6 ms·
My friend was let go from Goog ~ 3 weeks ago. Was classified as "underperforming," put on PIP, worked his ass off while on PIP, and then fired without any sever
by vital_sol 18y ago
My friend was let go from Goog ~ 3 weeks ago.
Was classified as "underperforming," put on PIP, worked his ass off while on PIP, and then fired without any severance.
He was with Goog for 3 years, not a new hire.
- gauss 18y agoSame thing happened to a team mate 2 weeks ago. He was told he was 'underperforming', put on a PIP. He responded and upped his game a lot. Couple of weeks go walked into a meeting to find HR sitting with his manager to deliver the bad news. Might be a coincidence, then again might not be. Who knows.
- patio11 18y agoWhat does PIP mean in this context? Is it a probationary status, or a "here's a mentor to teach you to work better" status, or some combination of the two, perhaps?
- azanar 18y agoI suspect Performance Improvement Plan. Not a google-specific thing, but I've not seen the acronym used before today.
- kennyroo 18y agoCorrect. It's a widely-used term in the tech area, and beyond.
- neilk 18y agoPIP is a Performance Improvement Plan. It's not a Google thing, these things are common in corporate America. The employee is asked to sign a document that admits they are underperforming, with the promise that they can turn the situation around through their own efforts. In practice, the PIP is used to provide an evidence trail to fire someone. PIP is not the same thing as being laid off. In a layoff, you sometimes can get your boss to sign a letter that states this was NOT termination due to poor performance.
- davidw 18y agoWow... sounds like something that involves lots of TPS reports.
- gaius 18y agoYou may joke about it, but these aren't a joking matter. The ultimate function of the HR department is to prevent management from being sued. If an employee who has been around for a few years and has a good history is suddenly put on such a plan it means some manager has decided that they simply don't like them. It's turning the resources of the organization into a mechanism for bullying an individual. Never, ever sign one, and start researching the law around unfair dismissal.
- davidw 18y agoYou're right, I guess, but ... yuck. I suppose that's another reason why I prefer smaller companies. I think companies ought to be free to hire and fire who they want, when they want, even when it's a stupid decision.
- ambition 18y agoI'd like to think that too. But then I think: If a company had a legal right to fire me whenever they wanted, and I had a mortgage or family, I wouldn't work for them unless they agreed to waive that right and give me several months notice (or severance).
- davidw 18y agoI think there should be a social safety net too, that all profitable companies pay into. That way, you're not screwed if you're fired, but the company is still free to act as they see fit. Perhaps they're even less constrained in some ways, because they know they're not throwing you to the wolves, so to speak. Contractual negotiations, like you mention, might also be a sensible approach to providing something similar, but they would only tend to cover workers with enough bargaining power to obtain them, either by being really valuable, or via unions or something. In Italy, companies, not the government, form the social safety net, because it's nearly impossible to fire people. This has created a huge mess - people are afraid to change jobs, people work for years doing stuff they're not good at or don't like, companies can't hire young people... It's a bad solution.
- okeumeni 18y agoWe are all capitalists at heart but I’m always baffled by this company who makes Billions of dollars, claim to do no evil and put on schemes to keep the hard earned dollar of engineers. It is a shame!