[HN Gopher] DoorDash lays off 1250 employees
___________________________________________________________________
DoorDash lays off 1250 employees
Author : derwiki
Score : 218 points
Date : 2022-11-30 16:54 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (doordash.news)
(TXT) w3m dump (doordash.news)
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| What's the fuckedcompany site of our current era? Is there one?
| bilbo0s wrote:
| Hacker News
| leet_thow wrote:
| https://layoffs.fyi/
| shortstuffsushi wrote:
| Thank you for this, I was actually going to post asking if
| there was a collection.
| [deleted]
| qwertyuiop_ wrote:
| These CEO letters are meaningless. They are written by obscenely
| paid PR hacks and follow the same template.
|
| * This is the most difficult change to COMPANY NAME HERE that
| I've had to announce in our almost n-year history. Today, we are
| reducing our corporate headcount by approximately n people and
| saying goodbye to many talented teammates.*
|
| * While there is no great way to manage this process, we strive
| to treat each of you with respect and integrity. Each of you who
| is impacted will have the opportunity to speak to a leader this
| week.*
|
| * While I want to focus today's attention on our talented
| teammates who are departing, I did want to say a few words to the
| team that is staying and carrying the baton. While today's news
| is painful, I continue to be very optimistic about our future and
| convinced of the importance of the role we can play in the
| world.*
| whatshisface wrote:
| People complain about how these announcements say nothing, but
| what would you expect a company to say about their layoffs?
| sidfthec wrote:
| How about the CEO saying "I'll be resigning from the
| company"?
|
| What do you think people mean when they say they should take
| responsibility? Screaming "I declare responsibility!"?
| randomh3r0 wrote:
| Being CEO means making difficult decisions, and it isn't
| realistic to expect a CEO to only serve during good times.
| That said, I think it would go a long way towards
| appeasement if the messaging was more along the lines of "I
| will be withholding payment to myself until such time as
| we're in the black again" or something similar showing
| personal consequences beyond "mea culpa!" nonsense PR
| messaging.
|
| Maybe it's reasonable to expect a CEO to resign when
| layoffs happen during a market upswing but... during a
| market downturn like this it's kind of inevitable to see
| layoffs in a services-based company when services are the
| some of the easiest things for consumers to scale back on
| when belt-tightening occurs. A change in leadership would
| only further _hurt_ the people staying in the company, IMO.
| toast0 wrote:
| If the CEO says they'll resign, people will say they're
| taking the easy way out, and anyway, it's no skin off their
| back because golden parachute (if they were a good
| negotiator when they were hired) or anyway their salary was
| probably high, etc.
|
| It's an unwinnable game in the court of public opinion, so
| why do it? Because it signals to the underlings that the
| CEO is not expecting resignations from them.
| anotherman554 wrote:
| "If the CEO says they'll resign, people will say they're
| taking the easy way out, and anyway, it's no skin off
| their back because golden parachute"
|
| Nothing prevents the CEO from resigning and gifting the
| golden parachute back to the company. You know, if they
| want to "take responsibility."
| toast0 wrote:
| Sure, but then there's the "but they already got paid a
| bazillion dollars"
| belval wrote:
| For some reason every layoff press release on HN gets the
| "The CEO takes responsability but doesn't actually" comments.
|
| I'm not sure what people expect, "I will whip myself once for
| every employee I had to layoff to atone for overhiring during
| one of the biggest market bull run"?
|
| It's especially weird considering that DoorDash is probably
| the company that had the best reason to overhire during a
| pandemic where delivery apps where being used a lot more than
| usual.
| weego wrote:
| - have their pay adjusted to reflect the poor decision
| making lead to the company shrinkage
|
| - have a portion of their stock allowance taken back and
| have to be re-earned based on performance
|
| - have their other benefits and expense account cut and
| have to be re-earned based on performance
|
| Basically have literally _anything_ they benefit from have
| to be justified in _any_ way as a reflection of the
| holistic performance of the company.
| pedrosorio wrote:
| Stock allowance? Taken back where? Doordash's CEO is the
| founder.
| tomnipotent wrote:
| None of these things are in the best interest of the
| company. Demotivating and losing leadership isn't going
| to help right the ship.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| ... and instead demotivating the entire workforce is
| somehow better?
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| I think the bitterness comes from the big payoffs that CEOs
| get when the company does well. There's something upsetting
| about leadership taking the upside reward for the big wins
| but leaving the downside risk for everyone else.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| A somewhat common way for CEOs to take responsibility used
| to be to forgo their bonuses or to take a pay cut, which
| while still not too meaningful, does at least involve some
| more responsibility than just plain PR speak.
| idbehold wrote:
| > I will whip myself once for every employee I had to
| layoff
|
| I like the sound of that! Joking aside, while physical harm
| may not fly I can imagine a scenario where it hits the
| CEOs' wallets either by losing stock options/grants or
| actual salary based on the number of employees they had to
| layoff. Because seriously, what does it even mean for the
| CEO to take responsibility when there are no actual
| consequences for them? If they're doing it to save the
| business (which they are) then just say that instead of
| saying they take responsibility as the latter is just
| virtue signaling.
| whatshisface wrote:
| From the investor's perspective the CEO's job is to do
| what's good for the company, which doesn't always involve
| doing what's good for some or all the employees, laying a
| lot of developers off is not a bad thing from the
| perspective of the business unless their work is needed
| and there is enough money to pay them.
| idbehold wrote:
| Right, so the CEO should just say that. Effectively the
| layoff was out of their control. It was the best decision
| for the business (shareholders). The act of saying "I
| take full responsibility" is pure virtue signaling unless
| it actually has consequences for them. Instead they
| should say, "I made the best decision for the
| shareholders."
| subb wrote:
| Maybe start by having a sustainable growth (or you know, no
| growth!) so you don't have to write a completely emotionless
| letter explaining why you have to lay off a whole village?
| xpe wrote:
| Remember the CEO is also accountable to the board and
| investors who have certain expectations.
|
| The morality here is hard because the end results are
| largely driven by the system. Sure, there are some leaders
| who are particularly ill-suited for their jobs from the
| employee POV. Unfortunately some of those leaders serve
| their investors quite well.
|
| If you point one finger, you'll quickly realize you might
| need many more to follow the interconnected trail of power.
|
| Also let's not forget that so much of Silicon Valley's
| advantageous job market is linked to investor behavior,
| good and bad. My point? Sure, criticize these feaux-
| emotional layoff letters, just don't forget to look back to
| see the reality distortion field already in place when you
| joined that job.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| So what we need here is mechanisms to hold the board
| accountable for their failures.
| vikingerik wrote:
| Well, perception/observation bias. We never notice the
| companies that do grow sustainably and don't do layoffs.
| xpe wrote:
| You really think so? I've picked many places to work
| based on my perception of their business model stability
| and how they treat people. I'm far from perfect of
| course.
|
| I think many employees and investors care about employee
| retention. I don't know how much it factors in, but it is
| something.
| vikingerik wrote:
| I meant "we" as on a news site like this, "Company Not
| Laying Off" will never make a headline. Yes, employees
| and good investors/owners do care.
| cokeandpepsi wrote:
| eh, they gotta say something the exit packages seem good
| layoffs during this time of year are very stressful
| Encrypt-Keeper wrote:
| The CEO letter is meaningless, but the severance and departing
| benefits look pretty generous at least. A nice little cushion
| while they look for new jobs. I've certainly seen much worse.
| TeeMassive wrote:
| Musk did it better
| rco8786 wrote:
| > obscenely paid PR hacks
|
| I genuinely don't understand comments like this. Do you know
| who wrote the letter? Do you know how much they get paid?
|
| Communications is a real skill with actual, real people that
| devote their careers to doing it well. And they get paid
| fairly, unless you know something I don't.
|
| Nobody wants to write this letter, least of all the PR person
| who wrote it.
|
| What would you have the CEO say, if not what they all say when
| this happens? "Our business isn't growing like we hoped now get
| fucked"?
| tuckerpo wrote:
| Brevity and directness are appreciated. People's livelihoods
| are disappearing from underneath them -- give tangible
| reasons why, in plain language.
| rco8786 wrote:
| Seriously, what do you think that looks like if not exactly
| what was written?
|
| > We sped up our hiring to catch up with our growth and
| started many new businesses in response to feedback from
| our audiences.
|
| > Most of our investments are paying off, and while we've
| always been disciplined in how we have managed our business
| and operational metrics, we were not as rigorous as we
| should have been in managing our team growth
|
| > While our business continues to grow fast, given how
| quickly we hired, our operating expenses - if left unabated
| - would continue to outgrow our revenue.
|
| We grew too fast and revenue wasn't catching up. What other
| tangibles do you want? Would they somehow help the
| situation?
| tuckerpo wrote:
| Do you have a horse in this race? Are you the PR guy
| writing these emails? : ^ )
|
| > What other tangibles do you want?
|
| In short-form: you're gone, here's why, here's some
| money. The diction doesn't need to be apologetic. It's
| condescending.
| rco8786 wrote:
| I don't at all. I'm just trying to figure out what people
| are supposed to be doing. And I was mostly responding to
| the comment of "obscenely paid PR hacks" in the first
| place...just unnecessarily cynical.
|
| It was a long letter b/c it provided a lot of
| information. The information you're asking for was
| wrapped up in 3 sentences. But I guess that was still too
| long?
|
| If it's not apologetic, they get reamed for being too
| cold/unsympethetic.
| aardvarkr wrote:
| What would you rather the CEO say? It's easy to complain about
| everything but orders of magnitude more difficult to think
| critically and offer ways to improve it.
|
| It's more difficult but that desire to think critically and put
| in the effort is what makes the community here so much better
| than most sites.
| uuddlrlrbaba wrote:
| In terms of budget, wonder how many staff would equal CEO
| compensation. A _lot_ of orgs out there carry on just fine
| through absence and transitions at the top.
| db1234 wrote:
| You forgot to include CEO taking responsibility.
| nicksrose7224 wrote:
| Without any actual implications of them "taking
| responsibility" too
| tarunkotia wrote:
| Implication is that you get a strike against you which is
| publicly documented. This also serves a purpose of sending
| a message to middle-management that we should not repeat
| this strategic mistake of over-hiring when things are hot
| and then when things slowdown going through this painful
| process of separation. I am hopeful that this public
| admission will inculcate a culture of holding everyone
| accountable rather than "emperor has no clothes" culture
| where people live in denial.
| xpe wrote:
| What would that look like?
|
| I'm no supporter of PR speak. The CEO ranks seem to have no
| problem in finding their next gig. Some some receive
| ludicrous compensation even when the company does poorly.
|
| I'm just not sure what is the desired outcome here? And how
| do we get there?
