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)

  • 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