This is an awesome tool and a great service you are providing!
One note of feedback: When I first loaded the page, all I saw were listings from Starry Internet, and when I reloaded it was just Lyft. This makes it look like you only have people from one company.
My suggestion would be to randomize the listing on each page load (or even bias the list towards diversity of company and role). Then people can see the depth of the people signed up and start exploring filters.
Thx for the feedback! The list is already randomized on every load (from a given starting point). We'll make it more randomized. For now, you can filter the companies, and use the pagination to see more companies.
It's a quick, guilt-free way to get out of a dead-end situation without having to spend a multi-week notice period writing documentation, handing over, and pretending you'll be lifelong friends with a group of people you are sick of that don't have your back.
- you have enough money to be out of work for a while
- you are not on a visa
which is definitely not the case for many people. And what if you like your job ? Then layoff does suck, no ? You seem to think the alternative option to layoff is quitting, but what about staying at the company ?
Not trying to poop in the cereal, but take a beat before adding your name to the site; I'd be wary that this will be used to blacklist a whole lot of folks. There's a large segment of tech that doesn't see a tenure at Twitter as a positive, for example. Maybe consider hiding the company name.
Based on what I've read (here, reddit, and sadly the cesspool that is Blind) Twitter engineers are lazy and the epitome of the "rest and vest" career path.
So, just software engineers being toxic gatekeepers based on dubious opinions.
I've noticed trying to interview at smaller companies with a big tech company on my resume, I get a lot of weird pushback - like the interviewer is actively trying to discard me just to say they did. (anecdotal - so for what it's worth)
I get your perception, and have heard similar from a select few.
But the issue is what interviews, recommendations, and firing are meant to solve. I'd bet there are enough people who would still be willing to get Twitterites a chance.
> I'd bet there are enough people who would still be willing to get Twitterites a chance.
Yes, of course, other large companies like Facebook and Amazon will always be hiring.
Altough I heard Meta is also doing layoffs after their revenue tanked earlier this year, just like Twitter's did. So Amazon is a better example. My buddy worked there and he said 90% of his team just goes on Reddit all day.
So if you worked at Twitter for 3 years what do you do? Have a 3 year gap in your resume? If the company doesn’t want Twitter employees you were not going to get a job there anyway.
This is ridiculous, and I imagine it's only true for one Twitter employee who's only been there for a very short time. If this was the case how would you expect these people to get a job if they got further down the funnel? Do you think a big unexplained gap in your timeline is better then having worked at Twitter?
If a potential employer really thinks that about all Twitter employees, you don’t want to work there.
SV-style companies are going through a typical cycle where the money was cheap and flowed freely, and now it does not. So those companies are adjusting. Sure as rain, we will come full circle again, eventually.
In the meantime… Having lived in the Bay Area a few years, but having spent most of my life and most of my career outside of it, I can tell you that tech in general is not downsizing. It can seem that way if you are based in SV or in a VC-funded company.
“Boring businesses” are still hungry for good tech talent. Those companies might actually be profitable and even have a long track record of being profitable. Consider a short tour of duty to see what comes of some time at one of those companies.
As fair warning, these companies can be unfriendly to tech outsiders who charge in and think they know better how to run their businesses (see mention of long-term profits). So maybe that is where an idea of bias against Twitter employees comes from. But this is just about personal mindset. Most of these companies would very much like to bring on more tech talent with the right attitude to help them modernize.
Best of luck to all who are looking. Stay positive, and consider expanding your search horizon. Many industries have low-hanging fruit for people with the right skills, and you could make a real difference. It doesn’t mean you have to stay forever.
I wouldn't say everybody thinks that way, but as an employee of what you referred to as a "boring business", I wouldn't want to hire any of these folks due to the fear that they have a mindset like you. At least not for any sort of senior role.
We are profitable and have been for nearly 100 years precisely because we don't have the same perspective on "modernization" that many not boring SV companies have.
We've been burned enough hiring folks who would end up refusing to give any effort the minute they found out they would be responsible for adding small features to systems that have been in production for 20 years (we inform them of this, but they generally think they will be able to impress us of their genius and get us to change our mind). Or they refuse to adhere to processes that they falsely believe to be outdated, or they suck at anything that isn't JavaScript/Web, or constantly try to expand requirements in the direction of vanity efforts.
Additionally, everybody I've ever met from these places almost universally think they are hotshots that ought to immediately be given senior level salaries and responsibilities due to prior experience at a tech company. Sorry, but at real businesses that actually make money and have survived dire economic circumstances in the past, it doesn't work like that.
