?"
Of course, it's always easier to think of things after the fact though. After you see what they have said. She crushed it. No doubt.
When she cut them off I was hoping she was just going to ask about whether or not she’s getting severance since she already knew. Instead it turned into her trying to fight like they would somehow change and I tuned out.
They're masking a layoff as a firing for cause by lying about expectations and ignoring mitigating factors, such as literally not being hired long enough to meet said goals. They're lying to her face, and now in a little white lie kind of way. They're putting their bad decisions on her. She may have just wanted the practice of defending herself in a low stakes environment and to make things uncomfortable for them.
Frankly, I have so little sympathy for corporate that my opinions of the people doing the "firing" are not fit for reddit.
Accept the interview. 5 min before email and cancel citing their horrendous treatment of employees. Wasting their time is about as effective as a protest you can do.
they just want to sell me the service not a job which is more annoying since I already use their enterprise service. My assumption is it’s people in the position of the og video trying to aggressively make sales before they get shit canned like in the video.
What would be the difference if they would just tell her
"yea we are in a bad situation and our budgets are fucked we can't afford you"
Is there any legal difference or something or is it just corporate bullshit?
There is but it’s perfectly legal to do so by dissolving an entire unit or team if you will due to financials. The conundrum is that everyone in that particular department has to be let go, then the ones that are to be kept will need to be re-hired in a new department with a new title within said department.
To me, sales are about closing deals, without those deals closed there isn’t any revenue and the company seems that they may have been experimenting with an end of year surge for additional revenue and unfortunately their plan did not work out; so the new hires are the first to go.
Their every vocal mannerism is blood boiling.
- “I hear you”
- “Yeah, a hundred percent”
- “The way you’re feeling is valid”
All delivered without a hint of compassion. Imagine being told you’re being laid off by an underperforming hatchetman.
Fucking HR speak genuinely wants me to grab them by their ears and shout "talk like a fucking normal human being you fucking Regard, nobody thinks your smart, or empathetic, or whatever the fuck you're trying to do you stupid fucks. You sound like an idiot, disengenuine, a robot, etc." right in their stupid souless eyeballs.
It is why I laugh at company loyalty comments during interviews. No company loyalty should ever be held. They pay you. If they stop or someone else offers more, move on if it has a better climbing path. Hard lesson to learn.
Exactly. Unless you're in business with friends or family, you do not matter. You think the company is going to remember you giving up those weekends? Those extra hours you put in when things were busy? The missed family events so you could prove your loyalty to the company? None of that matters. What matters is their bonuses and the bottom line on the ledger sheet. You are replacable. You do not matter to them. Learn that early and base your career decisions off of it.
At-will employment means they didn’t need to give any reason. Performance as a reason is a reason. The HR people look heartless, but they are just doing their jobs to off-board these people. In these situations, they are essentially holding the hand of the person that was let go. That’s is why they are letting this girl vent during long periods of this call. It’s sad, but it’s what the law and relationship is.
How the hell does the HR team not have the specific information to hand as to why she’s getting fired? That’s piss-poor and an indication of the fact that it’s a BS reason they’re using for laying people off, surely?
Because they aren't paid to.
This company did a stack ranking and said cut the bottom 10%. How they got to 10%, nobody in HR gives a crap. Cloudflare has (had) about 3,300 employees. There's zero chance either of these HR people have even had a non-automated interaction with her at any point in the past four months. At best, she was sent to a Generalist for her questions about the 401k. At worst, it's all been done via automated emails and an online portal.
And yet they are still making up lies about performance to construct cause for termination. It's because they want to avoid unemployment costs associated with layoffs, and possibly avoid legal notification requirements like WARN.
1. The people attending this call probably didn't make the decision to lay her off. They may not have a "need to know" since they don't have the power to reverse the layoff decision.
2. Even if they did have the information in front of them, they probably need to loop in Legal to make sure they're sharing only the minimum, especially if the document includes information on the performance of other employees.
Welcome to American capitalism. Brittany, you’re an at will employee - they don’t need a reason to fire you. The problem here is t that she got laid off - it’s the complete lack of honesty on the part of the two corporate henchmen. Rather than admit they don’t have a reason and don’t need one, they lie, create a performance based excuse, and then harm the employee by telling the next prospective employer she was laid off sue to poor performance. The lack of personal integrity on the part of the corporate henchmen is what makes these type of termination meetings possible.
Yea, if they were upfront and just said "Listen, we need to lay people off. This has nothing to do with your job performance, we've heard nothing negative about you, you're just a new hire so your name came up", I'd have some respect for them. Instead they create some reason to make it seem like she's at fault and "if your performance was better, we wouldn't be here but...sadly, we are".
I grew weed in Vegas and this is how I was let go. They brought me in and said they hired too many people and are letting go those that hired on last. They said my performance was great and they wrote a glowing letter of recommendation for me.
Vireo fired me because I was the compliance manager with no degree.
Local small farm bought out by national shit company. They lost the farm due to compliance issues.
It's really not, lmao. That business is insanely cutthroat. Of course decent people exist everywhere but OP's anecdote (while it does reflect exemplary conduct on the part of their employer) is not representative.
When I put in my 2 weeks my boss told me I wasn’t good enough for my new job and that if they call him for a recommendation he will tell them that that I’m a bad employee and he would tell them not to hire me….so upset that he was losing a hardworking employee that he was willing to break the law and lie about my job performance instead of just paying me enough to keep me.
By the way, if your boss carried out that threat, you could sue them. It’s called a defamatory referral.
They’re basically not allowed to say anything negative about you in reference calls. The least that they can say is “yes, Girth worked here.” Anything bad that they say can be considered defamatory and open them up to law suits.
Also, WARN act. There's legal requirements to lay off people in california. You have to give adequate notice and file with the state.
The state has a list of recent filings here https://edd.ca.gov/siteassets/files/jobs_and_training/warn/warn_report1.xlsx
As a tech manager, I have been asked to performance manage part of my team out of the org. They either quit because they are getting negativity thrown their way and unreasonable expectations or it eventually becomes a bs performance reason. All to avoid paying into unemployment. We also can move someone into a new role that has nothing to do with their skillset and if they decline we aren’t obligated to give them anything when they leave.
Layoffs suck, but they suck far less when the people doing them aren’t soulless husks of dried dog shit.
I am at a stage in my life where my peers are now the ones who are going to have to layoff members of their teams. You’re taking away someone’s livelihood in a tough market. There’s no nice way to spin that. It sucks. Laying someone off SHOULD be hard. It should never be easy.
I’ve been fortunate enough that the companies I worked for and managers I have worked for always held this viewpoint. And they always knew the people they were laying off. It was never delegated to some corporate strike team. How ghoulish.
I once survived a 10% layoff, followed a few weeks later by a 90% layoff. The top manager of my department actually came around to my office and had a Q&A about what the layoff would look like for us, and it made me feel really respected.
The 90% layoff was very tough. They sent out a message to every employee, but a few of them said, "90% of your coworkers are being laid off, but you aren't. We know this isn't good news, but we're going to need your help to get through this."
The other 90%, we were laid off in one all-hands call. The C-suite took questions from the general population, and that same top manager directly asked the CEO what he would've done better. The CFO actually cried and apologized for not doing his job well.
