My guess is it will vary a lot how they do this because of first-in-first-out rules in Sweden they will have to get around to be able to layoff the people they want. I agree with the general sentiment though that the language is a bit vague, but this is a partial reason I think.
I don't know anything about Swedish labor law, but wouldn't it be LIFO rather than FIFO?
I don't see a need to have more specific language in the all-employee announcement email.
The right place for that language is in the message(s) specifically to the person's being fired. And, to their credit, they let people know ahead of time what the exact subject of that message will be.
But, honestly, I didn't see that. Sure, there is euphemistic language, but the message is very clear:
1. 10% of the company is getting laid off.
2. The CEO was very explicit about how this process would unfold (e.g. stating what the email title would be), which is a lot better than most companies provide.
We can always endlessly nitpick the language choices when a layoff happens, and I don't think I've ever seen a layoff announcement on HN, even ones I thought were extremely transparent and free from corporate-speak, that didn't get shit on by a sizable number of comments.
Layoffs suck. There are really shitty ways to do them, and less shitty ways to do them, but there are no real great ways to do them.
Because "let go" is to "allow someone or something to escape or go free" so it implies that you are the owner of the employee and you allow him to leave, just like as an ultimate humiliation he has to have your permission to go.
They let everyone know in advance. Have the decency of individual communication. Anticipated what type of invite to expect. Promised to roll out quickly, in a matter of days.
I mean, probably not the "perfect" layoff, but certainly not close to worse, or even "terrible".
“You are at risk of losing your job, but you’ll have to wait all week to find out”
> However, unfortunately, some of you will be informed that we cannot offer you a role in the new organization.
Seems clear to me once you account for corporate speak
Sorry for anyone that lost their role, it's always tough to lose a job regardless of the company they worked for. I wish them all success and luck finding their next endeavor.
startups can’t exist without free vc cash that’s going to be tight soon-ish
I can throw a stone to about 15 startups near where i'm at that are all in tight cash mode already, not really making a whole lot and are hoping for a big raise. None of them that I know personally have metrics that will pass the test. :(
Klarna can only exist in a bubble.
If you’re talking about securing funding to do the lending, then sure that makes sense. Is that your concern or is it around the business model itself?
the vast majority of Klarnauts won’t be impacted
It's not the time to use this made-up name for insiders when you're saying that many of them will soon be outsiders.
"Will all the Klarnauts please step forward. Not so fast, Jake."
Meeting regarding your role at Klarna
we are laying off 10% of the companies staff due to macro-economic conditions beyond our control, this coupled with decreased customer spending and hiring like this day would never happen lead us to this decision. Sorry :(
There's also space between what was said in this letter and brutal honesty. It should be concise and clear.
> The invite will be titled “Meeting regarding your role at Klarna”.
lol ouch! They should make it a gamble where everyone has a meeting and you don't know what the outcome will be! But since thats even more resource intensive I would much prefer a mass pre-recorded zoom call over that.
I can understand that the former thing has better PR than the latter thing. But I think employed Americans are more adept at the fickle nature of their employment, whereas when the news articles go out about a mass zoom meeting firing, it gets the attention and hot takes from a bunch of more disconnected unemployable Americans and out of the loop people from other developed nations chiming in.
There's no way to please everyone. Especially in a mass lay-off.
There’s 7,000 Klarna employees currently wondering if they’re losing their jobs! If they had simply informed everyone immediately, that would be just 10% of the people feeling those feelings.
Setting aside employees for a moment, from a company perspective, the harm you’re doing to your organisation by giving everyone a week to worry about being let go is ridiculous, it’s self immolation. Every single klarna employee is, in this moment, thinking about getting a new job.
Mass impersonal announcements are brutal, absolutely, but this is even worse.
make a fortune wheel with each employee’s name on it and fire anybody who’s got lucky
I've never been fired, but I have been made redundant twice. Both times I'd not been in the role longer than 2 years which meant I was legally entitled to fuck all. First time, that's exactly what I got. Second time, the company was laying off such a significant proportion of staff that they were mandated to negotiate with those affected and come to an agreement about notice, pay, etc. They came with an OK offer; the employees requested a lot more; the company met us half way. Being entitled to nothing, I was very happy with what I ended up taking home :)
What they are required to do if they plan to make more than 20 people redundant is to conduct a formal 'consulation', which means that they have to discuss with the employees potentially concerned about the reasons and how to keep redundancies to a minimum.