I'm sure there are exceptions, and certainly there are plenty of actual hotshots at companies like Google. But they are generally hotshots at things that boring businesses don't need. We will never in a million years have any reason whatsoever to implement Kubernetes. Sorry.
As of right now, we prefer to hire from other similarly boring businesses, or train up from entry level IT positions, or hire directly from local colleges.
It sounds to me like you and the GP are in somewhat of agreement. You're both saying that SV techs coming to some non-SV well established company might not be a good fit. You state a couple of reasons, and one of them supports the GP you're attempting to disagree with.
You: Additionally, everybody I've ever met from these places almost universally think they are hotshots
GP: As fair warning, these companies can be unfriendly to tech outsiders who charge in and think they know better
Yes you are correct, I generally agree with some of the points made, where I disagree is that we would want help modernizing. Unless the modern solution provides some kind of cost reduction or feature improvement that I can sell to my boss (which is rare), then it simply isn't going to happen unless you are a designer or working completely on the front end.
To be honest, that may be a good place to look for ex tech workers at my company, but I wouldn't know since I'm way deep in the backend.
I don't think that Twitter employees are necessarily lazy or like to "rest and vest". I just think the kind of work they are expecting and culture difference is often an insurmountable obstacle.
As for what others have asked, we generally max out on salary at around $200k for very senior contributor roles. For a fresh college grad then we are more than competitive for the area at around $70k-$80k. Like I said, we aren't a SV company, and we will not match a SV salary. But we are very competitive for the area, and its not an undesirable area either. If you do a COL adjustment it probably roughly evens out.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to insult anyone at a boring business. I work in insurance, one of the most boring of the boring businesses. I happen to like it. And I don't mind saying that the industry needs to and wants to modernize. We are short on the talent to get it done, although that is slowly changing.
I think we understand eachother then. If there are insurance companies out there that need people to help implement self service, then I think that's an improvement that absolutely needs to be made.
Of course, given that its insurance you will never be able to get rid of the mainframe in all likelihood, but that is also an area that could seriously be improved by anybody willing to try and dig them out of the hole they most likely outsourced themselves into (which is something I have seen a lot of at smaller banks, and I kind of suspect is what you were referring to when referencing borderline scam artist third parties).
I totally misunderstood where you were coming from in your original post, and for that I apologize.
One would have to be blissfully ignorant or uninformed about Twitter to think the majority were not. The bios tell the story. The internal activist groups within the company prior to acquisition tell the story. The tweets from the employees tell the story. I'm personally aware of a handful of peers from Twitter that aren't, but as they'll tell anyone - they're the minority.
> This list is an aggregation of public layoff lists where people voluntarily signed up, plus people who sign up through us.
You should be actively getting the consent of these people on these lists. They consented to have their info in lists created and shared by colleagues, not as part of your service.
Legally speaking I think the service is protected here, so long as they have an opt-out mechanism, and the contact information they provide has been previously published publicly. There are large companies, like Meltwater for instance, whose business models are like this.
I don't believe that's true. Specifically, they say they are republishing public lists that people have signed up for, for largely the same purpose ("letting people know that I've been laid off"), which is in the interest of the subject. They should be notifying the people on the list, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with what they're doing.
Correct. It requires that they published it, clearly with the intent of making it public, and for purposes similar to what it is being re-used for. I believe I mentioned that.
It is more specific than that. Having published it somewhere else for similar purposes is not enough.
You have to obtain explicit, demonstrable consent and offer a way for the subject to withdraw that consent (in this case they don't even know about it! This site collected and showed their information without letting them know)
I'm not a lawyer so I'm not going to express the same perfect self-confidence that you appear to have, but article 7 only applies if your use of the data is based on consent in the first place - which is only one of the options for legal justification of processing under article 6.
Of course, each member state is free to create exceptions to all of those articles for anything they consider journalism, which makes it even harder to make absolutely certain pronouncements on the legality of of any specific work which might fall under that category, but let's not get too complicated. Suffice to say that I think a court case on the question would be longer and less straightforward than you appear to think.
If I was running a successful tech company, these layoffs would be a godsend. Plenty of amazing devs let go simply to lower headcount costs. I'd be poaching this list ASAP!
And please, use this time to sharpen your skillset! You'll be back in the grind before you know it, so don't let this little vacation pass you by.
Hiring from the bottom of the barrel is not a winning strategy. There’s a reason most of those people were laid off. There’s some exceptions for sure (50-100% blanket layoffs) but when a company gets rid of 5-20% they make selective decisions.
