Hacker News Reader

Comment by mk89 | Hacker News Reader

I don't understand. That's unfortunately how it is, sadly enough.

Should they have fired another person instead just because of location?

I believe they should have not given the GO at all to the hiring manager, but hey... these CEOs nowadays like to take full responsibility accountability blabla-ility for their actions :)

Some years ago I worked at a company that had to fire 3 people. They picked one of the guys that was still on probation time (like ~10 days before the end of probation).

This person came from South America, and the worst part of it was that he decided to get his family here after a few months, because "you know, I came alone so that it's easier to find an apartment, to have bureaucratic things sorted out, etc.". Yeah. Then the family came and boom, fired.

Why did they hire him in the first place? I believe that this is what many companies do wrong.

View on HN

I'd say it's fair enough to expect not to hire when you plan to lay off... Especially when you make somebody to change their life upside-down...

Its not uncommon for people to turn the company upside-down (by leaving or other ways), why should the company care?

The company is a subject to the categorical imperative, but it is also a subject to the seven deadly sins (metaphorically). It does what the law allows in order to preserve itself, and rarely more.

In some companies I honestly think that all decisions are made with good intentions from each individual, and yet the emergent results are horrific.

(playing devil's advocate)

> Its not uncommon for people to turn the company upside-down (by leaving or other ways), why should the company care?

Just because a person might do something bad doesn't justify the company doing something bad to an innocent employee. And don't forget, Meta could easily sue someone if they for eg sabotaged something. An individual in this case getting fired is not likely to have the resources to sue a company the size of Meta.

"don't understand. That's unfortunately how it is, sadly enough. Should they have fired another person instead just because of location"

I see this as their fuckup, the job for a new hire should exist for at least 6 months, and if that means they cant fire and one and have to eat the loss, thats their problem.

Decisions have consequences, except for conpanies it seems.

> Decisions have consequences, except for conpanies it seems.

It's a risk you take by leaving your continent and flying to another one without any permanent residence permit. It's really shit, but that's how it is. It's always been the case, it just makes now the news because it's Facebook.

As I mentioned above, an ex colleague of mine moved from South America to Europe without even speaking the country's language and he got fired shortly before the probation period. Same situation: visa, no job, etc. Actually he got kids and one of them even enrolled last minute at the kindergarten. He didn't write any blog or anything, he simply found another job the fastest he could find. But again, it's not Facebook, so of course it doesn't make the news.

The only thing I can wish for is of course that these people can find a job right away in the country they move to. At least this guy can say to the next employer "I made it to Facebook", which should still count for someting..., and he/she can even speak the language.

> It's a risk you take by leaving your continent and flying to another one without any permanent residence permit.

This is a catch 22 - a permanent residence permit is only obtained by living in the country.

> It's really shit, but that's how it is. It's always been the case

You entire argument seems to boil down to 'its okay for our companies to exploit foreigners because it's always been this way'.

You don't actually provide any information or reasoning for why this is right and proper, or even nessesary.

> firing foreigners

That's not what he said, where did you get this from?

His entire point is that companies just fire people. That they were a citizen or working with a visa may not even have entered the decision making process.

I have been a foreigner for a while now, so it would be against my own interests to wish for such things.

In some EU countries you have a termination period of 2 weeks during probation. Maybe that's a compromise? It's not the best, but it has to be good for everyone (foreigners and not) otherwise it risks to create the opposite: companies not hiring foreigners without visa anymore.

They probably hired him because no one else suitable was available locally? Companies usually prefer local employees if at all possible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com