| azakai wrote:
| One possibile way to take personal responsibility could
| be to add "and therefore I will reduce my compensation by
| the same percentage we are reducing headcount". (Based on
| other comments, that would be 6%.)
| ferdowsi wrote:
| Their CEO compensation is mostly equity, which has
| dropped like a stone in the past year.
| db1234 wrote:
| That's true for most corporate employees as well, no?
| dcgudeman wrote:
| Don't you think this is pretty childish? When market
| conditions change companies need to adapt, sometimes that
| means laying people off. Isn't that the job of the CEO?
| They are responsible for the health of the company
| overall. I don't see why they should be punished for
| making adjustments to make the company competitive.
| azakai wrote:
| In general I agree with you, yes, market conditions
| change, and CEOs need to make sometimes tough choices in
| response.
|
| However, the specific context here is this quote from the
| CEO:
|
| > we were not as rigorous as we should have been in
| managing our team growth. That's on me.
|
| If the CEO admits they made a mistake that led to the
| current layoffs then I think it would be admirable to
| take personal responsibility and accept some personal
| consequences as a result.
| xpe wrote:
| > When market conditions chance, companies need to adapt
|
| I agree with that part ^
|
| Let me frame this more broadly. _How_ and _when_ should
| companies adapt? There are many ways, across many
| timescales.
|
| I'll give a made up example, hopefully in a reasonable
| ballpark. A company needs to save $250M / year. Let's say
| there are three options under consideration, not mutually
| exclusive / can be blended:
|
| Option A: Lay off 1% of 10,000 employees, saving
| $250M/year.
|
| Option B: 15% across the board salary cuts, saving
| $250M/year.
|
| Option C: Lower executive and VP-level compensation
| packages (salary, options, stock, deferred pay, etc),
| saving $250M.
|
| Fairness in service of the company goals means that all
| viable options are given due consideration.
|
| It is relatively easy for a CEO to do lay offs, even if
| other options (lowering their own comp) has better
| effects.
| db1234 wrote:
| DoorDash CEO's compensation in 2021 was 413 million
| https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/Doordash-highest-
| paid-CE...
|
| While it's true stock has dropped like a rock since then,
| it's impacted corporate employee comp as well so I don't
| agree that stock tanking exclusively impacted the CEO and
| hence he has paid for the bad decisions.
| tuan wrote:
| according to this CNN article
| https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/30/tech/doordash-layoffs/index.h...,
| it's about 6% of their workforce.
| actusual wrote:
| Yowza, >20,000 employees?? Does that include drivers?
| sergiotapia wrote:
| I led the tech at a similar company and most of our "drivers"
| were not W2 employees. I imagine the drivers are the same.
| csa wrote:
| I assume that drivers are "gig workers" who can't be laid
| off.
| NelsonMinar wrote:
| CNBC says 8600 corporate employees, so this would be 15%.
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/30/doordash-lays-off-1250-emplo...
| mrweasel wrote:
| While I do feel sorry for the people who are losing their
| jobs, I do wonder why so many of these unicorns / VC funded /
| startups / Silicon Vally darlings, all seems like they are,
| shall we say, a bit overstaffed?
|
| If you can lay off between 10% or more of the staff and
| expect to continue to operate unimpeded, then why didn't they
| do it sooner? I'm not counting Twitter, because while perhaps
| overstaffed, firing 50%+ is just nuts.
| SeanAnderson wrote:
| Because opportunity cost of expanding into larger markets
| more quickly was worth the inefficiency until interest
| rates went up.
| cheriot wrote:
| The whole point of taking funding is that it lets a company
| grow headcount ahead of achieving the sales to sustain it.
| So they'll estimate that X headcount will be needed Y
| months in the future. When growth doesn't materialize then
| X comes down and when funding is less available then Y
| comes down. Then they have layoffs.
|
| X and Y became unusually high in 2021. If we have an actual
| recession I'd expect more layoffs from the same companies.
| CorruptedArc wrote:
| *DoorDash to Layoff 1250 Employees
| kwertyoowiyop wrote:
| At least he called them 'teammates' rather than 'Dashers' or some
| other cringe.
| wokibroki wrote:
| Nice!
| magundu wrote:
| I think, hacker news should add Layoff menu after jobs tab.
|
| It is happening so often. Almost everyday.
| [deleted]
| staunch wrote:
| Whatever you think about the letter, the fact that they're
| providing reasonable severance/vesting/healthcare support proves
| a large degree of competence and ethics.
|
| My simple policy is: I will never stop talking trash, never work
| for, and avoid entirely any company that lays people off without
| the basic ethics of providing reasonable financial support. The
| companies providing two weeks should be shamed for eternity.
|
| As long as enough people adopt this attitude it will effectively
| force companies to behave well, even if they don't want to. Tech
| workers on HN have particularly powerful influence in this regard
| and should utilize it.
|
| (It'd be great if layoffs.fyi provided severance data to shame
| and reward the right companies.)
| erehweb wrote:
| Large companies may be effectively required to give a lot of
| severance for large layoffs to avoid having to announce layoffs
| in advance - see e.g. the California WARN act.
| https://edd.ca.gov/en/Jobs_and_Training/Layoff_Services_WARN
| DenisM wrote:
| Something I wanted to discuss - the bandwagon effect.
|
| If you want to do layoffs you will be best suited doing them at
| the same time as all the other companies. That's because normally
| layoffs bust morale and lead not only to the ejection of the
| people you wanted gone, but also to the departure of the people
| you wanted to stay. However when everyone is doing layoffs at the
| same time there is nowhere for your good employees to go.
|
| Is this effect real, or am I seeing things?
| xeromal wrote:
| I'd say there is an effect, but there are compound issues at
| hand. Another issue is that it's just damn hard to raise money
| right now either through debt or issuing stocks. Someone very
| close to me just got laid off at Volta because they were in an
| expansionist mindset but you need easy money to pull that off.
|
| Easy money is gone. Companies that balanced their budget
| without the need for debt to continue to operate are OK.
| DenisM wrote:
| I'm trying to tease apart the bandwagon effect from the
| fundamentals you're describing.
|
| The reason why the distinction is important is that the
| bandwagon effect will come and go, while the fundamentals can
| stay negative for any amount of time.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| I am very lucky to work for a company that has zero debt. If
| I was looking to change jobs right now that would be one of
| the primary questions I would ask, the debt position of the
| company.
|
| Many companies are going to get hit hard when their corporate
| loans come due over the next 1-3 years.
| xeromal wrote:
| Same with mine. We're small and lean but we are slow to
| grow or needlessly spend money. A bit less reward but way
| less risk.
| alberth wrote:
| For negative announcements like this, companies like to "hide
| in the herd" of other such announcements happening in the
| industry.
|
| Another tactic is announcing negative news on a Friday
| afternoon, to miss the news cycle.
| roflyear wrote:
| Layoffs always happen, but I imagine it is like a wave.
| Sometimes you have very few, other times you have a lot.
|
| "nowhere else to go" isn't really a thing right now - but "the
| mood is right" is probably more of what is happening. Employees
| are at least a little on edge (which significantly impacts
| performance, for what it is worth) right now.
|
| Most companies that are laying off people do not need to lay
| them off. Their survival is not at stake.
|
| Doordash, for example, is making something like 4billion $ of
| gross profit a year.
|
| That's enough to pay all of these 1200 employees $3m a year,
| with some left over.
| sergiotapia wrote:
| >Most of our investments are paying off, and while we've always
| been disciplined in how we have managed our business and
| operational metrics, we were not as rigorous as we should have
| been in managing our team growth. That's on me. As a result,
| operating expenses grew quickly.
|
| Translated: The free money party from VCs is over. Across the
| board, it's OVER. Time for actual good businesses. No more
| spending $1.50 to make $0.60 and grow.
|
| Party's over gents.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| Hard times coming for a lot of people, and only some people
| that I feel deserve it. Overall, I agree. The Free Money Party
| is over and it's going to be a net good.
|
| I do wonder how much of the shitty behavior we've seen in the
| past 10-15 years eventually falls back to "Whatever, we'll just
| get more money if we need it". I am optimistic of businesses
| that do their work and stay out of politics, that actually need
| to be competitive, that give a shit about customers because
| they really do need you.
| slater wrote:
| _we were not as rigorous as we should have been in managing our
| team growth. That's on me._
|
| Therefor you, the CEO, are resigning as well, right? Oh.
| gretch wrote:
| I guess you're implying that resignation would be the more just
| course of action from the CEO, but I don't think everyone sees
| it that way (not me for 1).
|
| I think resignation would be the more cowardly move. The ceo
| dug a deep hole and at least 1k ppl lost their job. They have
| the responsibility of digging out of that hole before more ppl
| have to get laid off.
|
| Resigning now would read to me like "hey guys, I know I made a
| mess here but, oh well, have fun dealing with it, good luck to
| the next guy". Absolutely would not work with someone like that
| in future prospects
| Tempest1981 wrote:
| Just like at Hooli: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u48vYSLvKNQ
| 1attice wrote:
| I really find these mea-culpas hard to take when I know even just
| a smidge more than they expect.
|
| In this case, I did a Doordash technical screen three months ago
| during a job hunt. Recruiter painted a rosy picture of growth and
| outlook, slathered me in honey-words, etc. This was well into the
| downturn.
|
| Normalcy bias is powerful and I can understand that some
| companies did not move fast enough to respond to the change in
| the weather, but I can also _fault them for it_ , and find these
| apologies self-serving.
| SheinhardtWigCo wrote:
| I don't understand, do you expect recruiters to have realistic
| insights into the company's trajectory?
| 1attice wrote:
| There are three comments to this post, and they are all along
| the lines of, "well of course they lied that's their job, you
| should know better."
|
| Firstly, this isn't about me -- I was smart; I took a different
| option.
|
| But this _is_ about my industry, and so my sword must flash
| from its scabbard.
|
| I know you're sick to death of the P-word, but do think of the
| privilege that would be required _in order to take
| responsibility for the decision_ , i.e. in order for the
| decision to be made non-coercively.
|
| Thinking it through, you'd need:
|
| 1. Local knowledge about the way the tech industry works (which
| I do, so guess which job I didn't take after looking over their
| figures)
|
| 2. Access to plausible alternatives
|
| 3. (most importantly) confidence in oneself and one's
| perceptions.
|
| I've spent the past half-decade of my good fortune trying to
| help friends enter the industry from other careers (urban
| planning etc.) and it's this implicit-never-spoken-about shit
| that is the biggest barrier-to-entry.
|
| You can either have diversity in your industry or you can have
| life-or-death decision things that 'everybody just knows,'
| except for the newcomers. Pick one.
|
| P.S. also the stakes are much higher if you're offered a work
| visa and a relocation package to a country where you can only
| legally work for a single employer. And that employer, if they
| fsck off -- well; that's how you get people alone and stuck,
| strangers in a strange land, running out of money and hope.