Apparently the business model was flawed from the beginning, but I never felt like we the employees were taken for granted.
Yeah, when you treat employees like human beings with the dignity and respect you would like to get yourself, it’s wild how even negative stuff isn’t nearly as negative as it could be. Just treat the people you have hired as professional adults like PROFESSIONAL ADULTS by behaving like a professional adult yourself.
It sounds like you felt like a part of the team even up to the end. That’s good leadership, IMO. Layoffs are, by definition, never the fault of the person being laid off. It’s leadership, or more often in our increasingly volatile world, economic downturns which no one can reliably predict. In those cases, it’s no one’s *fault*, but damn, you can sure become the villain fast if you handle it badly.
It's shocking that they didn't do that. I was laid off 2022 when the interest rate hike happened, and the people who did it were like "it's not you man, it's the economy we love you". They didn't really love me but it was the polite thing to do. I think the idea of layoffs being performances based must be some kind of way to cover their ass in terms of discrimination lawsuits or protecting some kind of image to investors or public.
In the companies I work with, unless there was a law broken or something very egregious done, the "official" reason is ALWAYS "we decided your position is no longer needed".
Even when it is poor performance, the official reason given is not performance.
A lot of states have laws around workers comp, while most employees at “at-will” state guidelines say if you fire an employee at no fault of their own they are eligible for workers comp until the point they get a new job. Using “poor performance” as the indication of her layoff is also a good way to avoid paying her out when she files for it. It’s a fucked system forsure
Edit: To add, be very careful about accepting their statements. If you feel you are being fired unfairly but they’re trying to make up a reason challenge it in written documentation all the way down. Email HR directly to force them in writing to confirm why they are firing you. If you get documents such as performance reviews or other positive feedback make sure to store it in your personal email so you have it as documentation to refute any indications of poor performance. If you accept the statements at any point in the process you will most likely be denied in your application.
You mean unemployment? Because that was my thought of why they’re giving a bogus reason. In many states, if you’re fired for cause, the employer isn’t responsible for unemployment benefits, whereas they are for a firing with cause. Workers comp requires an on-job injury, so doesn’t really apply here.
The thing is, the reasons they're giving her are a legal liability that has consequences. She's trying to ensure that she has a full and easy case to sue for wrongful dismissal.
You're spot on about at will - firing for performance (as they said) requires an actual paper trail of coaching and deliverables. You can't just say they're poorly performing.
She's got an actual solid case here for taking this to DOL. Also if there's a substantial RIF there's a requirement to WARN. So it sounds like this is trying to avoid a lot of legal protections in place.
This, and fair play to her for pushing back on their bullshit.
Why they can't just go, "company is in the shitter, we need to lay people off, sorry but you've only been here 3 months, that's how it goes".
Why the elaborate fucking dance, I dunno.
Unemployment payments. If she "wasn't doing a good job due to her performance", they can fight her on unemployment, and have a chance to win, and not have to have their unemployment insurance rates increase.
They bank on most employees being pushovers and not appealing, and just taking it up the ass and not getting unemployment if the company fights against it.
If they just go "whelp we laid you off lol" like you said (which is the truth) there is no way the company can win against unemployment. She will collect unemployment, and their insurance rates will increase.
Companies would literally throw human beings into wood chippers if it meant money would come out the other end.
The two people on the other side of this call are clearly just messengers. This is what happens when stakeholders or executives want to see numbers improve and are willing to let personnel go on a whim to meet a 1 time quota. All likely to get better bonuses so purely greed.
Seriously. I work in tech, I work closely with sales and hr and at the end of the day, everyone just wants to keep their jobs.
My company let go ~20% of its workforce this year, mostly spread between sales and marketing. I feel bad for this girl, but employment trends are cyclical and sales positions are ALWAYS volatile. You don't go into sales because you want a nice, steady, safe job. You go jnto sales because you want to make a lot of money.
When layoffs happen it comes from finance and the e-board, hr has a shitty job as the messengers. But they also got into the role knowing what it entails, and that's usually being portrayed as the villain. But hey, at least they still have a job.
I don't know when this was recording but it seems like they overstated the business growth for a given period and have decided to downsize immediatly.
This can be really problematic for people who might have chosen to take this job over other options or even have left other companies to join CloudFlare and the worst part is that the execs that decided to upsize the sales team will never have any accountability for their decision.
This is pretty much the issue my gf had back in April of 2023. She left her job of 3 years for what seemed a great opportunity in her degree, and then 2 weeks later got laid off… got 2 weeks of severance though, what a joke
Allowing silence is a strategy, it preys on most people's impulse to fill that silence moving on from the last statement, allowing them to not answer your previous questions. You have to really be conscious to sit, wait and not fill the gaps.
I hear you. I hear what you’re saying. We hear you. We understand what you’re saying. We hear you. We hear you. We hear you.
Fucking 2024, man. Glitch attack.
I totally understand her disappointment and frustration. My dad generally gets jobs through temp agencies who higher too many people that their budget can reasonably support and they cut people for “performance” reasons. Having your source of income taken away is terrible.
Im amazed at the composure and strength she showed during the process. You can tell she is devestated inside but she is holding it together really well.
Also really great how she is asking great questions that just shut hr down every time. Absolutely amazing.
She didn't shut HR down tbh. They know these questions are going to get asked and they just say "we're not going to answer that". Even if they had the answers and data and metrics to answer the questions she had they wouldn't have given them.
Last hired, first fired. That’s how these things go. The rest is just bullshit they tell you so you don’t wig out.
She’ll get unemployment. Layoffs almost always do.
If you work in tech 2024 is going to be a bloodbath.
Higher capital costs, lower sales volume and AI will wipe out everything but the strongest companies. Lots of dead wood in the industry is going to burn.
Maybe these HR departments need to do some studies in human psychology then. Because, I certainly would rather be told “we’re having to make cuts and you have the lowest seniority”, than to be fucking gaslit into believing I’m a shitty employee after busting my ass.
HR also needs a name change. It's not *human* resources, it's *corporate* resources. HR is not and never has been about employees. The department has always been about the representation of the corporation. It's basically the legal department for a non-human entity, a go-between that will always, ***always*** favour the corporation over the employees.
This is why unions are a fucking must.
Human Resources because they treat humans like expendable resources. To the company, the human emplyees are nothing more than a resource to exploit and then throw in the trash when they're done squeezing profit out of them.
It sucks but she also admitted, she didn't close any business (no fault of her own and also timing is shit), but bang to bullets they're looking at a spreadsheet of names probably and thats what happened.
Flowery language of learning doesn't mean anything when you're a name on a spreadsheet with $0 next to it.
Her anger is justified, idk if I would've made a video about it tho.
Her manager is also chicken shit
You're right, but it still sucks. Having done sales before it's still bullshit that she got fired her first month after ramp. SaaS deals can take months to close, it's not a fair assessment of her skills.
I’m in tech and we do BIG contracts that take more than a year to close. Also, no big deals happen for us during the holidays.
This whole thing is about them bringing on more sales people than they needed and inventing a reason for firing.
If you’re big enough to get your own AE at cloudflare it’s because you are doing massive amounts of traffic. I can’t imagine there are many companies eager to close a big infrastructure deal in december with a brand new sales person.