If you want to hire talent, you poach the people who weren’t laid-off but are now more willing to listen to opportunities today.
Yeah that's not remotely true. Being a star performer doesn't protect you from layoffs. You can hit your KPIs and over perform and it won't prevent you from being on the chopping block.
>Being a star performer doesn't protect you from layoffs.
Generally speaking, they absolutely do. Even in scenarios where an entire org is being cut, star performers will be reassigned to other areas of the company beforehand.
It may sound brash but it'd take either a major failure in management or a failure in reputation-building and visibility for a star performer to be cut during these types of layoffs. That's not to say that good or even great engineers aren't at risk, but you're not going to find "10x-ers" being let go.
I agree that a few people can be held on to, but when orgs get dropped, there will be a lot of talent let go.
Let this be a reminder to all of us that we must, to some extent, always work toward making those 1-3 bullet points on our resume at our current position more and more attractive. Never just hang out. Hacky sack is only for lunch breaks, after work, and on the can.
Layoffs help cool off the overall job market as labor supply increases, so from the perspective of companies hiring, they can be favorable. As for snapping up a freshly laid off Twitter or Facebook employee, there are surely some good individuals in there but I agree that as a group they are probably not the rockstars, nor the quiet competent folks that are a good fit with "boring" businesses.
It reminds me (forgive the harshness) of the real estate downturn, when you might be able to buy a foreclosure cheap, but most of the time it's still not a place you can do anything with.
depends on how the layoffs were made. In the case where someone blisters in and decides who to hire and fire using some fairly arbitrary guidelines, and does so within a week, and choosing entire departments to let go, that's not "bottom of the barrel" talent that's been let go
"The main takeaway is for companies that process personal data gathered from public sources to tread carefully. Be mindful of your GDPR article 14 notification obligations. Be sure you document your processing decisions, particularly if you decide not to inform affected individuals how you process their personal data. And most importantly, be prepared for regulatory scrutiny and engagement."
67 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 117 ms ] threadOne note of feedback: When I first loaded the page, all I saw were listings from Starry Internet, and when I reloaded it was just Lyft. This makes it look like you only have people from one company.
My suggestion would be to randomize the listing on each page load (or even bias the list towards diversity of company and role). Then people can see the depth of the people signed up and start exploring filters.
Recruiters are the ones being laid off the most aggressively anyway.
It's a quick, guilt-free way to get out of a dead-end situation without having to spend a multi-week notice period writing documentation, handing over, and pretending you'll be lifelong friends with a group of people you are sick of that don't have your back.
- you have enough money to be out of work for a while
- you are not on a visa
which is definitely not the case for many people. And what if you like your job ? Then layoff does suck, no ? You seem to think the alternative option to layoff is quitting, but what about staying at the company ?
Not so great when you are in your 50s with family, health expenses & loans and nobody wants to hire you.
Why?
So, just software engineers being toxic gatekeepers based on dubious opinions.
I've noticed trying to interview at smaller companies with a big tech company on my resume, I get a lot of weird pushback - like the interviewer is actively trying to discard me just to say they did. (anecdotal - so for what it's worth)
But the issue is what interviews, recommendations, and firing are meant to solve. I'd bet there are enough people who would still be willing to get Twitterites a chance.
Yes, of course, other large companies like Facebook and Amazon will always be hiring.
Altough I heard Meta is also doing layoffs after their revenue tanked earlier this year, just like Twitter's did. So Amazon is a better example. My buddy worked there and he said 90% of his team just goes on Reddit all day.
SV-style companies are going through a typical cycle where the money was cheap and flowed freely, and now it does not. So those companies are adjusting. Sure as rain, we will come full circle again, eventually.
In the meantime… Having lived in the Bay Area a few years, but having spent most of my life and most of my career outside of it, I can tell you that tech in general is not downsizing. It can seem that way if you are based in SV or in a VC-funded company.
“Boring businesses” are still hungry for good tech talent. Those companies might actually be profitable and even have a long track record of being profitable. Consider a short tour of duty to see what comes of some time at one of those companies.
As fair warning, these companies can be unfriendly to tech outsiders who charge in and think they know better how to run their businesses (see mention of long-term profits). So maybe that is where an idea of bias against Twitter employees comes from. But this is just about personal mindset. Most of these companies would very much like to bring on more tech talent with the right attitude to help them modernize.
Best of luck to all who are looking. Stay positive, and consider expanding your search horizon. Many industries have low-hanging fruit for people with the right skills, and you could make a real difference. It doesn’t mean you have to stay forever.