| ferdowsi wrote:
| Recruiters are salespeople. Toxic positivity, undue flattery,
| etc are all part of their toolbox. It's ultimately on the
| candidate to perform due diligence on the organization, like
| with any product.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Good salespeople are at least somewhat objective.
|
| I had a realtor point out issues with properties that I might
| never have thought to ask about. Now, maybe that was to steer
| me to other properties that he would make more money on, but
| they were real issues. It did serve to build a sense that he
| was not hiding information just to get a sale.
| anm89 wrote:
| Were you expecting a recruiter to say "Yeah things aren't
| great. I expect layoffs in the next few months" .? If so that's
| honestly on you. They would get fired for saying that. Of
| course they are never going to
| roflyear wrote:
| They didn't lie. DD is making $700m a quarter in gross profits.
| Profits are going up. The company is doing great. The stock is
| way up today.
|
| They did not lie about the company doing well and having a good
| outlook. Seems like they do.
| janalsncm wrote:
| I personally wouldn't fault the recruiters. The higher ups who
| set recruitment targets are to blame. If they recruited a
| person who got laid off a few months later, it suggests poor
| planning.
| rmk wrote:
| It's great that they have set a March 1 termination date for
| those on visas. And the severance and stock vesting are also
| reasonable. Not to mention the fact that health insurance
| continues for quite a bit longer and then goes into Cobra.
|
| The verbiage is standard PR pap but the actual actions are quite
| very considerate.
|
| However, what actual responsibility are the CEOs taking after
| hiring like crazy knowing fully well that the pandemic exuberance
| and stimulus wasn't going to keep the recession away, only delay
| it? I'm sure competitive pressure was part of the reason for the
| overhiring but it's still not the whole story.
| stu2b50 wrote:
| If I were a board member I wouldn't really want an environment
| where CEOs were deathly afraid of making bets that made sense
| at the time. It just leads to stagnation.
|
| What consequence do you think the CEO should face?
| rmk wrote:
| That is a fair point. However, my point is not that the CEO
| should face consequences, but voluntarily take responsibility
| in some meaningful way. "That's on me" in a corporate email
| != taking actual responsibility. The empty platitudes are the
| problem. The accommodations for employees who are being let
| go are above and beyond, which is the silver lining.
| sovnade wrote:
| What are they supposed to do? Demand ramped up significantly
| during covid - they needed staff to support it. They really had
| no choice but to hire that staff unless they wanted to have an
| undersupported platform with extremely long wait times for
| things like customer service or onboarding new restaurants. And
| with DD having a lot of competition (Uber Eats, Postmates, etc
| etc), someone else would pick up their slack and keep that
| business.
| CityOfThrowaway wrote:
| In every HN thread about layoffs, there is some number of
| comments that are written as:
|
| "It's good that the company paid [nearly unfathomable severance
| benefits], but what ACCOUNTABILITY is there?"
|
| My brother in Christ, the accountability is that the company is
| paying unfathomable severance benefits, watching their stock
| price tank, and getting dragged in the public sphere.
|
| What would you like the CEO to do? Quit?
| valeness wrote:
| > What would you like the CEO to do? Quit?
|
| Yep
| prasadjoglekar wrote:
| That's for the board to do. If they're taking their
| responsibility seriously and feel like the CEO is no longer
| capable. See also: AMC and Disney in the last 10 days.
| erehweb wrote:
| If I understand DoorDash's corporate structure, the
| founders have dual-class stock and voting control, so
| board could not remove them.
| throwaway5959 wrote:
| Yeah actually, it used to be if a CEO did a shitty job they
| were fired.
| willcipriano wrote:
| Put it this way, if the company was wildly successful how
| much credit does the executive team take for itself? Now in a
| downturn, you take that much blame.
|
| So if you took a huge bonus for all your leadership during
| the pandemic, I don't see why you shouldn't lose your job
| when your lack of leadership did the opposite. Either you
| were responsible or you weren't. You choose to "be in charge"
| only on the upside.
| rmk wrote:
| Why not? Is it very difficult to countenance a founder who
| has 'got his' leaving to make way for someone who has a
| little more ethics? Every single one of these CEOs hired an
| untold number of people full-time during the pandemic, and
| then discarded them just a year or so after said binge. They
| knew the game they were playing, only they pretend to be
| paragons of virtue and write meaningless blather about it.
| ddalex wrote:
| > My brother in Christ
|
| Isn't this religious discrimination ?
| [deleted]
| xdavidliu wrote:
| not really, it's just a rhetorical flourish. Ignore it if
| it bothers you.
| programmarchy wrote:
| Your last paragraph is a little ridiculous. Hindsight is 20/20.
| If you knew there was a recession coming, why didn't you short
| the market and become rich? Nobody, including CEOs, knew for
| certain when the pandemic would end or how that would affect
| the markets.
| celestialcheese wrote:
| > However, what actual responsibility are the CEOs taking after
| hiring like crazy knowing fully well that the pandemic
| exuberance and stimulus wasn't going to keep the recession
| away, only delay it? I'm sure competitive pressure was part of
| the reason for the overhiring but it's still not the whole
| story.
|
| Why do you think Doordash/Shopify/Stripe "knew full well" that
| this boom wouldn't last?
|
| The common thinking in SV and the world as a whole was that the
| pandemic accelerated the adoption of online services by about 5
| years due to lockdowns and WFH. Unfortunately, the world
| reverted to the mean with regards to online shopping and
| ordering food pretty quickly in 2022, but this idea of
| accelerated-online was a reasonable one held by many.
|
| Hell, if you looked at the numbers during those quarters at all
| these companies, the boards and shareholders would have fired
| the CEOs if they hadn't staffed up.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| > Why do you think Doordash/Shopify/Stripe "knew full well"
| that this boom wouldn't last?
|
| In the Doordash case, it's pretty god damn obvious the boom
| wouldn't last. DoorDash shot up because restaurant dining
| rooms were closed. As soon as restaurants started opening
| back up, it only makes sense that DoorDash's popularity would
| sink. While certainly some people will have decided "Hey,
| this is pretty convenient" and keep using them, I think it's
| absolutely bone-headed to think it wasn't going to eventually
| dip.
|
| > Unfortunately, the world reverted to the mean with regards
| to online shopping and ordering food pretty quickly in 2022
|
| Again, completely bone-headed to have not expected this to
| happen.
| celestialcheese wrote:
| If you are so confident that it was bone-headed to not
| foresee this - did you take a short position against these
| companies in Q4 2021? If not, why? You would have made an
| absolute fortune placing trades against these public
| companies.
|
| Here's a different way to look at it - a whole lot of
| people started using DD that would have never tried it
| during lockdowns. If those users liked the experience and
| convenience, then they'd stuck with it. DoorDash bet that a
| lot more people would stick around than actually did. DD
| was wrong, but I would argue that it wasn't a dumb bet
| given the stickiness of their product, and their excellence
| in execution up until that point.
| deltree7 wrote:
| Wow, look at Mr. Nostradamus here.
|
| There is only way to prove your credentials here. Show your
| returns in stock market from 2018 to 2022.
|
| Else you are just a sad pathetic whiner who whines about
| CEOs all the time
| Dicey84 wrote:
| Are there any write ups on how you simultaneously terminate this
| many employees from a logistical point of view?
|
| Ie: does HR numbers need to be bolstered to handle it? How do you
| choose the 1200+ individuals?
| killjoywashere wrote:
| These announcements are required by labor law. Examples:
|
| * https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/termination/plantclosings
|
| * https://edd.ca.gov/en/Jobs_and_Training/Layoff_Services_WARN
| roflyear wrote:
| Another case of a company not needing to lay people off, but they
| are. Stock of course is up 9% today.
|
| Doordash is making something like $700m in gross profit a
| quarter.
|
| Just remember this when a company calls you a family.
| doovd wrote:
| Could someone please explain why this note reads identically to
| the Meta and Stripe note?
| kick_in_the_dor wrote:
| Meta and Stripe attract some of the top tech talent and are
| seen as leaders in their respective fields. Thus, their actions
| often create de facto templates for other companies following
| suit.
| djur wrote:
| Also the senior leadership in these companies are all part of
| overlapping social circles, have similar educational
| backgrounds, have a similar media diet, etc.
| adamsmith143 wrote:
| The company has never made a dime in profits and has no path to
| do so. Just a matter of time until the VC money dries up.
| gagabity wrote:
| It's a public company.
| dylan604 wrote:
| well, i guess after the pandemic, all of the fake websites for
| local eateries that didn't have websites have been made (so that
| doordash owns the search and orders even if the user thought they
| were ordering directly), so that's a department no longer needed.
| /s
| cokeandpepsi wrote:
| that and it costs like $40 to order a burger, I was a regular
| customer at one point and I rarely hit the order button now
| after seeing the price
| dmamills wrote:
| Undercut competition by burning raised capital. Then once
| you've got the market share, you boil the frogs you gathered.
| I believe the euphemism around these parts is "disruption".
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Unfortunately for them, you can go walk (or drive) and get
| a burger! I quite enjoy phoning through an order and
| picking it up like it's 1986!
| ProjectArcturis wrote:
| With those enormous fees, how were they not profitable?
| anm89 wrote:
| This is the reality of the astoundingly terrible business
| of food delivery. Take something with already razor thin
| margins, add multiple layers of middle men each with their
| own overhead and create the amazing situation where the
| product is incredibly expensive but most of the middle man
| take either low or no margins and the delivery person
| collects a rent but then loses that right away on vehicle
| maintenance and gas in many cases.
|
| It's the biggest lose lose lose lose of all time. The only
| real winner is the government who collects tax on this net
| loss of a transaction.
|
| This is also why direct delivery like a pizza shop or
| chinese place with its own delivery drivers works but the
| app delivery model doesn't.
| sawert wrote:
| Ya, agreed. The model is truly terrible. Too many
| constituents with a very limited pie
| jsnell wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33800997
| deanmoriarty wrote:
| I feel envious of these folks getting such a nice severance. It
| would be rather nice for me to be laid off with a great cash flow
| of money and take a long vacation.
|
| Naturally my life is financially in order (no debt, no kids to
| support, no visa issues), so I recognize my privileged position,
| and I say this as a first generation US immigrant who went
| through many precarious visas including H1B. Envy was nonetheless
| the first emotion the article evoked in me.
| paxys wrote:
| Far from being a vacation, looking for a new job while on a
| deadline and in a down job market is much more stressful than
| working a full time job.
| roflyear wrote:
| Well, in the context of layoffs... most companies don't give
| you any severance.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > I feel envious of these folks getting such a nice severance.
| It would be rather nice for me to be laid off with a great cash
| flow of money and take a long vacation.