Companies may offer more than they have to for the sake of their reputation and for goodwill, and (maybe especially) to make employees sign terms that they won't sue and won't discuss the matter.
I'm not exactly an expert, but if you're going to lay people off you have to do it based on how long someone has been at the company. Before you can lay someone off for 'lack of work', you're also required to show that this person cannot fill another position at the company. The rules are definitely in favor of the worker in Sweden.
[1] https://www.government.se/government-policy/labour-law-and-w...
1. https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagen_om_anst%C3%A4llningsskyd...
Legislation and procedures depend on country. The quote above suggests that they intend to offer a voluntary redundancy package, which enables them to bypass a lot of hoops and red tape by offering you more than you would be legally entitled to if you agree to leave voluntarily. It is not uncommon.
Usually there are a few steps that have to be followed depending on the circumstances, most of which involve providing thorough justification. Yes, the government agencies do care about this.
Further, we have periods of time after a position is severed that the company must also compensate or keep the employee employed (like notice periods, only they're on a schedule based on how long you've worked) that have to be respected by both sides unless agreed upon otherwise.
I would imagine they've figured out some sort of severance package or lump some that is a function of their salary. Just speculating.
I don't think you will see much of the "you got two hours to pack your stuff and then you are out" like in the US. In Europe most people will "finish" their job independently of whether they were fire or quit them self.
You may only get fired if you are deemed incompetent and have a higher position or does something silly. Not working is not enough.
This assumes employment under the labor law. In IT it's quite popular for employees to provide service as one person companies.
There is no unified "Europe" where things are done the same way.
There are ~50 very diverse countries in Europe, and things will vary widely.
This is even true, though a bit less so, for the 27 EU member states.
> Instead, if you are working in Europe, you will be offered to leave Klarna with an associated compensation. Outside of Europe, the process for impacted employees will look different depending on where you work. You will obviously receive more information about this very soon.
The article makes it seem like regulations in Europe (technically, the countries in Europe with a Klarna employee presence, although that's not explicitly mentioned) are similar enough, which is what the GP wanted clarity on.
What new organization? They're laying off ~10%, not restructuring the whole business, or creating a wholly owned subsidiary, or even repositioning their product. Is there some kind of legal advantage being exploited here?
I always felt that good CEOs (from a culture perspective) make it clear that in times of trouble, the first priority is not the business, but everyone working there. Sure, all that won't matter if the business folds, but Klarna is a long way from crashing and there's a hundred and one firms out there ready to pay up to keep this going.
I also totally disagree with this statement, if you're implying that you think good CEOs should layoff as few people as possible: "I always felt that good CEOs (from a culture perspective) make it clear that in times of trouble, the first priority is not the business, but everyone working there."
If anything, I think good CEOs are clear about making tough, painful decisions, and they make them quickly and move on as fast as possible. There is nothing worse than everyone seeing the writing on the wall (e.g. lots of people with not enough work to do), but feeling that management is paralyzed by fear to change it.
What's going on is really not that complex. Companies (and MANY companies, certainly not just Klarna), planned for number of employees based on estimates about the future state of the world, and that future state of the world turned out to be drastically impacted by all the events mentioned in that letter.
This letter didn't read (to me) like they're cautiously planning for the worst and therefore they need to make a hard decision and prepare to cut staff. It read like they're reacting to a storm that is already here. This, in my view, is not good timing. They've had the numbers for a long while now, everyone had the numbers for a good while now.
To cut 10% in one go strongly reads like they've already dragged it out.
I stand by my opinion that the management strategy here is not proactive but reactive. While that is clearly better than being paralyzed of course (I agree with you there), it's not necessarily a good sign of having things under control, no?
What's worse, to just set everyone on fire in a casual (not a quote) "you may or may not be let go, we'll see, but 10% of you are out" is also not a good way to handle it.
1. Tells everyone that they’ll get an email in the next few days about whether or not they’re to be fired — days of anxiety ahead for everyone, and even those who aren’t being let go will be looking for new roles
2. Asking everyone to work from home, so those who are let go are isolated from their peers who they very probably want to commiserate with and say goodbye to
What a terrible self-inflicted error.
I love how half of the people will bitch that layoffs happened too suddenly without adequate warning, and the other half will bitch that they were given too much heads up.
Not knowing who will be there when you get back, having to go into the office with the anxiety of having to be the survivors even if it is only 10%.
With that said, it's a lose-lose. Layoffs suck. It sucks to know what is happening and see people led off, just like it sucks to be the one led off with the psychologically long walk to the meeting room.