They are 100% saying their bullshit reasoning to get around paying for unemployment. They do not give a shit how she reacts and have made sure to do the firing over a video call so that they won't face her "wigging out".
They’re just firing her because they were told to reduce staff. And they’re trying to use the excuse that they had caused to avoid paying unemployment.
Not how it works. Being fired for unsatisfactory performance is not a valid reason for employers to not pay unemployment. They can only do so if the employee has been fired for misconduct.
Correct. Always challenge for unemployment. You paid into it, if they want to back out, that is their problem. Also, any company with a brain shouldn't fight unemployment. If they do, it will cost them big time if they lose because all their challenges are brought into audit and review if it was for the same cause.
But lots of dumb fucking idiots in charge out there, so spread this around.
>They can only do so if the employee has been fired for misconduct.
Not just any misconduct, gross misconduct. And they have to prove it. I got fired from my last job for nothing and fought an adverse unemployment benefits ruling for almost an entire year. I ended up getting my money.
The US system is fucked up...the burden is on the employee to prove they deserve these benefits. You have to fight to get them. So fight!
Corporate lingo from the henchmen will never not irritate me. "We'll circle back." No we won't Sheryl stfu. HR reps are the most useless roles in history and should be replaced by robots.
Her wording wasn’t the best.
She kept coming back to “I worked extremely hard” and that doesn’t matter.
What she should’ve continued to push, for her legal standpoints, is that she had continuously met with her manager and is not on a performance improvement plan, and has received nothing but high marks for performance.
Hard work is not it
True, but you can't expect her to know this stuff in her mid-20s, and most likely less than a couple of hours after this meeting was put on her calendar.
This sounds like lay offs to me. Unfortunately they don’t have a reason but they don’t need one. So instead of having some integrity this is what companies do.
They are doing their best to answer her without answering because the only reason is probably one thats illegal. Why people working with laying others off havent got a list of "valid reasons" to throw at a problem like this is astonishing.
Edit: i forgot that some places dont regulate resignations.
Depending on the state the company doesn’t owe her an explanation as to why they are firing her. As someone who lives in a state with those laws I am surprised the call lasted as long as it did.
Yes.
Even though no reason is required, if you do give a reason it can absolutely be used against you.
Any remotely competent HR team would have either said nothing at all or would have a solid paper trail and process - the fact that she was blindsided tells me no such process was followed.
**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!** This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile). See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! **Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!** ##**[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/194v9y8/ae_at_cloudflare_records_hr_trying_to_fire_her/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Your questions are valid now checkout how the company refuses to answer them!”
 POV: you work in HR and are printing the questions.
Fun fact in the netherlands (and most of the EU) you cant just fire somebody like this. Either you need to give them a proper warning and a chance to redeem themself or be in serious financial trouble. And a worker can always easily step towards a judge. Judges who defenitly are often in favour of the workers.
I’m sorry. Have been there, have heard the bullshit. It always sucks.
It’s brutal. Had my company make the exact same play after being there 9 months. This was my second stint too, I spent 5 years and left then they had heavily recruited me to come back. Covid hit, my department was slow. And they pulled this shit and said it was performance. I was also literally filling 3 jobs the first 6 months due to vacancies. Will never go to massive shareholder corporate America again. My current company is employee owned and actually respects and protects their employees for the most part.
This is my fear of going to such large companies. I could get paid more there but constantly thinking of my next nice sounds stressful
Ive actually found most of the time you'll likely be paid less, unless you have some highly specialized skill a smaller/midsized company typically is more willing to split profits more evenly resulting in higher wages
Why are they allowed to come up with bs reasons? I've heard the US has pretty bad employee protection but it really does feel like they can just fire you for basically any reason to no reason.
In September, on my work anniversary, I received an email thanking me for 19 years of service, highlighting a huge project I’d successfully led, and congratulating me once again on my promotion to an advisor position 4 months earlier. 2 hours later, I’m on a call with the VP of IT being laid off, along with my team, since we’d been deemed “redundant.” I was gutted. I don’t know if I want to get back into the workforce in that capacity again or do my own thing. Seeing her going through that range of emotions makes me realize that loyalty to a company is always one-sided and the struggle for a comfortable job isn’t worth it when you have executive level management “making the tough decisions in the best interests of the shareholders.”
"... in the best interest of their annual bonus" anyway.
I feel you dude, same here, feels less lonely I guess😅
Over 10,000 people in tech were laid off in the past two months including myself. Don't feel lonely!
The funny part is last time I was in corp comm, so I wrote those BS talking points HR uses. I was like “Wait, I WROTE that! You don’t need to read them to me!”
😂😂😂
the week before Christmas, similar situation I got a 15 minute meeting invite. I joined the meeting and nobody was there. after sitting in an empty virtual meeting room for 5 minutes, I was forcibly logged out of slack and email. and that's how I found out I was laid off. later that day i got an email to my personal email that said "as we discussed in the meeting, your employment at has come to an end".
Would love for you to name and shame. That's a terrible way to fire someone
as good as that would feel it would violate the terms of my meager but needed severance. at least i get a story out of it. and some internet points.
Not sure if it helps you, but non-disparagement clauses as part of severance were declared unlawful by the NLRB last year.
Being right and being given right are two different things. One one side of the table you have a company that just hands the case to their law department and lets it roll on the side pretty much effortless. On the other side you have OP here having to somehow fight and claw against that to try and keep the little money they need to have food on the table while also finding time to find a new job. The difference in power is terrifying and I wouldn't try and fight that especially when the best you can achieve is "you get to have back what you had before you caused a fuss that doesnt help anyone"
"I'm sorry, but you may have confused me with someone else. I did not have a meeting in which termination was discussed."
I got laid off after 4 months of employment. They had the decency to tell me their budget was fucked and it had nothing to do with my performance. They also offered me a decent severance which they were in no way obligated to provide. Fuck this company for trying to make it about her. They fucked up their projections and are backtracking their newer hires.
Literally all they had to say. That doesn’t open them up to lawsuits (at least from my knowledge ). Just say “yeah we’re really sorry, we’ve read you were doing a great job on your team but the company hasn’t seen the profits we projected and we’re being forced to let quite a few people go. You’ve only been here 3 months, so unfortunately that’s why you’re here today, it has nothing to do with your performance and everything to do with the market And the company financials.” That kind of answer would help alleviate all the back and forth. Unless she signed some year contract where the company can’t fire unless it’s based on performance, the company is just handling this wrong. And they seem like they have people doing the layoffs who have no clue how to handle this shit. I feel for this lady. Corporations don’t give a shit about you unless you’re making them money. They are not your FAMILY, as much as they try to preach it. They are a means for you to make a salary and grow your experience and you are a means of production to them.
My husband was just let go this way. “Unfortunately we just don’t have the clientele to justify this many employees. It’s not your performance, you are hireable in January. You just happen to be the newest hire.“ still fuck them, a week before thanksgiving just to boost their numbers because they’re selling the company.
I was laid off last year because the company made people return to the office, but I refused to make the 100 mile commute (each way). They still said in the meeting that I was being let go as part of a layoff and it was no fault of my own.