|
| I can tell you've never been laid off before, because even with
| severance it doesn't feel like a "long vacation".
|
| Layoffs like this are heavily correlated with a collapsing job
| market. Finding a new job right now is orders of magnitude more
| difficult than finding a job a year ago. Getting laid off also
| works against you, as many potential hirers assume that laid
| off people were among the lowest performers of their company.
| It's not fair, but it happens.
|
| It's also not really a relaxing vacation when you're busy
| prepping for interviews, dealing with interview calls and/or
| flights randomly scattered across the week, and other
| interview-related stresses. The clock is ticking and your full
| time job is now to interview to get a job. It's also likely (in
| this market anyway) that any company you interview with would
| prefer that you start ASAP, so you don't even have a defined
| end date.
|
| Getting laid off with severance sounds fun until it happens and
| you're faced with the realities, especially in the middle of a
| collapsing hiring market that has been flooded with 100,000+
| laid off FAANG engineers competing for every great job out
| there.
| [deleted]
| lm28469 wrote:
| > I can tell you've never been laid off before, because even
| with severance it doesn't feel like a "long vacation".
|
| I've been laid off with no severance and it felt like
| vacation, so it might depends on your specific situation. It
| was my first job, in Germany, 70% of so of my salary
| guaranteed as unemployment benefits.
|
| I didn't look for a job for like six months, I could have
| used the full 12 months as I was more than cash positive and
| still managed to save 40% of my income without changing my
| lifestyle, it took me two weeks to find a new one. That being
| said I'm not a "study for interview" kind of dude, life's too
| short to grind for that imho
| ethanbond wrote:
| > I've been laid of with no severance... [but with] 70% of
| my salary guaranteed
|
| Uhh, yeah obviously that felt like a vacation.
| lm28469 wrote:
| Isn't it the norm pretty much everywhere in the west ?
| I'd have been fine with 30% or so with my lifestyle
| ganoushoreilly wrote:
| No, at least not in the us. There are caps and in most
| instances it's close to $300-400 a week max with a limit
| on how many weeks you can claim.
| mrtranscendence wrote:
| > Isn't it the norm pretty much everywhere in the west ?
|
| In my US state (Ohio), weekly benefits for those without
| dependents cap out at $530. That's about 19% of my
| current salary. It would be barely enough to cover my
| mortgage and utilities, but throw in the car (payment /
| gas / insurance), groceries, incidentals ... I'd be in
| trouble. (And unlike some of the forward-thinking
| individuals who've posted here, I don't have several
| years' worth of savings to rely on.)
|
| Edit: and if, god forbid, I became disabled ... my
| government-provided benefits would be something like $150
| a week. They may as well give me a kiss on the cheek for
| all the good that amount would do for me.
| smileysteve wrote:
| No, definitely not in the US.
|
| I was last laid off in 2015 by a large media company, we
| received only 1 month of severance. (Which was 1.5 months
| paychecks because they paid in arrears)
|
| Severance and notice of small scale layoffs (company
| under 50) has no protection in most states. 8 person
| company offered no severance, but we had a pretty good
| sense it was coming a month away.
| amrocha wrote:
| Well yes, the US is a shit hole, we knew that already. In
| civilized countries it's pretty normal to have good
| unemployment insurance.
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| Definitely not. This last couple of years Ohio really
| fucked a lot of people I know. The state would not
| respond to claims and their system would automatically
| close "old" claims. You couldn't refile or reopen the
| claim after this happened. The phone system would play a
| 6 minute message and then hang up.
|
| Taking the state to court for this while also trying to
| get a job would be difficult.
| kilroy123 wrote:
| 100% agreed. This is the worst time to be laid off since
| 2008, maybe even the dot.com crash in 2000? I'm too young to
| know what that era was like.
| itake wrote:
| I think it really depends on your financial situation and how
| you want to spend your time. If they have been saving most of
| their salaries and have years of savings saved up, then maybe
| they are fine taking a 12 mo vacation before starting the
| interview grind. Perhaps there are some side projects they
| want to work on instead.
| NSMutableSet wrote:
| It depends entirely on your life circumstances. It can feel
| like a vacation if your partner is still earning 6x+ the
| median national household income, you have ample savings and
| multiple years of runway for any immediate debts that can't
| become delinquent without significant consequences, and you
| have wealthy parents to fall back on on top of everything
| else.
|
| (for the record, I don't have any of these aside from the
| runway, since I have no significant debts due to the lack of
| a mortgage)
| justizin wrote:
| It's not the best time to be looking for work.
| sfe22 wrote:
| Exactly, the best thing to do right now is hold on to your
| job. It is unclear when the economy will recover and you may
| be able to find a better job.
| itake wrote:
| With a severance package and savings like OPs, why do they
| need to look for work now?
| shpx wrote:
| If many of these thousands of tech people start just
| spending their large savings and not working, that could
| lead to more inflation.
| ar_lan wrote:
| It's sort of the same envy I feel when I see student loan
| forgiveness. I worked a ton (30+ hrs weekly) in college, and
| 40+ hrs during summer/winter break, to ensure I graduated
| college with no loans taken.
|
| And now to see loan forgiveness for people who took far fewer
| sacrifices (especially lawyers/doctors, who make significantly
| more than me now) - it sort of reinforces that working hard is
| a sucker move, and definitely discourages me from doing such
| paths if I believe I can just get a bail out later.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > And now to see loan forgiveness for people who took far
| fewer sacrifices (especially lawyers/doctors, who make
| significantly more than me now) - it sort of reinforces that
| working hard is a sucker move,
|
| Just a note for anyone else reading this, but you're only
| eligible for the $10k forgiveness if you have government
| undergraduate loans, and you make less than $125k. Few high
| paid professionals will qualify, and graduate law school/med
| school can cost $200k+.
|
| TLDR: probably still work hard. Welfare is for the needy, or
| corporations.
| pc86 wrote:
| If you went to school at a time where working any non-degree-
| required job is enough to pay for your college (like I did),
| you went at a time completely different than today. College
| is prohibitively expensive; loans are all but required. And
| if a lawyer or doctor earns less than $125k they can have the
| extra ten grand.
| aseipp wrote:
| The vast majority of debt for people under 125k/yr who
| qualify for the 10k relief is the interest, not principle.
| The forgiveness is then effectively for a tax in this case,
| not the actual loan, when you think of it like this.
|
| The federal government designed the federal loan program to
| make them money, based on interest. It has panned out as a
| very stupid fucking idea, in retrospect, and has made
| millions of people debt slaves for years on end. They set
| themselves up for this, combined with stagnating wages,
| making everything a joke. Everybody wants to talk about
| bailouts and "work ethic" but seemingly forget the monetary
| policy was set and managed by the federal government over the
| past several decades. They could have done better policy if
| they didn't want a bunch of bullshit.
|
| It has nothing to do with work ethic, at the end of the day.
| It was a policy decision from on high, and the snowball was
| set in motion probably long before you even went to school.
| [deleted]
| bdhe wrote:
| > To be eligible for forgiveness, you must have federal
| student loans and earn less than $125,000 annually (or
| $250,000 per household). Borrowers who meet that criteria can
| get up to $10,000 in debt cancellation.
|
| Do lawyers or doctors typically earn less than $125,000 or
| $250,000/household? If not, loan forgiveness does not impact
| them the way you think.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > Do lawyers or doctors typically earn less than $125,000
| or $250,000/household?
|
| One of my friend groups has a lot of young doctors and
| recent med school grads. They are all looking for the best
| ways to take advantage of this, including things like
| accelerating marriage timelines to be a "household" instead
| of individual so they can qualify under the limit. Starting
| salaries for family practice physicians, for example, can
| fit under that $250K limit.
|
| I'm not opposed to loan forgiveness for certain people, but
| the $250K household limit _without a gradual phaseout_ is a
| baffling move.
| pc86 wrote:
| 100% of "recent med school grads" make less than $125k. A
| brand new resident will be making $45-50k and the yearly
| bump is in the single-digit percentages.
| steveklabnik wrote:
| I worked 35 hours a week while in college. I had almost six
| figures of loans once I was done. I didn't pay them off until
| my 30s.
|
| It is precisely because of how much that hampered me that I'm
| glad that others are relived of that burden. It's even harder
| for kids these days!
| mynameishere wrote:
| There's no "reliving" of the burden. It is transferred to
| others, including those who already paid their student
| loans once, and those who never went to college in the
| first place. That is, all taxpayers and holders of
| government debt.
|
| If the money was clawed back from universities, that would
| be fine, since they were at the receiving end of the
| racket.
| 1986 wrote:
| If you're talking about the Biden administration's student
| loan forgiveness plan, I think you've been a bit misled about
| the "lawyers/doctors" part - you have to be making under
| $125k/yr ($250k/yr if filing as married) to qualify for
| forgiveness, and the vast majority of eligible loans are
| undergraduate, not graduate. So it would likely be extremely
| rare for well-paid doctors or lawyers to have their loans
| forgiven through this program - unless they were working in
| lower-paid positions (think rural doctor or public defender -
| arguably exactly the type of roles we should aim to encourage
| people into with programs like this!)
| ar_lan wrote:
| Thank you for this information! I did not know this caveat.
|
| I completely agree, some folks drastically benefit from
| this (in a needed way), and I feel no envy or upset towards
| them. It looks like my thoughts were misguided.
| minhazm wrote:
| > unless they were working in lower-paid positions (think
| rural doctor
|
| Fun fact: rural doctors actually make more than city/urban
| doctors usually.
|
| [1] https://dailyyonder.com/pay-is-higher-for-rural-
| physicians-n... [2]
| https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/practices/primary-care-
| docs...
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| In addition to the income limits (that right-wing media LOVES
| to conveniently leave out when lashing out against loan
| forgiveness), the loan forgiveness was for only up to $10K.
|
| I can assure you that lawyers/doctors have FARRRRRR more than
| that.
|
| I worked about 30 hrs/week while going to school. I didn't
| take a summer break. I finished my BS in CS in 2014 with
| about $45K of student loan debt that I paid off in 6 years.
|
| For me to get upset now about people having some of their
| loans forgiven seems weird to me. It reeks of "I suffered, so
| should you!" energy. It'd be like fighting against new
| treatments for a disease because a loved one died from said
| disease already.
| jbluepolarbear wrote:
| It's not that great. I was laid off in late 2019 with about 4
| months severance. I was constantly interviewing and networking.
| And then Covid lockdown hit near the end of my severance. At no
| time did I feel like I was on vacation.
| adam_arthur wrote:
| It's certainly not the worst way to go out.
|
| But the truth is that good jobs are going to be very
| competitive over the coming months. Many being laid off now are
| likely to end up accepting comp packages far below their
| previous comp. The doors are pretty much closed at the usual
| FAANG types
|
| I can say anecdotally that I've already noticed an incredible
| easing of the difficulty in hiring (while maintaining a high
| bar)
| eddsh1994 wrote:
| > Immigration support: We will set the termination date for March
| 1, 2023, giving those with visa applications (and a desire to
| stay in the US) as much time as possible to find a new job.
|
| That's really nice.
| paxys wrote:
| While I'm sure no one will care to enforce it, such an
| arrangement still puts you in violation of your visa status. If
| you aren't working full time and don't even have network
| access, you are out of H-1B eligibility, regardless of whether
| you are on someone's payroll or not.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| Yeah, unless they're trying to get a specific person out and
| using it as an excuse, nobody is going to look any further
| than that end date.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I don't know anything about this, so I bet you are right
| (and hope you are!)
|
| I do have to wonder if it would have been better to just
| not mention it, though. Could highlighting their (light,
| and well-intentioned) rule breaking invite enforcement?