We are profitable and have been for nearly 100 years precisely because we don't have the same perspective on "modernization" that many not boring SV companies have.
We've been burned enough hiring folks who would end up refusing to give any effort the minute they found out they would be responsible for adding small features to systems that have been in production for 20 years (we inform them of this, but they generally think they will be able to impress us of their genius and get us to change our mind). Or they refuse to adhere to processes that they falsely believe to be outdated, or they suck at anything that isn't JavaScript/Web, or constantly try to expand requirements in the direction of vanity efforts.
Additionally, everybody I've ever met from these places almost universally think they are hotshots that ought to immediately be given senior level salaries and responsibilities due to prior experience at a tech company. Sorry, but at real businesses that actually make money and have survived dire economic circumstances in the past, it doesn't work like that.
I'm sure there are exceptions, and certainly there are plenty of actual hotshots at companies like Google. But they are generally hotshots at things that boring businesses don't need. We will never in a million years have any reason whatsoever to implement Kubernetes. Sorry.
As of right now, we prefer to hire from other similarly boring businesses, or train up from entry level IT positions, or hire directly from local colleges.
You: Additionally, everybody I've ever met from these places almost universally think they are hotshots
GP: As fair warning, these companies can be unfriendly to tech outsiders who charge in and think they know better
To be honest, that may be a good place to look for ex tech workers at my company, but I wouldn't know since I'm way deep in the backend.
I don't think that Twitter employees are necessarily lazy or like to "rest and vest". I just think the kind of work they are expecting and culture difference is often an insurmountable obstacle.
As for what others have asked, we generally max out on salary at around $200k for very senior contributor roles. For a fresh college grad then we are more than competitive for the area at around $70k-$80k. Like I said, we aren't a SV company, and we will not match a SV salary. But we are very competitive for the area, and its not an undesirable area either. If you do a COL adjustment it probably roughly evens out.
Of course, given that its insurance you will never be able to get rid of the mainframe in all likelihood, but that is also an area that could seriously be improved by anybody willing to try and dig them out of the hole they most likely outsourced themselves into (which is something I have seen a lot of at smaller banks, and I kind of suspect is what you were referring to when referencing borderline scam artist third parties).
I totally misunderstood where you were coming from in your original post, and for that I apologize.
You should be actively getting the consent of these people on these lists. They consented to have their info in lists created and shared by colleagues, not as part of your service.
I recommend you shut this down immediately and email everyone on the list to apologise.
You have to obtain explicit, demonstrable consent and offer a way for the subject to withdraw that consent (in this case they don't even know about it! This site collected and showed their information without letting them know)
This is explicit in article 7: https://gdpr.eu/article-7-how-to-get-consent-to-collect-pers...
Of course, each member state is free to create exceptions to all of those articles for anything they consider journalism, which makes it even harder to make absolutely certain pronouncements on the legality of of any specific work which might fall under that category, but let's not get too complicated. Suffice to say that I think a court case on the question would be longer and less straightforward than you appear to think.
> each member state is free to create exceptions to all of those articles for anything they consider journalism
Are you claiming that this is journalism?
Are you claiming that this isn't journalism? Under which member state definition?
Unfortunately I am not convinced by the argument you refuse to say. Your way of debating is unconventional, I will give you that.
And please, use this time to sharpen your skillset! You'll be back in the grind before you know it, so don't let this little vacation pass you by.
If you want to hire talent, you poach the people who weren’t laid-off but are now more willing to listen to opportunities today.
Generally speaking, they absolutely do. Even in scenarios where an entire org is being cut, star performers will be reassigned to other areas of the company beforehand.
It may sound brash but it'd take either a major failure in management or a failure in reputation-building and visibility for a star performer to be cut during these types of layoffs. That's not to say that good or even great engineers aren't at risk, but you're not going to find "10x-ers" being let go.
I got laid off last week along with 1 more of my 5 teammates.
Let this be a reminder to all of us that we must, to some extent, always work toward making those 1-3 bullet points on our resume at our current position more and more attractive. Never just hang out. Hacky sack is only for lunch breaks, after work, and on the can.
It reminds me (forgive the harshness) of the real estate downturn, when you might be able to buy a foreclosure cheap, but most of the time it's still not a place you can do anything with.
"The main takeaway is for companies that process personal data gathered from public sources to tread carefully. Be mindful of your GDPR article 14 notification obligations. Be sure you document your processing decisions, particularly if you decide not to inform affected individuals how you process their personal data. And most importantly, be prepared for regulatory scrutiny and engagement."