rapidsave.com_ae_at_cloudflare_records_hr_trying_to_fire_her-n9tmcohti0cc1
ody.sh
View rapidsave.comaeatcloudflarerecordshrtryingtofire_her-n9tmcohti0cc1 on Odysee

I can’t give more approval for this woman, she handled everything so well.

The backstory is that Cloudflare overhired and wanted to reduce headcount, rightsize, whatever terrible HR wording you choose. Instead of admitting that this was a layoff, which would grant her things like severance and unemployment - they tried to tell her that her performance was lacking.

And for most of us (myself included) we would angrily accept it and trash the company online. Not her, she goes directly against them. It of course doesn’t go anywhere because HR is a bunch of robots with no emotions that just parrot what papa company tells them to, but she still says what all of us wish we did.

(Warning, if you’ve ever been laid off this is a bit enraging and can bring up some feelings)

  • @scarabicEnglish
    1•10 months ago

    Yes many extenuating circumstances. Sadly she’s still open to attack since she hasn’t put any points on the board.

    I understand you’re saying that this performance crap is made up so they can save money, and I agree.

    But a sales position that has never closed a sale doesn’t make a good poster child for this cause of fighting back against bad performance ratings. Fact is she has not created value.

    If her employment included a contract that guaranteed she could complete her ramp period, she’d have some footing.

    • TheHarpyEagle
      1•10 months ago

      The point isn’t if she made a sale or not, it’s that she was never informed of any requirement of such and was given no indication that not making a sale in her first month would lead to termination. Where are the manager notes indicating she was performing poorly? Where are the metrics that she’s failing to meet? Where is the contract saying she must make a sale in the first month after the ramp period? If her performance was really the issue, this information would be readily available. The fact that it’s not, and that many others had been fired the same day with the same lack of warning, shows that this is a disingenuous deflection to avoid giving her was is owed.

      • @scarabicEnglish
        1•10 months ago

        Where are the metrics that she’s failing to meet?

        We can be confident that zero sales is not meeting any metric whatsoever. Of course her quota period and goals were all left out of this but salespeople don’t work without them. And the quota is never zero.

        The salesperson was never informed that making sales was part of the job? Come on. I think you’re trying a little too hard. No, they don’t have a contract stipulating she just make a sale in the first month, nor did they have a contract saying her employment was guaranteed through her ramp. It’s clear she had the opportunity to make sales. She says she got close with 3 but they all fell through. They’re dicks for calling this bad performance but sadly she has no leg to stand on either.

        • TheHarpyEagle
          1•10 months ago

          Okay, but the point stands: if she was failing to meet whatever standards they say she was, why could they not provide those metrics during this meeting? If they can’t point to a contract, numbers, or previous feedback (official warnings, record of egregiously poor behavior, PIP, etc.) that indicates she was failing to perform her job duties, they have no grounds to fire her. If it was just her being fired then yeah, this would still be incredibly shitty behavior but, unfortunately, likely still legal under at-will employment laws. However, depending on how many firings “happen” to be occurring at the same time, CloudFlare could definitely have a WARN act violation on their hands. The WARN act specifically calls out this kind of thing:

          For purposes of this section, in determining whether a plant closing or mass layoff has occurred or will occur, employment losses for 2 or more groups at a single site of employment, each of which is less than the minimum number of employees specified in section 2101(a)(2) or (3) of this title but which in the aggregate exceed that minimum number, and which occur within any 90-day period shall be considered to be a plant closing or mass layoff unless the employer demonstrates that the employment losses are the result of separate and distinct actions and causes and are not an attempt by the employer to evade the requirements of this chapter.

          https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title29/chapter23&edition=prelim