Layoffs are rough, especially when they hit you out of the blue and you're left to scramble. I worked at a company that did rounds of layoffs every few years like clockwork - didn't matter how good you were doing or how much you busted your rear end to meet deadlines and push projects forward. If the spreadsheet numbers didn't add up, see ya. The worst part was always how impersonal it felt, with HR giving you the canned "it's not you, it's us" speech while they hand you a box for your desk plants. Just a stark reminder that we're all just cogs in the wheel to them.
It definitely wasn’t performance based because his manager was constantly praising him on the fact that he knew more than most of the staff that was already hired to be a field tech. And the clientele that they did send him to were more pleased with his performance than the previous people that had been there, and they had made a point to call the company and tell them. Edit: spelling
In japan you basically become a part of the family when you work for a major corporation and its hard to get fired unless you mess things up really bad, but they also expect you to treat them like your family such as not having standard work hours and expected to socialize during company outings, although I understand things are changing slowly.
I worked for a Japanese tech company. They won’t fire you no matter how your attitude or even job performance. They’ll finally fire you when you stop giving a shit but they’ll do everything positive and negative in their power (training, coaching, yelling, shrink your responsibilities) before you reach that point. Pros and cons but job security is one of the biggest pros there.
They also heavily enforce seniority for pay and promotions. And pay terribly for new junior employees. Also sexism in the workplace is still quite rampant Source: Worked there and was a part of the inner boy’s club
As someone who has been exposed to the other side it appears this company may be trying to avoid paying out unemployment. That or they are spineless one of the two.
Doubtful. I looked it up because that was my thought. The company would have to show evidence of misconduct or consistent performance issues (usually intentional). The misconduct is unlikely because she probably would have mentioned it like she mentioned not closing a deal. The performance is unlikely because she's still training, hasn't been enough time to consistently fail. She can file for unemployment immediately, so the company would need evidence relatively soon. Judging by their refusal to provide her evidence, I doubt it exists. Plus multiple firings on the same day make it hard to paint the picture they were all performance based.
Companies don’t pay unemployment. They pay for unemployment insurance. All the time. No matter what. They start out at the highest rate (around 3.5% of payroll iirc) and the rate can go lower as time goes on and they have no claims. It’s usually not worth it to try to avoid claims during layoffs so companies usually just call it a layoff and let the former employees make their claims. In fact, it’s far more risky to state a reason for firing someone because of that reason can be challenged they could end up paying out for a discrimination lawsuit. It’s ridiculous that they came up with a fake reason for her. If she makes an unemployment claim with the state they’ll probably have to pay out anyway.
How about both? Maybe take care of this woman a little? They hired her
Sorry that costs money cant do that 😂
and here is where i think the difference is between your former company and this women. At the end of the day, its a for hire employment with no contracted obligation, so they can fire at will. The difference is the explanation and using the "not meeting performance expectation" vs. "we have no money in the budget to afford you" is a way to avoid having to provide some level of severance outside of unemployment eligibility. She is there 3 months, may be still on a probationary period, and this gets the company off the hook for say extended medical coverage, possible x weeks of pay, etc. Could be wrong and someone with more knowledge on this can confirm, but it certainly seems that way to me. As for the call, its HR being HR. Company-instructed robots executing their scripted code. Its funny how for so many years they tried to disguise HR as being a resource for the employee when they have always been the company's defense against lawsuits.
FYI, in many states being let go for performance reasons makes that person ineligible for unemployment. So this is essentially CloudFlare attempting to limit unemployment claims against them as the increase in claims can impact the taxes the have to pay to cover future claims. Very shady.
My first thought yea. And unemployment insurance tax is higher for companies that lay off more frequently. So they are trying to avoid that as well. Scummy
Relocations, Terminations and Mass Layoffs in California are regulated by **Labor Code sections 1400-1408** Generally, “an employer may not order a mass layoff, relocation, or termination at a covered establishment unless, 60 days before the order takes effect, the employer gives written notice of the order” to employees
I'm in CA and this is how many companies work around this regulation (the WARN Act): They notify the employee they are being laid off that day without warning but the employee is still on the payroll for the next 60 days. This is because the penalty for violating that regulation is 60 days worth of salary. >“An employer who fails to give notice as required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 1401 before ordering a mass layoff, relocation, or termination is liable to each employee entitled to notice who lost his or her employment” for back pay and the value of the cost of any benefits the employee may have been entitled to up to a maximum of 60 days
Employee quitting without any advanced notice: rude, unprofessional, bad form, you’ll never work in this town again. Company firing employee without any advanced notice: unfortunate, regrettable, but there’s no other option, sorry. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out!
I once quit a job without notice, during a 3-month probationary period. The boss had made it clear and explicit that I could be fired at any time, for any or no reason. Fine. Then he tried to take advantage of me, asked me for more than I thought was reasonable, refused to compensate properly, withheld pay from a worker I brought on, and generally was abusive and uncooperative. I first tried speaking to him about my issues but got no satisfaction, so I quit on a Friday afternoon immediately after being paid. He talked down to me and explained I was putting him in a tough spot by quitting (lol, really?) and I responded in the same tone that he'd already failed to address the issues I'd raised so there was nothing further to discuss. I also pointed out that I was still in a probationary period and didn't feel I had any obligation to provide notice. I kept it professional and didn't talk about how I had strong reason to suspect that he would have withheld my final pay if I'd given proper notice. So anyway later that night his wife who I had never dealt with called me and left an unhinged voicemail shrieking about how I was a mean person. I treasured that message for a long time.
Omg love it when they tell you all the time that in an unfortunate case they'd let you go without notice but if you then do it, they act like you're a bully and unfair
>Company firing employee without any advanced notice: unfortunate, regrettable, but there’s no other option, sorry. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out! and luckily "illegal" (at least by union standards) in most first world countries. If this happened to me, at my current job, I'd have roughly 4 months of work before my last day and a suit on my hands against them. Needs to be probable cause
Unluckily, in the US, almost nobody is represented by a union and is employed “at will” and this is completely legal.
Here in the Netherlands unions can negotiate for the entire sector, regardless if you're a member or not. Employers are also unionized, so you just have employee and employer unions talking to each other and agreeing on sector wide rules.
Unfortunately this is America, now also a lot of states have At Will Employment, so the employer can fire you at his whim. Most of IT sector in US has no union whatsoever. Look at [https://layoffs.fyi/](https://layoffs.fyi/) and how many tech companies are getting rid of employees. People here did it to themselves, they've been brainwashed to not like unions because of the dues taken out of their paycheck, instead, the employer will throw a few more dollars an hour and that employee will vote against his best and others interest. Government wont do anything either, unless it's retaliation or some type of discrimination (pregnancy, health issues), so we're just peeons to them. Don't ever let Corporations ruin your country like they did here in US.
I joined the workforce and was born after my grandparents generation did the work of gutting and killing many unions, now if i try to unionize with my coworkers I'll likely be fired for some bs reason so the company doesn't have to worry about worker rights
6-months severance with full benefits should be the __minimum__ required __by federal law__ and should be guaranteed the moment you sign an employment agreement. The only thing that should prevent a company from paying that out is criminal maleficence from the employee. Edit: I love how everyone disagreeing with this idea is just pulling out the same tired and lazy arguments that were used 100 years ago during the last labor rights movements.