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| I don't think agents are paid well enough to care this
| much about any particular company unless one of their
| higher ups told them to. And the higher ups aren't going
| to care about what will likely be less than 100 people,
| at least some of which will get jobs within 60 days, and
| who overall are not trying to game the system even if
| it's technically what they're doing.
|
| In other words, I'm pretty sure they all have better
| things to do.
| ergocoder wrote:
| We are lucky that US is not ripe with corruptions. They
| either enforce it uniformly or they don't.
|
| In some shady countries, you can bet that this would be
| enforced selectively.
|
| It's sad that, for a company like Stripe that wants to do
| things by the book and/or needs to do things by the book
| (because they are in the financial sector), they will not
| extend employment date like this and will be criticized for
| it.
|
| To no one's surprise, Stripe didn't offer this in the latest
| layoff.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| Actually, this is up to the discretion of the USCIS
| officer. It is not uniform.
| hunter-gatherer wrote:
| I'm not without gripes about the immigration system in
| the US as my wife is European and we've been fighting to
| get her permanent residence established long enough that
| we've had two kids and moved three times, yet still we
| are in the struggle. However, the beauracracy is so
| complex that one's standing doesn't fall into the hands
| of any one particular USCIS officer. Such an assertion is
| incredibly disingenuous to how mundane, slow,
| beauracratic, and absurd the process really is.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Have you tried contacting your senators and congressional
| representatives? They can sometimes kick in the right
| place to get a stuck bureaucracy moving again.
| pkaye wrote:
| What kind of bureaucracy are you facing? The biggest I've
| noticed is making sure everything is perfect on submittal
| so you don't get put into the exception handling path of
| approval. Common mistakes are wrong/missing forms, form
| entry error, missing/inconsistent supporting documents.
| ergocoder wrote:
| It's uniform enough that we don't hear about the
| selective treatment.
| saagarjha wrote:
| Uniform enough that _you_ don't hear about it.
| tedunangst wrote:
| Where would I go to hear about it?
| tshaddox wrote:
| Probably from people who have been on the bad end of
| selective treatment.
| 22SAS wrote:
| >While I'm sure no one will care to enforce it
|
| Pretty right. In the HFT world, we have people going on non-
| competes all the time. During that time, most firms do not
| pull their visa petition from USCIS, pay continues every two
| weeks and the employee is still technically an employee of
| the firm, just that they're on garden leave. This is done by
| firms so that the employees do not have to leave the US
| during their non-compete.
|
| They're not doing any work, so technically still counts as a
| visa status violation.
| triyambakam wrote:
| What does it mean to go on non-compete or garden leave?
| 22SAS wrote:
| A lot of the stuff in trading firms is proprietary and
| pretty secretive like trading strategies, how their
| systems achieve some level of latency, if they have
| FPGA/HW teams then what are their capabilities like.
|
| When an employee resigns to go to another trading firm,
| to ensure that they don't leave right away and use the
| secret sauce at their new firm, they put that employee on
| a non-compete or a garden leave. Basically, for a period
| of time, could be as little as 2-3 months to 2 years,
| that employee can either sit at home or go work in an
| industry that is not trading but for that duration they
| cannot work in the same industry. The logic is that
| strategies and systems change pretty frequently, so in
| that time whatever knowledge that employee has, becomes
| outdated.
|
| If they decide to sit at home, to make it lucrative, most
| firms will pay their base salary for that period, or some
| percentage of total comp (base+bonus). Since the employee
| is getting paid to do nothing, almost nobody in trading
| has any issues with non-competes.
|
| While this is pretty awesome, it is a pain in the butt
| for a visa holder making such a transition. Technically,
| to remain in status a visa worker has to also be
| performing the duties on their petition, so even if they
| get paid during non-compete it can lead for them to leave
| the US. Since this is not as simple to enforce and not
| rigorously checked, their previous employer does not
| revoke their petition till they start at their new firm.
| Since the workers petition is still active with USCIS,
| they're getting paid and have benefits still active, it
| just appears that the employee is still working.
| welder wrote:
| Another way to say that:
|
| USA is really mean [to immigrants].
| FredPret wrote:
| Mean? No. Confusing and illogical? Yes
| rmk wrote:
| It's a slap in the face of legal immigrants. This, along with
| quotas that restrict permanent residency based on place of
| birth, are inhumane policies that signal to legal immigrants
| that they are not wanted here. Apparently, the fact that
| millions of hispanic illegal immigrants already break the
| putative purpose of the quota: that no large segment of the
| population has close ties to any given country, so that they
| can not disproportionately influence foreign policy toward
| that country (e.g., Donetsk and Luhansk) is of no
| consequence: the quota remains in place. Meanwhile, Canada is
| planning to bring in 500,000 immigrants a year to replace
| boomers leaving the workforce. A phenomenal opportunity to
| bring in highly-paid citizens who will integrate very easily
| into the country and provide economic benefits from day one
| to the host country.
| lzooz wrote:
| Mean why? Staying in a foreign country is a privilege not a
| right.
| schon wrote:
| If you spent a lot of time and money moving to a new
| country for work then you don't want to do all that again.
| In the USA, if you aren't a citizen and you have a working
| TN visa, then you literally have DAYS to find a new job or
| else you get deported. Thats why its important, because the
| current laws aren't realistic with finding a new job. They
| don't take into account the multiple interviews, the slow
| responses and callbacks. The entire process takes a long
| time.
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| If you give someone that privilege then treat them as
| human. US prefers to hang that privilege upon people and
| treat them capriciously.
|
| Similar situation is in US work ethic, where CEO is
| something akin to a feudal lord.
| lzooz wrote:
| So if a guest overstays their welcome and you kick them
| out of the house you are treating them as an animal?
| blep_ wrote:
| You're confusing vacations with immigration. If that
| "guest" has come to your house on the premise that
| they're going to live with you, and you kick them out,
| yes, that is bad.
|
| We even have laws about this, that's why there's a whole
| eviction process and it applies to people living with you
| as much as to normal tenants.
| ipaddr wrote:
| They come to work at a specific job when that
| relationship ends so does your access.
|
| It's like giving a home plumber access to your yard and
| then you move but he still hang around your yard.
| blep_ wrote:
| Plumbers do not come to your house with the intention of
| permanently living there.
| carlitossway wrote:
| Leaving aside other factors, you're redefining
| "overstays" as "not leaving the premises fast enough when
| told to leave before the original deadline".
|
| And no, that's not treating them as animals. But you are
| not exactly a proper host either.
| matai_kolila wrote:
| What entities a person born in a nation to is resources
| more so then someone born outside of that nation? You can't
| control where you're born, why would that be then used to
| determine... well, anything about you?
| lzooz wrote:
| Birthright. Parents, grandparents, etc. fought for their
| wealth, freedoms, rights, etc.
| matai_kolila wrote:
| None of which you did anything to earn.
| lzooz wrote:
| My ancestors earned it and they chose to give it to their
| descendance.
| matai_kolila wrote:
| lzooz wrote:
| Yes they earned their society because they worked on it,
| no it wasn't a selfish choice because the society was and
| is theirs, and yes you can own progress, a society, and
| freedom. Which is why half the world is monkeys flinging
| feces and some would kill to enter the first world.
| matai_kolila wrote:
| Uh they didn't work alone on it, and they left a ton of
| people out, ripping freedom and progress from their hands
| without a second thought.
|
| Your ancestors were thieves and oppressors, and took
| things that didn't belong to them, which means the
| resulting better society isn't yours or theirs to give or
| take. It's free for whoever comes and helps grow it.
|
| Honestly I wish we had some mechanism to cast out the
| entitled and let in the hopeful. People who believe as
| you do don't deserve the gift of a progressive society.
| lzooz wrote:
| >Your ancestors were thieves and oppressors
|
| You are a self-loathing, little person.
| matai_kolila wrote:
| Maybe, but that doesn't change anything I said. You have
| no right over foreigners to the benefits of living in
| your society.
| arbitrary_name wrote:
| That strikes me as a very unnecessary ad hominem.
|
| I personally think their statement has a high likelihood
| of being valid, at least in part, and only on a
| probabilistic basis.
|
| Your response indicates they hit a nerve.
| lzooz wrote:
| He insulted my ancestors, which includes direct family
| members, some of which went through a civil war to build
| my country the way it is, and they are still alive today.
| I have a right to reply.
| matai_kolila wrote:
| If facts insult you, your problem is with the facts.
|
| You don't get to decide who is free.
|
| I really don't intend to offend you, but I do intend on
| completely killing the idea that you _deserve_ what being
| a member of your country is, and others _don 't_ just
| because they weren't born geographically proximate to
| you.
| mikem170 wrote:
| People used to be free to go anywhere in the world, up
| until states commanded enough force to exclude
| foreigners.
|
| Funny though how money is still allowed to go anywhere in
| the world, while people are trapped in their own
| countries (for better or worse). Those with money can
| make more money, taking advantage of labor and other
| resources that can't move, often to the detriment of
| labor at home and the environment abroad.
| bell-cot wrote:
| > People used to be free to go anywhere in the world...
|
| Except that ~zero prehistoric people had access to the
| resources / skills / knowledge / etc. to actually travel
| really long distances.
|
| And if they tried moving, _at scale_ , into an already-
| inhabited area - well, whether or not the people in the
| destination qualified as a "state", I suspect that pretty
| universally resulted in violent push-back.
| RHSeeger wrote:
| There's nothing innate to the universe that defines
| things this way. But they, as a society, have defined
| things that way. They, as a society, worked together to
| build up the infrastructure and the resources that are on
| top of that infrastructure. And then, as a society,
| decided what the rules are to participate in that
| society. So no, there's no universal law that says "the
| people born here have the rights of this society"; but
| the people of that society have decreed it so.
|
| It's the same way every other right exists. Property
| rights don't exist as a law of the universe. Rather, "the
| people" decided they like the stability of having
| "permanent" control over things so, as a group, decided
| to enforce those rights.
