In theory, if the layoffs are a "reduction in force" they are supposed to ignore individual performance (never happens of course)
-
-
-
While I appreciate "randomized algorithms", I suspect that "totally random algorithms" are rarely optimal.pic.twitter.com/oyjg7Sc6c8
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Assuming you have a system that's actually meaningfully measuring job performance---a big assumption by that point.
-
Job perf would be request to version control (LOC) divided by tickets number
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@miah_ Unions like the rule; last hired, first laid off & it doesn't mark the next job hunt by not being performance relatedThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I remember the word on the street was, some high-performers were getting laid off, and getting hired back weeks after.
-
ummmm and they actually took the rehire jobs? Seems like some people would have a bad taste in their mouth.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Isn’t that where those low performers who get pink slips sue because they hadn’t been given opportunity to improve? Hence ‘random’?
-
this was the reason unofficially given by management in a "non-performance" round of layoffs at a company I worked at.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
one argument against this would be that I'd rather get fired for business than for performance reasons.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.