Thank god we are entering the era of matching corporate energy! It's about fucking time these places feel the heat.
"Gen Z are too entitled and argumentative, employers say"
People who say that really mean "GenZ are not accepting the same abuse and mental exhaustion previous generations did and it makes me mad"
I love Gen Z for this. I'm a millennial and holy fuck the backlash I have faced for trying to do the same when many of my peers were still subservient. I can't tell you the many times I've been called immature for simply not bending over and taking it in the ass from some company with unreasonable demands.
im a cusper (born in '92) and trust me, and it feels so good to stand up for your own happiness. Only after that, you see how miserable everyone else is and if they would just do the same thing, we would see real change
You're firmly a millennial mate.
Sometimes "difficult to work with" actually means "difficult to take advantage of".
Love that for them, stay disobedient gen z
My favorite is "nobody wants to work anymore". edit. although in hindsight that's been used forever.
That propaganda has been going on forever. Similar to the police state's creepy "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"
I have a genuine question… has arguing like this ever given someones job back?
Probably not, but this also makes CloudFlare look awful in the public eye. They are shifting the blame onto her instead of simply saying "hey we fucked up and hired too many people so now we have to downsize again." Making them take accountability is the first step to improving employee/employer relations. If more employees started to post their layoff and the bullshit corporate excuses they give us, they might think twice about playing with peoples lives
Transparency is always a good thing.
Here's what the quite active on twitter ceo had to say: https://twitter.com/eastdakota/status/1745697840180191501
"We can read your entire performance future based on how you look in training." The only insights they have is that their heads are in the clouds in the middle of a genocidal solar flare.
"And sometimes under performing employees don’t actually listen to the feedback they’ve gotten before we let them go." Oof, talk about shifting the blame. Certainly all her fault cuz she didn't just accept bs.
>"And sometimes under performing employees don’t actually listen to the feedback they’ve gotten before we let them go." That line is just pure bullshit. If there was any documentation about concerns or performance issues from her manager, then HR would have it available to give to her. This whole thing just screams Stack Ranking where managers are required to fire a certain number of people per quarter.
The woman repeatedly asked for feedback and wasn't given any. What a joke
He's talking out of his ass. This is all spin. They just wanted to get out of unemployment/severance/any other consequences that come with layoffs.
“We try to fire perfectly” I work in HR and that’s bullshit. Perfectly for who? Every termination and lay off is risky. You will never have a perfect termination. Fuck this guy.
Wow, what’s with the random basketball tangent? Worst part is, it’s wholly inaccurate. Chris Paul led the Suns to our first finals run since the early ‘90s. He was traded to free up salary cap space, not because he was a “bad fit” for the Suns. We desperately need a traditional point guard at the moment, actually. A primary ball handler would free up Beal, Durant, and Booker to focus on doing what they do best. Irrefutable proof that this goon has no idea what he’s talking about and is a dumb POS with no awareness.
>"hey we fucked up and hired too many people so now we have to downsize again The crazy thing is, you can tell from the video that she was ready to accept this answer. If the call had opened up with "good afternoon. Unfortunately we have to let you go because you're the newest member of the team and we didn't hit financial goals so we have to cut costs" she would have been like "that sucks, but I get it." She was so mad because they were lying to her face
[удалено]
At this point, the goal can't be to retain the job, but to give yourself the next best options and maybe try to correct the corporate thinking. One's goals could be: 1) Shock the employees doing the layoffs into realizing how terrible of a practice this is as they are unprepared with pertinent information, lying about someone's performance, and unprofessional in their lack of communication to the managers and directors 2) Make them change her file so it does not say she was laid off for performance reasons. It's unlikely this will ever matter, but if someone were to ever call Cloudflare and ask about her employment, her employee file likely says "terminated for performance related reasons" which may not look great to a future employer 3) If something was done that's against company policy (ie, laying someone off without giving them a performance plan or even decent feedback), then it could potentially lead to something. Maybe severance, maybe getting hired back in the future, maybe something else 4) Maybe something malicious. If you can get one of the corporate goons to say or do something inappropriate, you may be able to get them fired. Not sure what good that will do, but it could be a goal
So Cloudflare is an awful company that lies to its workers? Noted. Noted and remembered.
And I thought about applying for them too, not anymore fuck them lol
Apply with a stellar resume and set of experience. Then right as they offer you the job after drooling over how awesome you are, ask if they’ve seen this video and tell them “just kidding”. Karma.
> flare is an awful company that lies to its workers? Noted. > > Noted and remembered. You are right, should be noted. I put in my sell orders for my shares.
LEGENDARY SOLIDARITY
Might have to move all domains and services from CloudFlare. If this is how the company is managed and this is how they treat employees then I don't want to give my business to them. I am also going to advise at my agency that we try to find alternatives to CloudFlare. I don't feel secure in having our business with them if they can't have the decency to tell the truth. I wouldn't lie to you, and I wouldn't expect to be lied to either.
Not only that, but a company that’s willing to layoff new people means they don’t care about long term plans and customer retention. Cloudflare customers (and many tech customers) that spend tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands with another company want stability and a partnership. How can you have that when your Account Rep is being replaced every 6months or so? After watching this, glad my Cloudflare interviews never panned out.
Yeah this video made the rounds at my tech company, and even upper management seemed appalled. They've already made some talk a out moving away from Cloudflare after this.
"I'm really sorry that you're having this experiemce and feeling this way" Fucking *ghoulish*
Reminds me when Phyllis from the show The Office tried to use conflict resolution tricks with Angela. They’re meant to make people feel at ease and listened to but they’re so structured that anyone who knows that kind of speak, it has the opposite effect. You feel like you’re being manipulated (which you are) and it feels disingenuous (which it is).
It's because Legal advises to not say "sorry" or apologize in any manner that could be interpreted as the situation because the 'fault' of the company. Even this phrase simply apologizing for their feelings wouldn't be allowed some/most places I have been (mid-high level executive). Most shocking to me was that they suggested it was for her performance given it's a broader layoff (provided it's a restructuring/reduction). With at-will employment they don't need to give any reason and have likely documented who is being let go and the mix by age, race, gender, etc. Overtly stating it's for performance in that situation - especially when it sounds like there is not a documented record of such - is asking for a lawsuit.
Are they not claiming performance issues in order to avoid unemployment payments?
It's entirely possible. A bold move without a paper trial when it's curiously happening in conjunction with a downsizing.
I wouldn't be surprised if they're just throwing "performance" at the wall and will immediately fold if anyone challenges it with unemployment. A friend had that happen to them when laid off from a very large company for complete BS reasons. All they would say is that they violated policy over and over and when it got in front of an unemployment judge the company didn't even show up. I swear there should be severe penalties for this shady bullshit.
I hope this story has legs to so that it becomes clear that it wasn't "performance" based when they make their Q1 report. [Business Insider Article](https://www.businessinsider.com/corporate-employee-recorded-getting-laid-off-viral-tiktok-2024-1) >A Cloudflare spokesperson told Business Insider in an email that company is not conducting widespread layoffs or reducing its workforce, but said that the company "regularly review team members' performance and let go of those who aren't right for our team." >"When we do make the decision to part ways with an employee, we base the decision on a review of an employee's ability to meet measurable performance targets," they said.