| ericmcer wrote:
| Why care about my parents or family? They are just
| people, I don't even like them as much as others. Why
| can't anyone be part of my family and why can't I jump to
| another one?
|
| Society is a sacred part of what makes human beings
| human, it is why we are such a successful species. It
| requires cultural indoctrination and nationalism and
| things that definitely have an ugly side, but are also
| important to our function.
|
| Your viewpoint basically assumes people have no loyalty,
| nationalism or responsibility to their society so they
| can be freely swapped with anybody.
| blep_ wrote:
| > Why can't anyone be part of my family
|
| Because you won't let them.
|
| > and why can't I jump to another one?
|
| You can. People do sometimes, if their birth family is
| bad enough.
|
| Immigrants are, by definition, people with more loyalty
| to another country than to the one they were born in. Why
| deny them that?
| matai_kolila wrote:
| Yea, _if someone wants to_ , they can and should be able
| to freely swap which society they participate in.
|
| We are successful as a species because we socialize, and
| there is no reason to limit that only to people who were
| born in specific geographic areas; that doesn't make any
| sense.
|
| It would make a lot more sense to group by shared goals
| and beliefs, with free movement as your goals and beliefs
| change.
|
| Blind nationalistic loyalty is in no way a requirement
| for a successful human society.
| ericmcer wrote:
| You don't think it is easier to socialize with people
| with similar upbringings and culture to you? You don't
| think a group of people indoctrinated into a society from
| birth are more likely to share goals and beliefs than
| someone born into a different one?
|
| Blind nationalism is bad, but absolutely no
| responsibility towards the society and the people that
| raised and support you is a crazy take. You're ideal
| would only work if we had 0 social programs and people
| were 100% responsible for providing for themselves and
| their loved ones, including education.
| matai_kolila wrote:
| Of _course_ you have a responsibility towards the society
| and the people who raised and support you.
|
| That just doesn't involve excluding others from that
| society. They deserve, just as much as you, to
| participate (and improve!) in your society as you do.
|
| My country only exists because people came from many
| other societies and brought the best parts of those
| societies together to create my country and its culture.
| I want that for everyone, if they want it for themselves.
| ericmcer wrote:
| I doubt your country was the result of a bunch of people
| from a bunch of different countries coming together to
| create a new nation. It was almost certainly a group of
| like minded people who all came from the same place
| creating an offshoot that is influenced by the original.
|
| Especially given that the ability for global
| communication is newer than most existing countries.
| RHSeeger wrote:
| Are there any societies that have not exerted, or at
| least claimed the right to exert, control over who is and
| is not part of that society? The reasons for exercising
| that control may vary, but I can't think of or even
| imagine one that doesn't have this control.
| matai_kolila wrote:
| The key is which things you exclude people over. A
| society can have values, but if those values discriminate
| based on aspects of a person that are outside of the
| person's control, that society is not operating
| ethically.
|
| Western societies all value liberty, and liberty is
| incompatible with exclusion based on geographic origin.
| ipaddr wrote:
| All countries discriminate based on things you can never
| change like birth place. All countries. If they didn't
| they do not exist anymore. That's a poor strategy for
| western nation or any nation. Even the poorest countries
| don't allow that.
| matai_kolila wrote:
| So? Nearly all countries at one point allowed slavery,
| refused to let women vote, and a ton of countries were
| ruled by an authoritarian monarchy, that doesn't mean it
| was a good idea.
| yowlingcat wrote:
| What entitles you to the resources in your home anymore
| than someone outside of your home? They can't control
| that they were born outside of your home, so why should
| that be used to determine whether they can freely enter
| your home and make use of your resources or not?
| matai_kolila wrote:
| This is not the compelling argument you think it is; in
| this analogy I:
|
| * didn't buy my house, I inherited it,
|
| * the people I inherited it from stole it from other
| people who
|
| * also still live in the house somehow but just in the
| not-as-nice parts, and
|
| * the house is gigantic and can easily fit literally
| billions more people without even coming close to
| exhausting the resources of the house, in fact
|
| * bringing more people into the house would in fact
| substantially _increase_ the house 's shared ability to
| operate and provide for the members of the house.
|
| So yeah, if we want to use this analogy in a meaningful
| way, nothing at all entitles me to my house!
| renewiltord wrote:
| Seems a bit non-sequitur. Whether you're mean or not is not
| a factor of whether you are giving people their rights.
| Like, if I called you a doofus on this website every time I
| saw you, I'm probably being mean but not denying you your
| rights or anything.
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| I mean, it's all imaginary lines carved eons ago by
| colonialists with blood for ink, but who cares.
| eddsh1994 wrote:
| Even Chimpanzee tribes have land borders that they
| protect. When do 'imaginary lines' just become 'lines',
| when they've been created and destroyed since pre-
| history?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War
| matai_kolila wrote:
| Hm, "chimps do it" is not the stellar argument you think
| it is. Chimps throw feces, should we start doing that
| too?
| eddsh1994 wrote:
| My point is while 'imaginary lines' seem theoretically
| interesting to point out when we discuss free movement,
| it's far too ingrained into animals to really change.
| Maybe in the distant future we will have planets as
| borders instead of country lines, but the lines will be
| there!
|
| Also any reason to point out Chimpanzees have wars
| including patrolling land borders and recon missions :)
| matai_kolila wrote:
| The main thing we have over animals is our ability to
| reason, so if anyone can overcome petty border disputes,
| it's us.
|
| "Animals do it" is not a compelling argument for humans
| to participate in... well, anything. We know better!
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| One would expect that a species that looks at the stars
| and longs to explore would have found ways to reconcile
| coexistance of tribes. Alas, we are but hairless
| Chimpanzees with speech and clothes.
| welder wrote:
| Looks like they have 60 days to find a new job... I thought
| the grace period was shorter when I commented, but still
| that's not much time compared to other countries I've lived
| in. I'm from the USA. I think the way the US treats skilled
| workers is stupid. We want smart skilled people to
| immigrate, not make it hard on them. Can you imagine living
| with the threat of being kicked out lingering over you? I
| would never feel secure or set down real roots in a country
| that might kick me out in 60 days.
|
| Edit: Depending on the type of visa you're kicked out of
| the country much sooner than 60 days.
| imgabe wrote:
| What other countries would you say are friendlier and easier
| to immigrate to than the US? In most places it is not an
| option unless you have a job offer or significant wealth.
| schon wrote:
| Canada is much easier than the USA.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| This is completely false for most types of immigrants.
| Only work visas are somewhat easier to get.
| DataOverload wrote:
| screye wrote:
| > unless you have a job offer or significant wealth
|
| Isn't that exactly the same for the US ? If anything,
| because of the lottery, having a job offer is only gives
| you a 30% chance to actually get the visa. The USA
| (practically) has no path to permanent residency if you are
| Indian.
|
| Even just getting to the job offer needs you to be on an
| F1-OPT which usually implies between $100-200k of college
| tuition just to apply for a job permit.
|
| In that sense, the US needs both significant wealth & a job
| offer all while giving no pathway to permanent residency if
| you're born in the wrong country.
|
| _______
|
| For tech workers: Canada, the EU (through France, Ireland)
| and Australia are certainly easier to immigrate to. (wages
| are another question). Singapore & Dubai/UAE are popular
| destinations for working, though PRs can be awkward or
| impossible.
|
| Even supposed harder to immigrate countries look easier, if
| you think about how every country needs you to be fluent in
| the local language. That everyone learns English is a
| testament to the political dominance of the USA & the UK
| over the last 300 years, and not a foregone conclusion.
| imgabe wrote:
| There are over a billion people in India. There are
| probably more people in India who would like to move to
| the US than there are people currently in the US.
|
| I'm sympathetic, but it's not really feasible for the US
| to accommodate everyone in the world and it's not like
| the US owes it to anyone to just let anyone live there
| just because they'd like to.
| legolas2412 wrote:
| If you are arguing that there are an unsustainable number
| of employment based green cards being handed out, you
| could not be more wrong.
|
| USA hands out a million green cards every year. But only
| 150k are employment based. These are capped at 7% for
| each country. Only 10k out of a million green cards are
| assigned per year for Indian immigrants based on their
| employments.
|
| For all the talk of meritocracy, looking beyond skin
| color, and valuing high skilled immigrants, USA
| definitely has policies that discriminate on national
| origin and actively encourage low skilled immigration (2
| million unauthorized border crossings, policies allowing
| rampant "abuse" in h1b/eb1c visas whenever high skilled
| immigrants are concerned, constant opposition to making
| it easier for PhDs to get a green card or say putting
| wage rules on h1b/eb1,2,3).
| screye wrote:
| I mean, people aren't asking for infinite slots for
| Indians. Hell, they aren't even asking for more slots.
|
| They are asking for one or multiple of :
|
| 1. Use of lapsed green cards slots from other categories
| to be used for pending green cards.
|
| 2. Removal/Relaxing of the 7% rule, which uniquely
| inconveniences Indians. (If the idea is diversity, then
| in almost every way India is more diverse than
| arbitrarily formed culturally homogeneous tiny nations
| around the world.)
|
| 3. More humane work permit rules for those who have a PR
| in the waiting. Eg: relaxing the insane 60 day
| unemployment rule, reducing need to restamp visa
| incredibly often, allowing secondary sources of income or
| starting a startup.
|
| 4. More stable processing times and predictions on how
| long PR waiting time actually are. Current estimates vary
| from 20-100 years. That is simply unacceptable as a
| range.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Is this specific to tech jobs? Because it seems to me
| that Indians can routinely become convenience store and
| hotel owners in the US?
| screye wrote:
| It is the family pathway which is available only to very
| small communities whose (mostly) brothers immigrated to
| the US in the 80-90s. That's because afaik, it also has a
| 20-ish year waiting. So the convenience store owners are
| very likely to be folks from this group that are getting
| green cards for applications they put in when they used
| to young. There is a reason they all seem to be old men.
| Most young Indians at these stores are part-time workers
| on visa studying at universities nearby.
|
| For the last couple of decades, a US university degree ->
| STEM job is the only way known legal way for an Indian to
| come to US on their own merit. I specify STEM, because
| none of the other professions get the STEM-OPT (3 tries
| at the low-probability h1b lottery vs 1 try for normal
| students), so most US employers blanket reject candidates
| in non-STEM professions.
| oytis wrote:
| I can say about Germany. There is a working visa for
| qualified workers called Blue Card which is what most
| software engineers get. With it you can stay unemployed for
| three months and can apply for a jobseeker visa after that
| without having to return. Also if you know German above
| certain level you can get a permanent residency after less
| than two years, which is not tied to being employed
| eddsh1994 wrote:
| Have you tried to immigrate to the US? Have you tried to
| immigrate to any country in the EU or the UK? The latter is
| far easier than the former (I'm English living in the US
| with a Finnish wife, so have had to look at all these
| systems since Brexit).
