I can’t give more approval for this woman, she handled everything so well.
The backstory is that Cloudflare overhired and wanted to reduce headcount, rightsize, whatever terrible HR wording you choose. Instead of admitting that this was a layoff, which would grant her things like severance and unemployment - they tried to tell her that her performance was lacking.
And for most of us (myself included) we would angrily accept it and trash the company online. Not her, she goes directly against them. It of course doesn’t go anywhere because HR is a bunch of robots with no emotions that just parrot what papa company tells them to, but she still says what all of us wish we did.
(Warning, if you’ve ever been laid off this is a bit enraging and can bring up some feelings)
Yeah sure, if she has no emotions I’d say that’d be a great way to handle it.
Unfortunately she’s trying to keep herself composed while going through an extremely traumatic event in her life. A layoff is something that may seem routine for you - but for me I still process through my layoffs years later. She’s holding back tears. I held back tears. I’d say she did remarkably well while having her life plans crumble around her.
I put 100% of the blame on HR and the company - even if it’s completely her fault for getting fired I wouldn’t put any blame on her for not using the perfect wording.
Please allow me to offer a nuance on the topic of HR. I see a lot of hate about HR on this thread and quite a bit is founded… But on the other hand, two things:
the HR folks themselves are not to blame for the fact that the company overhired, are cutting people, or even to some extent some shitty strategies like pretending people are fire for cause instead of laid off. It’s decided by executives ans the CEO, and HR operationalizes. I’ll fully grant though that they sometimes (often) operationalize shittily.
and more importantly, HR is shitty in a shitty company, and pretty decent in a (quite rare) decent company. Fundamentally HR’s job is to help manage humans as a resource, and among other tasks it means to protect the company against human-related risks. There are different fundamental beliefs and philosophies companies can have around how to avoid that risk - and their HR strategy is set accordingly.
Some decent (rare) employers believe that to avoid risks like being sued or unionizing, the best strategy is to provide employees with a healthy work environment, competitive pay and to remove toxic managers and executives quickly. In these companies HR plays a very strong policing role ensuring that managers don’t cause human related risk by abusing workers. I know it sounds idealistic and I’ll 100% grant that it applies unfortunately to a very small sample of employers, but it’s true.
Of course way more common are companies with the philosophy that to avoid these risks you need to squash people, back your managers at all cost, never admit a fault, etc - and that’s the shitty strategy operationalized by shitty a HR department.
Lastly the governmental labour laws framework of a country plays a big role too - in some countries where those laws are super weak like the US, particularly if your employer is your only way to access half decent healthcare, you can’t afford to change employer - and the shitty strategy becomes a much lower cost than the decent one (found a bit more often in Canada, way more in Europe and even more in Scandinavian countries)
Sorry for the walltext rambling