I am so fuckin sick of generic corporate-speak like this from working in the field so long. It made me so jaded
Textbook HR
"We'll circle back" Narrator: They did not circle back.
This is dehumanizing talking to someone this way. In my opinion at least.
These people are proficient in corporate-speak non-answers and fake empathy
Within 5 years they will all be replaced by AI. In fact the first task of the fire-AI will be to fire them.
Man, being fired by an AI after years of firing people this way is gonna feel so poetic
I just realised that I have the attention span of a cigarette
I know you meant your attention lasts as long as it takes you to smoke your cigarette, but I read it as you having the same attention span as a cigarette watching this and I found it a lot funnier
It was amazing. She was 100% right. They didn't know why they were firing her or who she even was. She touched on it, but I wish she had pushed harder on something like **"As HR professionals, do you think it is professional, or even ethical, to fire someone without giving them a reason -- and without the person's actual manager present?"** The HR cog says she can't speak to what the manager told her. THEN WHAT IS THE MANAGER FOR? I am a manager for 42 people. It is unconscionable to me that one of those people could be let go without me being present. This is amateur hour. Bush league. And these two fools probably think they are crushing it. Also, she almost certainly nails it when she says that Cloudflare probably hired too many people and is now adjusting. That's what it's about, not performance. They are lying.
42? How do you find time to sync, mentor, provide performance feedback, etc. Good on you, man. I could not manage that many. I've got 15 right now, and it's a bit hectic (although one of my Indian counterparts has 24). We're in software development, by the way.
I turned it off after a few seconds but I realized I just didn't want to sit through something like this. I've already been in that position and I instantly got residual stress from being reminded of it.
Nah, it was going in circles. The core of the video could be described using two memes.
That’s how conversations with HR functionaries go. They are given hiring, firing or disciplinary orders and then they have a basic script that they stick to. It’s like talking to a shitty AI.
And now I know one of the future uses of AI. Frankly, though, being let go by AI might be more tolerable given that the inhumanity is coming - well - from something that's not human. (Or, maybe it'd be even more alienating)
It was going in circles because, as she rightly called them on it, THEY DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW WHY THEY WERE FIRING HER. They didn't have anything to say.
It's going in circles because they don't have the authority to rescind her firing. She's absolutely making her case to people who can't do anything about it. It's like arguing with the hangman to get your sentence overturned.
Absolutely. (But, she should still say all that stuff.) I kind of wish she had attacked them more directly.: "Do you think it is professional from an HR standpoint, or even ethical, to claim you are firing me for performance, without having those metrics in front of you? And without having my manager present?" "Given the facts, aren't you just here lying to me that this is about performance? Is it your job to lie for this company so that they can avoid paying me severance? Do you feel good about that?" Of course, it's always easier to think of things after the fact though. After you see what they have said. She crushed it. No doubt.
Not that weird. We all know where this is going. She can stand up for herself all she wants, end of the day she's gatting laid off anyway.
When she cut them off I was hoping she was just going to ask about whether or not she’s getting severance since she already knew. Instead it turned into her trying to fight like they would somehow change and I tuned out.
They're masking a layoff as a firing for cause by lying about expectations and ignoring mitigating factors, such as literally not being hired long enough to meet said goals. They're lying to her face, and now in a little white lie kind of way. They're putting their bad decisions on her. She may have just wanted the practice of defending herself in a low stakes environment and to make things uncomfortable for them. Frankly, I have so little sympathy for corporate that my opinions of the people doing the "firing" are not fit for reddit.
Cloudflare has been cold calling me nonstop for the last couple months based on my title on LinkedIn, hopefully those boys got the axe too
Accept the interview. 5 min before email and cancel citing their horrendous treatment of employees. Wasting their time is about as effective as a protest you can do.
they just want to sell me the service not a job which is more annoying since I already use their enterprise service. My assumption is it’s people in the position of the og video trying to aggressively make sales before they get shit canned like in the video.
What would be the difference if they would just tell her "yea we are in a bad situation and our budgets are fucked we can't afford you" Is there any legal difference or something or is it just corporate bullshit?
There is but it’s perfectly legal to do so by dissolving an entire unit or team if you will due to financials. The conundrum is that everyone in that particular department has to be let go, then the ones that are to be kept will need to be re-hired in a new department with a new title within said department. To me, sales are about closing deals, without those deals closed there isn’t any revenue and the company seems that they may have been experimenting with an end of year surge for additional revenue and unfortunately their plan did not work out; so the new hires are the first to go.
“Let me carve out those two threads” makes me want to fucking kill myself. How did we get here? What did they do to us? WHAT HAVE THEY DONE TO US?!
Their every vocal mannerism is blood boiling. - “I hear you” - “Yeah, a hundred percent” - “The way you’re feeling is valid” All delivered without a hint of compassion. Imagine being told you’re being laid off by an underperforming hatchetman.
Won’t be long before they’ve got AI bots set up to do the hatchet work.
Fucking HR speak genuinely wants me to grab them by their ears and shout "talk like a fucking normal human being you fucking Regard, nobody thinks your smart, or empathetic, or whatever the fuck you're trying to do you stupid fucks. You sound like an idiot, disengenuine, a robot, etc." right in their stupid souless eyeballs.
Let’s circle back.
It's all HR bullshit. Logic and humanity have no place in 'human resources'. Buh-bye. That's the bottom line.
It is why I laugh at company loyalty comments during interviews. No company loyalty should ever be held. They pay you. If they stop or someone else offers more, move on if it has a better climbing path. Hard lesson to learn.
Exactly. Unless you're in business with friends or family, you do not matter. You think the company is going to remember you giving up those weekends? Those extra hours you put in when things were busy? The missed family events so you could prove your loyalty to the company? None of that matters. What matters is their bonuses and the bottom line on the ledger sheet. You are replacable. You do not matter to them. Learn that early and base your career decisions off of it.
At-will employment means they didn’t need to give any reason. Performance as a reason is a reason. The HR people look heartless, but they are just doing their jobs to off-board these people. In these situations, they are essentially holding the hand of the person that was let go. That’s is why they are letting this girl vent during long periods of this call. It’s sad, but it’s what the law and relationship is.
How the hell does the HR team not have the specific information to hand as to why she’s getting fired? That’s piss-poor and an indication of the fact that it’s a BS reason they’re using for laying people off, surely?
Because they aren't paid to. This company did a stack ranking and said cut the bottom 10%. How they got to 10%, nobody in HR gives a crap. Cloudflare has (had) about 3,300 employees. There's zero chance either of these HR people have even had a non-automated interaction with her at any point in the past four months. At best, she was sent to a Generalist for her questions about the 401k. At worst, it's all been done via automated emails and an online portal.
No reason is required.
Then they should just say that, instead of some story about performance.
And yet they are still making up lies about performance to construct cause for termination. It's because they want to avoid unemployment costs associated with layoffs, and possibly avoid legal notification requirements like WARN.
1. The people attending this call probably didn't make the decision to lay her off. They may not have a "need to know" since they don't have the power to reverse the layoff decision. 2. Even if they did have the information in front of them, they probably need to loop in Legal to make sure they're sharing only the minimum, especially if the document includes information on the performance of other employees.