| dilyevsky wrote:
| I have. The UK is as hard or possibly even harder now
| (since the brexit) as US. The rest of EU is not as hard
| but you need to weigh by pay difference and how many
| people actually want to immigrate, then it's not even
| close.
| eddsh1994 wrote:
| Essentially the UK requires you to speak English and have
| a job offer over 26k GBP in a skilled role where
| 'Skilled' expects the skills needed are that of an 18
| year old school leaver, or less skill requirements if
| it's a role with a shortage, or less money if you have an
| advanced degree. That's pretty open IMO.
| Spivak wrote:
| Dang, the US doesn't even require you speak English.
| umanwizard wrote:
| In practice it seems unlikely that someone could get an
| H1B-eligible job without speaking English, except in some
| unusual situations.
| gray_-_wolf wrote:
| Isn't this probably caused by US actually not having an
| official language?
| renewiltord wrote:
| Tier 2 general visa is much easier than H1-B. Tier 2 ICT
| is near instant. You can then switch the latter to the
| former quite easily. And then it's 5 years flat to having
| ILR (which is a green card equivalent).
|
| If you're Indian, you're waiting _way_ longer than that
| in the US.
|
| However, I think if you're not from India/China/Mexico,
| the constraint is that getting an H-1B is lottery-bound,
| and then you'll get the GC easily.
| WeylandYutani wrote:
| It's easy to immigrate to the Netherlands if you have
| money or are highly educated. Anyone else is fucked.
|
| None of that "give us your teeming useless masses from
| Africa" stuff.
| devoutsalsa wrote:
| I've traveled around and looking into residing outside of
| my native USA. It's much easier in many places to get
| residency. You can get a job offer which leads to a work
| visa pretty easily. You can start a company and hire
| yourself. You can simply apply for residency if you have
| foreign sourced income. You can buy a property or invest.
| There are lots of options, and most of these options are
| not options in the USA.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| No other country lets in more immigrants per year. The US has
| more immigrants than any other country by a wide margin.
|
| https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-
| rankings/immigrati...
|
| https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/mapped-immigration-by-
| co...
| toephu2 wrote:
| Wow 38% of Saudi Arabia's population are immigrants? Never
| imagined that one. Always seemed like a closed off country
| which people couldn't even travel to for tourism (unless
| making a pilgrimage to Mecca as a Muslim) until recently
| (2019).
| srathi wrote:
| Dubai has almost 90% of population as immigrants! TIL.
| vkou wrote:
| Not per capita, which is the only sensible metric to use.
| Germany, Canada, Australia are all higher on that.
| TehShrike wrote:
| "as a percentage of people who would like to immigrate
| there" would also be interesting to see :-x
| toephu2 wrote:
| Per capita it seems Saudi Arabia is #1? (for any country
| with a population higher than 10 million)
|
| Surprised to see it higher than Canada, U.S., and any
| major country in Europe...
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Do middle eastern despotic regimes count the bodies the
| bury under their construction sites as "Immigrants"?
| taude wrote:
| In this case, the net metric is the sensible one to use.
| jeffy90 wrote:
| why is the net metric more sensible in this case?
| pb7 wrote:
| Not the GP but a larger total number means you have a
| higher likelihood of being one of the people to be
| granted entry. A country of 1000 people may accept 10
| people and that be a very large per-capita rate, but odds
| of you being one of 10 people accepted out of billions of
| possible immigrants is very low. It's not like it's one
| visa application for all countries in the world.
| eddsh1994 wrote:
| I'm an immigrant in the US, I don't think they're mean
| (albeit very bureaucratic)! I can just imagine the relief
| these guys have over Xmas though.
| whydoyoucare wrote:
| Yet another way to say that:
|
| USA is very friendly to immigrants - it is not a homogeneous
| society, and there is mutual respect of all religions,
| faiths, and languages. On contrast, I find many populations
| in EU to be actively hostile towards immigrants (in Germany
| one will have a difficult time not knowing German, for
| example).
|
| As a result, it is a demand and supply problem. Compare how
| many are wanting to immigrate to, say, Germany, Austria or
| Switzerland, as opposed to US.
| welder wrote:
| > in Germany one will have a difficult time not knowing
| German, for example
|
| No, that couldn't be farther from the truth. I lived in
| Germany, and have friends there who still don't know German
| after 10+ years and never have any problems. If you work in
| a non-office industry you need German, but in office/tech
| workplaces nobody knows German.
| whydoyoucare wrote:
| [Nah, posted without proper thought, so deleting].
| kaesar14 wrote:
| I'd honestly not want an immigrant in my country who
| lives there for 10 years without learning the language.
| What a way to not make any effort to integrate into your
| chosen society.
| whydoyoucare wrote:
| In my experience, integration into a society is a gradual
| process with no well-defined boundaries. Maybe this is
| where US and many seemingly homogeneous EU countries
| differ?
| qwytw wrote:
| Germany, Austria or Switzerland all have higher net
| immigration per capita than US. According to 2015-2020
| average (estimate) more than twice as many people moved to
| Germany than to US (relative to population of course).
| Spivak wrote:
| The US is very friendly to the immigrat _ed_ but is very
| unfriendly to the immigrat _ing_.
| smnrchrds wrote:
| To add some context, in Canada, if you lose your job as a
| work permit holder, you can stay until the expiry date of the
| permit. In Germany, you can get a six-month jobseeker
| residence permit in this case. In France, you can stay until
| the expiry date of your work permit, then renew it for one
| extra year, and then if you still have remaining entitlement
| to unemployment benefits, extend it until the end of the
| benefits. Not every country is like the US, where you have 60
| days to uproot and leave.
| totetsu wrote:
| Japan's unemployment insurance won't pay out after the end
| of a work permit even if there is a remaining entitlement,
| because your not 'available to work', even if you're on a
| specific job seeking permit extension.
| acchow wrote:
| 60 days? On a TN, you get until the end of the day
| alibero wrote:
| I was under the impression you got a 60 day grace on the
| TN as well: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-8/chapter-
| I/subchapter-B/...
|
| "An alien admitted or otherwise provided status in E-1,
| E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1 or TN classification and
| his or her dependents shall not be considered to have
| failed to maintain nonimmigrant status solely on the
| basis of a cessation of the employment on which the
| alien's classification was based, for up to 60
| consecutive days or until the end of the authorized
| validity period, whichever is shorter, once during each
| authorized validity period. DHS may eliminate or shorten
| this 60-day period as a matter of discretion. Unless
| otherwise authorized under 8 CFR 274a.12, the alien may
| not work during such a period."
|
| This is also what I've been told by my company's lawyers.
| pkaye wrote:
| TN visas have some advantages. There are no yearly caps
| and it can be renewed indefinitely. Also easier to get a
| new job. One disadvantage is it is not dual intent.
| guyzero wrote:
| People have gone straight from TN status to green cards
| apparently but there are risks! But I have been told it
| has been done.
| acchow wrote:
| It has been done often. There are risks.
| ska wrote:
| I think the 24hr/"end of the day" thing is for the
| natural termination - i.e. you knew when your TN term
| ended, and were expected to leave when it's done and have
| made plans for it. Even then though I've never heard of
| people getting sticky for reasonable travel time also,
| just that you clearly had the plan and intent to leave
| the country after your work permission expired. But who
| knows, the whole system is rife with inequal results due
| to reliance on individual border staff decisions.
|
| If you get fired/company folds/etc. then I think the 60
| days things holds.
| ghshephard wrote:
| I think the wording is "As soon as administratively
| possible" - But I've also read that to mean within 24
| hours of your termination you need to have left the
| United States, and have always adhered to that rule.
| rhapsodic wrote:
| alberth wrote:
| > Pay + RSU vest: Anyone impacted will receive 17 weeks (13
| weeks + 1 four-week lump sum severance pay) of compensation, as
| well as your February 2023 stock vest.
|
| So basically, DoorDash is setting the termination date to align
| with when severance pay ends.
| bgorman wrote:
| Doesn't this violate anti-discrimination laws? It seems like
| this discriminates against US citizens (discrimination by
| national origin).
| [deleted]
| davewritescode wrote:
| How? You get severance until March the only difference
| between US and non-US employees is the technically the date
| that employment ends. Everyone is paid through March anyway.
| happygolucky_in wrote:
| While US citizens can take their time and find another job
| while also receive unemployment benefits, someone on H1 visa
| has to technically leave the country as soon as possible.A
| laid off person on H1 cannot remain unemployed and continue
| to remain in the country. This is particularly hard on those
| with families, many living in this country for 10+ years,
| with school going kids. Many have been waiting for years to
| get a green card. This is a very kind gesture by the
| employer. Hope more employers do this.
| schon wrote:
| It doesn't mean they are paid until then... it just says your
| last day as an employee is that date, giving them time to
| look for other jobs. Don't confuse it with being paid to do
| nothing because that isn't the case.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| It appears this has been done for all employees. So no in
| this case.
| syzarian wrote:
| Discrimination laws apply to protected classes. Visa holders
| are not a protected class.
| nsonha wrote:
| I guess they should also kick US citizen employees out of the
| country by March 1?
| bhouser wrote:
| How is it discrimination if they set the termination date for
| ALL employees to March 1, 2023?
| minhazm wrote:
| It doesn't say the end date is _only_ for visa holders. It 's
| just saying that visa holders will particularly benefit from
| it.
| teaearlgraycold wrote:
| By that logic is the existence of visa programs
| discrimination by national origin?
| howinteresting wrote:
| No.
|
| What _is_ discrimination by national origin is the fact
| that employment-based green cards have a quota by country
| of birth, without any adjustment for the country 's
| population. However, the American legal system accepts that
| kind of discrimination by national origin, because it
| doesn't fall under the Civil Rights Act.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| No, because the employer must prove their are no legal
| residents in the US that are eligible for the job.
| [deleted]
| howinteresting wrote:
| This is a common myth but is not true for H-1B visas. It
| is true for EB2 and EB3 green cards, however.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| As part of the LCA the employer must attest there is no
| strike or lockout, that the salary of similarly employed
| workers is not affected, & that the job application must
| be provided to workers already at the company.
|
| So no, you can't just threaten to replace all your
| employees with H1-B visa holders.
| howinteresting wrote:
| Right, but that's not "their _[sic]_ are no legal
| residents in the US that are eligible for the job ".
| That's the PERM process.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| Damn you are dense. It is on the employer to prove they
| are not affecting the wages of US legal residents as part
| of the LCA.
|
| Bringing in foreign labor to a market implicitly lowers
| the wages of those workers. That is how markets work.