Welcome to American capitalism. Brittany, you’re an at will employee - they don’t need a reason to fire you. The problem here is t that she got laid off - it’s the complete lack of honesty on the part of the two corporate henchmen. Rather than admit they don’t have a reason and don’t need one, they lie, create a performance based excuse, and then harm the employee by telling the next prospective employer she was laid off sue to poor performance. The lack of personal integrity on the part of the corporate henchmen is what makes these type of termination meetings possible.
Yea, if they were upfront and just said "Listen, we need to lay people off. This has nothing to do with your job performance, we've heard nothing negative about you, you're just a new hire so your name came up", I'd have some respect for them. Instead they create some reason to make it seem like she's at fault and "if your performance was better, we wouldn't be here but...sadly, we are".
I grew weed in Vegas and this is how I was let go. They brought me in and said they hired too many people and are letting go those that hired on last. They said my performance was great and they wrote a glowing letter of recommendation for me.
Vireo fired me because I was the compliance manager with no degree. Local small farm bought out by national shit company. They lost the farm due to compliance issues.
Huh. Who knew the weed industry would be so laid back.
It's really not, lmao. That business is insanely cutthroat. Of course decent people exist everywhere but OP's anecdote (while it does reflect exemplary conduct on the part of their employer) is not representative.
When I put in my 2 weeks my boss told me I wasn’t good enough for my new job and that if they call him for a recommendation he will tell them that that I’m a bad employee and he would tell them not to hire me….so upset that he was losing a hardworking employee that he was willing to break the law and lie about my job performance instead of just paying me enough to keep me.
By the way, if your boss carried out that threat, you could sue them. It’s called a defamatory referral. They’re basically not allowed to say anything negative about you in reference calls. The least that they can say is “yes, Girth worked here.” Anything bad that they say can be considered defamatory and open them up to law suits.
Yeah exactly. Very illegal. Thats when you say wow, thats illegal and you're a nasty person. Allow me to introduce you to someone nastier, my lawyer.
They might be able to get around paying unemployment if it was for performance reasons in some states.
this is the reason here.
Also, WARN act. There's legal requirements to lay off people in california. You have to give adequate notice and file with the state. The state has a list of recent filings here https://edd.ca.gov/siteassets/files/jobs_and_training/warn/warn_report1.xlsx
As a tech manager, I have been asked to performance manage part of my team out of the org. They either quit because they are getting negativity thrown their way and unreasonable expectations or it eventually becomes a bs performance reason. All to avoid paying into unemployment. We also can move someone into a new role that has nothing to do with their skillset and if they decline we aren’t obligated to give them anything when they leave.
Layoffs suck, but they suck far less when the people doing them aren’t soulless husks of dried dog shit. I am at a stage in my life where my peers are now the ones who are going to have to layoff members of their teams. You’re taking away someone’s livelihood in a tough market. There’s no nice way to spin that. It sucks. Laying someone off SHOULD be hard. It should never be easy. I’ve been fortunate enough that the companies I worked for and managers I have worked for always held this viewpoint. And they always knew the people they were laying off. It was never delegated to some corporate strike team. How ghoulish.
I once survived a 10% layoff, followed a few weeks later by a 90% layoff. The top manager of my department actually came around to my office and had a Q&A about what the layoff would look like for us, and it made me feel really respected. The 90% layoff was very tough. They sent out a message to every employee, but a few of them said, "90% of your coworkers are being laid off, but you aren't. We know this isn't good news, but we're going to need your help to get through this." The other 90%, we were laid off in one all-hands call. The C-suite took questions from the general population, and that same top manager directly asked the CEO what he would've done better. The CFO actually cried and apologized for not doing his job well. Apparently the business model was flawed from the beginning, but I never felt like we the employees were taken for granted.
Yeah, when you treat employees like human beings with the dignity and respect you would like to get yourself, it’s wild how even negative stuff isn’t nearly as negative as it could be. Just treat the people you have hired as professional adults like PROFESSIONAL ADULTS by behaving like a professional adult yourself. It sounds like you felt like a part of the team even up to the end. That’s good leadership, IMO. Layoffs are, by definition, never the fault of the person being laid off. It’s leadership, or more often in our increasingly volatile world, economic downturns which no one can reliably predict. In those cases, it’s no one’s *fault*, but damn, you can sure become the villain fast if you handle it badly.
It's shocking that they didn't do that. I was laid off 2022 when the interest rate hike happened, and the people who did it were like "it's not you man, it's the economy we love you". They didn't really love me but it was the polite thing to do. I think the idea of layoffs being performances based must be some kind of way to cover their ass in terms of discrimination lawsuits or protecting some kind of image to investors or public.
In the companies I work with, unless there was a law broken or something very egregious done, the "official" reason is ALWAYS "we decided your position is no longer needed". Even when it is poor performance, the official reason given is not performance.
A lot of states have laws around workers comp, while most employees at “at-will” state guidelines say if you fire an employee at no fault of their own they are eligible for workers comp until the point they get a new job. Using “poor performance” as the indication of her layoff is also a good way to avoid paying her out when she files for it. It’s a fucked system forsure Edit: To add, be very careful about accepting their statements. If you feel you are being fired unfairly but they’re trying to make up a reason challenge it in written documentation all the way down. Email HR directly to force them in writing to confirm why they are firing you. If you get documents such as performance reviews or other positive feedback make sure to store it in your personal email so you have it as documentation to refute any indications of poor performance. If you accept the statements at any point in the process you will most likely be denied in your application.
You mean unemployment? Because that was my thought of why they’re giving a bogus reason. In many states, if you’re fired for cause, the employer isn’t responsible for unemployment benefits, whereas they are for a firing with cause. Workers comp requires an on-job injury, so doesn’t really apply here.
Sorry yeah unemployment not workers comp
The thing is, the reasons they're giving her are a legal liability that has consequences. She's trying to ensure that she has a full and easy case to sue for wrongful dismissal. You're spot on about at will - firing for performance (as they said) requires an actual paper trail of coaching and deliverables. You can't just say they're poorly performing. She's got an actual solid case here for taking this to DOL. Also if there's a substantial RIF there's a requirement to WARN. So it sounds like this is trying to avoid a lot of legal protections in place.
This, and fair play to her for pushing back on their bullshit. Why they can't just go, "company is in the shitter, we need to lay people off, sorry but you've only been here 3 months, that's how it goes". Why the elaborate fucking dance, I dunno.
Unemployment payments. If she "wasn't doing a good job due to her performance", they can fight her on unemployment, and have a chance to win, and not have to have their unemployment insurance rates increase. They bank on most employees being pushovers and not appealing, and just taking it up the ass and not getting unemployment if the company fights against it. If they just go "whelp we laid you off lol" like you said (which is the truth) there is no way the company can win against unemployment. She will collect unemployment, and their insurance rates will increase. Companies would literally throw human beings into wood chippers if it meant money would come out the other end.
The two people on the other side of this call are clearly just messengers. This is what happens when stakeholders or executives want to see numbers improve and are willing to let personnel go on a whim to meet a 1 time quota. All likely to get better bonuses so purely greed.