| Thus, there must be absolutely 0 residents already
| capable of performing the job. Otherwise the LCA is
| fraudulent. The only other possibility would be the
| employer is bringing in foreign labor to pay them a
| premium over legal residents. Which obviously no one
| does.
| renewiltord wrote:
| This advice is incongruent with that of any lawyer I have
| consulted on the subject (both from the perspective of an
| employer and as an employee). To those interested in the
| subject, you'll have a more accurate picture of the
| current legal climate from a lawyer. In my experience, it
| will be very different from this user's legal
| determination of whether one must prove the existence of
| 0 US residents for the job. As an employer, USCIS has
| never required this proof from us for a H-1B.
| vore wrote:
| Just as a clarification, the poster is talking about PERM
| for EB-2 and EB-3 visas which do kind of have those
| requirements, not H-1B.
| howinteresting wrote:
| > It is on the employer to prove they are not affecting
| the wages of US legal residents as part of the LCA.
|
| False. All that matters is that H1B workers are being
| paid over the prevailing wage.
|
| > Bringing in foreign labor to a market implicitly lowers
| the wages of those workers.
|
| False. Almost every study done on this has shown the
| opposite.
|
| > That is how markets work.
|
| False. That is how the first lecture in Econ 101 says
| markets work. The first lecture in Econ 101 isn't real.
|
| > Thus, there must be absolutely 0 residents already
| capable of performing the job.
|
| False.
|
| > Otherwise the LCA is fraudulent.
|
| False.
|
| > The only other possibility would be the employer is
| bringing in foreign labor to pay them a premium over
| legal residents. Which obviously no one does.
|
| False. Depends on the employer. You have to pay H1B
| employees more than the prevailing wage for the job. Many
| employers target 80th or even 90th+ percentile wages for
| everyone, including H1B workers.
| qwytw wrote:
| > False. Depends on the employer. You have to pay H1B
| employees more than the prevailing wage for the job. Many
| employers target 80th or even 90th+ percentile wages for
| everyone, including H1B workers.
|
| Technically not false, pretty obtuse though. Or are you
| claiming that e.g. software engineers/IT professionals on
| H1B visas are paid more than local with comparable
| skills/qualifications?
|
| > Bringing in foreign labor to a market implicitly lowers
| the wages of those workers. > False. That is how the
| first lecture in Econ 101 says markets work. The first
| lecture in Econ 101 isn't real.
|
| You might try telling that J.Powell he probably never
| went past Econ 101 (if you listen what he says).
| howinteresting wrote:
| I'm saying that people on H1B are paid more than the
| prevailing wage for a metropolitan region. Many employers
| pay _all_ employees more than the prevailing wage for the
| metropolitan region.
|
| Where has Powell said anything about immigration,
| especially the sort of skilled immigration that H1Bs are
| issued for, and the labor market?
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| > Many employers pay all employees more than the
| prevailing wage for the metropolitan region.
|
| That's not how statistics work. You can't just have
| everyone paying above the normal wage. We'd call it the
| normal wage.
| howinteresting wrote:
| Do you understand that "employer" and "metropolitan
| region" are not the same? Some employers pay more, others
| pay less.
|
| Anyway, I'm done with this. Go talk to a lawyer and see
| what they say.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| You do realize writing "False" doesn't make it an axiom?
| vore wrote:
| Regarding "Thus, there must be absolutely 0 residents
| already capable of performing the job.", I think on paper
| it's true but the burden on the employer to prove that
| there are absolutely 0 residents already capable of
| performing the job is really low:
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/20/656.17
| (e)(1)(i) Mandatory steps. Two of the steps, a job order
| and two print advertisements, are mandatory for all
| applications involving professional occupations, except
| applications for college or university teachers selected
| in a competitive selection and recruitment process as
| provided in SS 656.18. The mandatory recruitment steps
| must be conducted at least 30 days, but no more than 180
| days, before the filing of the application.
| (A) Job order. [...] (B) Advertisements in
| newspaper or professional journals. [...]
| (e)(1)(ii) Additional recruitment steps. The employer
| must select three additional recruitment steps from the
| alternatives listed in paragraphs (e)(1)(ii)(A)-(J) of
| this section. Only one of the additional steps may
| consist solely of activity that took place within 30 days
| of the filing of the application. None of the steps may
| have taken place more than 180 days prior to filing the
| application. (A) Job fairs. [...]
| (B) Employer's Web site. [...] (C) Job search Web
| site other than the employer's. [...] (D) On-
| campus recruiting. [...] (E) Trade or
| professional organizations. [...] (F) Private
| employment firms. [...] (G) Employee referral
| program with incentives. [...] (H) Campus
| placement offices. [...] (I) Local and ethnic
| newspapers. [...] (J) Radio and television
| advertisements. [...]
| kzrdude wrote:
| That question reminds me of those equality vs equity
| pictures. I'm not sure I even agree with those definitions,
| but it's a commonly spread explanation. https://www.marinhhs.
| org/sites/default/files/boards/general/...
|
| So one question is then, which view does a court take?
| gizmo686 wrote:
| Notably, DoorDash is providing the benefit equally to all
| fired employees [0].
|
| [0] At least those working within the US.
| djur wrote:
| This "benefit" is available to everyone laid off. It's not
| discriminatory just because some people don't need it.
| Otherwise offering free bicycle storage would be
| discriminatory to people who bus to work, and offering free
| bus passes would be discriminatory to cyclists.
| pc86 wrote:
| We would be well served to be a little more
| discriminatory against cyclists.
| cletus wrote:
| Americans generally won't appreciate how scary this can be for
| those on work visas, particularly when the chances of finding a
| new job have dropped drastically. Generally speaking, work visas
| and employment-based green cards are based on the premise that
| you were unable to fill the role with an American citizen or
| lawful permanent resident ("LPR"). That becomes tricky for
| sponsoring such a process if you recently laid people off. There
| are also more job applicants and it becomes harder to lawfully
| filter them out to justify your case.
|
| For people born in India, regardless of current citizenship, this
| may end up terminate a wait for a green card that has been
| ongoing for 10-15 years, leaving them little choice but to leave
| the country.
|
| The process is completely arbitrary and deliberately capricious.
| For example, USCIS randomly audits some percentage (estimated to
| be ~30%) of applications, ostensibly to stop people figuring out
| how to game the system (ie by figuring out what USCIS will flag
| for further review). Now that's fine in principle but the audit
| (at the time my application was in process) added an additional
| 18 months. Completely randomly. When the audit happened it simply
| passed. with no requests for evidence ("RFEs").
|
| Another example: examiners aren't consistent. Your case will be
| assigned to an officer. That officer might be quick or slow. Two
| different officers may treat the same application different. For
| example, one may request a form you and your lawyer think
| unnecessary while another doesn't. If you proactively include it
| anyway, that too can lead to delays to explain why that form is
| in there.
|
| Unfortunately immigrants are an easy political scapegoat and a
| non-voting one at that. No party seems inclined to truly address
| these problems. Or it comes up occasionally with a bad bill.
|
| In 2004, PBS had a documentary called The New Americans. I can't
| really find a way to wtach it online. It follows immigrants from
| a number of different countries. One was an Indian man (and his
| family) who got laid off in the dot-com crash (and ultimately
| returned to India IIRC). I suspect there'll be many repetitions
| of this in the coming year.
|
| This lack of certainty and security in your living situation can
| hang over your head for years, sometimes more than a decade. It's
| stressful and cruel.
| outworlder wrote:
| > That becomes tricky for sponsoring such a process if you
| recently laid people off. There are also more job applicants
| and it becomes harder to lawfully filter them out to justify
| your case.
|
| All correct. General recommendation is to wait at least six
| months. A friend got his case delayed for two years, due to
| constant layoffs in our area.
|
| > for example, USCIS randomly audits some percentage (estimated
| to be ~30%) of applications, ostensibly to stop people figuring
| out how to game the system
|
| Yeap. Got unlucky with that too. And apparently the audit did
| nothing, because not only very simple and irrelevant things
| were asked (like org charts for a non-managerial position).
| Then, when I got to the I-140 process they issued a NOIR
| (Notice of Intent to Revoke), asking for a document that was
| filed in the PERM. One would think that, if there was an issue,
| it would have been flagged back then.
|
| What it did do was to delay the process by a lot. On top of the
| usual delays - plus delays until your company gets around to
| filing for your green card. Which they have zero incentive to
| do.
|
| Most immigrants don't know all the details and all the rules
| that exist before they sign up. It's not due to lack of
| research, it's because some things are really obscure and don't
| come into play until you care about them. For example, H1B is
| restricted to _one income source_ (spouse can't work). However,
| there's an exception for purely "passive" income. Examples
| would be investments - as long as you don't trade frequently.
| What's "frequently"? Noone knows. Day trading is obviously out
| but you still can't be "too active".
|
| You can also be a landlord. But you are not allowed to be
| involved in the day to day activities. For example, a faucet
| broke. You could go to Home Depot, grab a new one and install
| it, right? No, that would be a violation. You would have to pay
| someone else to do it. But wouldn't hiring a plumber be
| something that demands time, and thus you are "working"? No,
| apparently not.
|
| Even _expectation of future income_ can run afoul of the rules
| (and you don't receive a booklet explaining that). For example:
| you spouse cannot work, but can they start working on a game,
| or iOS application, but not sell until they are authorized to
| work? No, they can't. They are considered to be "working" even
| if they are not getting any income right now.
|
| So, if you are on H1B and your spouse has a career(but not in a
| field that's in high demand), they essentially have to kiss
| their career goodbye. There will be a massive gap in their
| resume in the best case.
|
| Also, if you are from India (not my case, and it still took 7
| years), given the current wait times, even if you bring your
| newborn to the US, there's a chance you won't get a green card
| by the time they turn 21. Which means they will have to leave
| as they are no longer considered to be your dependent. It
| doesn't matter that they have not known any other country and
| may not even speak the language.
|
| Much more can be said about the whole thing. I would advise any
| wanna-be immigrants to talk to someone that's been through the
| process. Don't ask US citizens (unless they have naturalized
| and used the work visa path) because they will have no idea
| what the process is like.
| roflyear wrote:
| It is hard for me to appreciate, because while this does not
| remove my empathy for those people, I do realize they
| understood the terms when they took the job.
| jrm4 wrote:
| Sure. Honestly, forget this company _entirely._
|
| There is _no_ good reason that any third party should see more
| than a tiny tiny bit of operating money for the act of local
| drivers delivering local food from local restaurants to local
| customers.
|
| They made a bit of money in the beginning, great. Time to move on
| to a fairer solution, given that it's trivially easy to
| replicate.
| umanwizard wrote:
| If it's so easy to replicate, what stops competitors from
| undercutting them with lower fees and dominating the market?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-30 23:01 UTC)