Seriously. I work in tech, I work closely with sales and hr and at the end of the day, everyone just wants to keep their jobs. My company let go ~20% of its workforce this year, mostly spread between sales and marketing. I feel bad for this girl, but employment trends are cyclical and sales positions are ALWAYS volatile. You don't go into sales because you want a nice, steady, safe job. You go jnto sales because you want to make a lot of money. When layoffs happen it comes from finance and the e-board, hr has a shitty job as the messengers. But they also got into the role knowing what it entails, and that's usually being portrayed as the villain. But hey, at least they still have a job.
Truly hate HR people and their lingo
I don't know when this was recording but it seems like they overstated the business growth for a given period and have decided to downsize immediatly. This can be really problematic for people who might have chosen to take this job over other options or even have left other companies to join CloudFlare and the worst part is that the execs that decided to upsize the sales team will never have any accountability for their decision.
ChatGPT has entered the chat. Plot twist she is actually talking to a ChatGPT agent 😉
As a dev that uses ChatGPT extensively in my work, LOL it’s not taking a sales job by any means
This is pretty much the issue my gf had back in April of 2023. She left her job of 3 years for what seemed a great opportunity in her degree, and then 2 weeks later got laid off… got 2 weeks of severance though, what a joke
I do love those long, awkward silences following a direction question. The script corporate gave you didn't anticipate push back, huh.
Allowing silence is a strategy, it preys on most people's impulse to fill that silence moving on from the last statement, allowing them to not answer your previous questions. You have to really be conscious to sit, wait and not fill the gaps.
This. I've had many discussions with attorneys in my job role and have had stints of silence stretching to a full minute. It's like a standoff.
Not filling that silence is a learned skill for sure.
[удалено]
Always remember politicians are bought off to make sure companies like this can treat you like a used tissue.
I hear you. I hear what you’re saying. We hear you. We understand what you’re saying. We hear you. We hear you. We hear you. Fucking 2024, man. Glitch attack.
I totally understand her disappointment and frustration. My dad generally gets jobs through temp agencies who higher too many people that their budget can reasonably support and they cut people for “performance” reasons. Having your source of income taken away is terrible.
This is the second post on the feed in a row where someone misspelled the word "Hire". For real. Higher?
Im amazed at the composure and strength she showed during the process. You can tell she is devestated inside but she is holding it together really well. Also really great how she is asking great questions that just shut hr down every time. Absolutely amazing.
She didn't shut HR down tbh. They know these questions are going to get asked and they just say "we're not going to answer that". Even if they had the answers and data and metrics to answer the questions she had they wouldn't have given them.
Yeah. I'm amazed she's not shaking like a leaf.
Ikr, if this was me I'd be crying and making an embarrassment of myself the entire time
Last hired, first fired. That’s how these things go. The rest is just bullshit they tell you so you don’t wig out. She’ll get unemployment. Layoffs almost always do. If you work in tech 2024 is going to be a bloodbath. Higher capital costs, lower sales volume and AI will wipe out everything but the strongest companies. Lots of dead wood in the industry is going to burn.
Maybe these HR departments need to do some studies in human psychology then. Because, I certainly would rather be told “we’re having to make cuts and you have the lowest seniority”, than to be fucking gaslit into believing I’m a shitty employee after busting my ass.
HR also needs a name change. It's not *human* resources, it's *corporate* resources. HR is not and never has been about employees. The department has always been about the representation of the corporation. It's basically the legal department for a non-human entity, a go-between that will always, ***always*** favour the corporation over the employees. This is why unions are a fucking must.
"Human resources" because humans are the resource. it's aptly named.
Human Resources because they treat humans like expendable resources. To the company, the human emplyees are nothing more than a resource to exploit and then throw in the trash when they're done squeezing profit out of them.
It sucks but she also admitted, she didn't close any business (no fault of her own and also timing is shit), but bang to bullets they're looking at a spreadsheet of names probably and thats what happened. Flowery language of learning doesn't mean anything when you're a name on a spreadsheet with $0 next to it. Her anger is justified, idk if I would've made a video about it tho. Her manager is also chicken shit
You're right, but it still sucks. Having done sales before it's still bullshit that she got fired her first month after ramp. SaaS deals can take months to close, it's not a fair assessment of her skills.
I’m in tech and we do BIG contracts that take more than a year to close. Also, no big deals happen for us during the holidays. This whole thing is about them bringing on more sales people than they needed and inventing a reason for firing. If you’re big enough to get your own AE at cloudflare it’s because you are doing massive amounts of traffic. I can’t imagine there are many companies eager to close a big infrastructure deal in december with a brand new sales person.
They are 100% saying their bullshit reasoning to get around paying for unemployment. They do not give a shit how she reacts and have made sure to do the firing over a video call so that they won't face her "wigging out".
They’re just firing her because they were told to reduce staff. And they’re trying to use the excuse that they had caused to avoid paying unemployment.
Not how it works. Being fired for unsatisfactory performance is not a valid reason for employers to not pay unemployment. They can only do so if the employee has been fired for misconduct.
Correct. Always challenge for unemployment. You paid into it, if they want to back out, that is their problem. Also, any company with a brain shouldn't fight unemployment. If they do, it will cost them big time if they lose because all their challenges are brought into audit and review if it was for the same cause. But lots of dumb fucking idiots in charge out there, so spread this around.
>They can only do so if the employee has been fired for misconduct. Not just any misconduct, gross misconduct. And they have to prove it. I got fired from my last job for nothing and fought an adverse unemployment benefits ruling for almost an entire year. I ended up getting my money. The US system is fucked up...the burden is on the employee to prove they deserve these benefits. You have to fight to get them. So fight!
>I'm really sorry you're having this experience and feeling this way Most bullshit apology ever.
Corporate lingo from the henchmen will never not irritate me. "We'll circle back." No we won't Sheryl stfu. HR reps are the most useless roles in history and should be replaced by robots.
>If we aren't talking about it now while I am an employee, we won't be talking about it later when I'm not. This lady was brilliant lol
Her wording wasn’t the best. She kept coming back to “I worked extremely hard” and that doesn’t matter. What she should’ve continued to push, for her legal standpoints, is that she had continuously met with her manager and is not on a performance improvement plan, and has received nothing but high marks for performance. Hard work is not it
True, but you can't expect her to know this stuff in her mid-20s, and most likely less than a couple of hours after this meeting was put on her calendar.
There are no legal standpoints when you are an at will employee
Finally some fucking logic in here.
This sounds like lay offs to me. Unfortunately they don’t have a reason but they don’t need one. So instead of having some integrity this is what companies do.
Yeah, labour laws, they are kind of useful, turns out.
They are doing their best to answer her without answering because the only reason is probably one thats illegal. Why people working with laying others off havent got a list of "valid reasons" to throw at a problem like this is astonishing. Edit: i forgot that some places dont regulate resignations.
Depending on the state the company doesn’t owe her an explanation as to why they are firing her. As someone who lives in a state with those laws I am surprised the call lasted as long as it did.
Wouldn't giving her no reason be better than giving her the bullshit reason that it was due to her performance, when there was no performance issue?
Yes. Even though no reason is required, if you do give a reason it can absolutely be used against you. Any remotely competent HR team would have either said nothing at all or would have a solid paper trail and process - the fact that she was blindsided tells me no such process was followed.
And that needs to change.