
The upside to being let go by Nokia - sambeau
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25965140
======
sirkneeland
A great difference between Nokia and, say, Zynga:

When Nokia killed MeeGo, they let Jolla take the technology and make a new
company out of it when they could have easily thwarted it with any number of
legal/IP/HR chokeholds. But Nokia looked the other way and let Jolla continue.

When Zynga killed OMGpop (of "Draw Something" fame), the original people
wanted to keep OMGpop going, and even offered to buy it back from Zynga. Zynga
refused and insisted OMGpop's remains be destroyed.

Good Guy Nokia

~~~
AceJohnny2
See also Valve, Jeri Ellsworth and Rick Johnson, who were let go but allowed
to take the tech they were working on to start CastAR:

[https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/technicalillusions/cast...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/technicalillusions/castar-
the-most-versatile-ar-and-vr-system)

It's a pity that these situations are notable and not the default.

------
arocks
While I am not sure how well Nokia ran its technology strategy, I completely
respect their views on their employees and the society. I think they were one
of the earliest companies to think of how to recycle electronic waste created
by disused mobile phones.

Also, this article makes me think of the IP stockpile within a company in
general. While most companies tries to cash in from their research work, what
Nokia has done is to enable the creation of hundreds of startups. I hope more
companies emulate such models to help advance the state of the art rather than
gather dust in vaults.

------
probablyfiction
It's very difficult to imagine an American company doing this, especially in
the face of declining revenue. American corporations have a ways to go when it
comes to treating employees like human beings rather than resources.

~~~
jbuzbee
There are multiple ways to look at this. In one respect, you could say that
this generous "easing redundant employes out the door" policy hurts the
company and the employees still in place as it diverts money that could be
spent keeping the company in business by refining existing products and
developing new ones. If the company goes under, everybody is hurt. And if
you're not careful, your employees that can help the company the most may try
to get laid off in order to fund their side projects.

On the other-hand, morale must be terrible at places like Nokia and Blackberry
right now. Programs like this help the company as it creates loyalty and helps
keep good employees in place as they know that there will be assistance if
they do get laid off. But once again, it could create or hasten a death-
spiral. Employees can see that these layoff programs are expensive so they may
bail out to get theirs before the money runs out. Tough times. Touch choices.

~~~
michaelt
Well, one of the costs of hiring and having employees is you have to ringfence
some money for redundancy payments.

This is a completely predictable expense - a company shouldn't be put out of
business by paying redundancy money any more than they should go out of
business when the electricity bill comes in or the printer needs a new toner
cartridge.

------
ef47d35620c1
I've seen corporations in the U.S. change the locks on doors and not tell
employees. The next morning, they'd have security officers escort workers back
to their former offices so they could get personal pictures and things.
Employees were 'watched' by security to ensure they didn't take anything or
turn on a computer. America is a different place. It can be very hostile here.

~~~
jbuzbee
Terminating an employee can be tough on both sides. I was involved in a
situation where we should have had security escort the terminated employee
back to his office to get his belongings. This employee was basically let go
after multiple warnings about not showing up for work and not calling in. When
he was told, he returned to his office and proceeded to smash up some
equipment. Lesson learned. I obviously wouldn't want him back in the building
and wish security would have been at his office. Tense situation.

~~~
vidarh
But it is tougher when one side expects to be able to get away with anything,
and so often sees no downside in acting like total dicks.

I'm from Norway, and I was shocked when I moved to the UK where typical notice
periods is only one month. In Norway it is extremely hard to write a contract
that will hold up that limits notice periods for full time non-seasonal
workers to less than 3 months.

Most of the time people work out a 3 month notice period. And in fact, except
in special circumstances, we generally have the right (and duty, if we want to
continue to get paid through our notice period) to keep showing up for work
and doing our job.

In practice, most people who are offered/asked nicely to stop coming in to
work earlier will come to a suitable arrangement, but it is not very common.

~~~
jbuzbee
Yes, as an employee it would be nice to have a three-month notice. But the
downside is that it makes employers hesitant to hire someone in the first
place if they know they will be stuck with them for three months. In the
situation I described above, the employee in question failed to show up or
call in for his very first day of work and gave some poor excuse the next day.
And this behavior continued in the following weeks. We had obviously made a
mistake in hiring him and I was grateful that our team wasn't stuck with him
for three months.

~~~
eigenvector
What percentage of employees are total deadbeats like you describe? And what
percentage are honest folks who would never do such a thing or even consider
destroying their employer's property after being told they will be let go?

When you have a generous policy like this, you have to take the good with the
bad. Personally, I feel that there are many, many good, decent folks who will
benefit without screwing their employer for every deadbeat who will take gross
advantage of the policy. In the case of the guy who smashed up the employer's
equipment - what was the loss? $2,000? $5,000? Now what's that compared to the
retained goodwill of hundreds or thousands of employees who are laid off over
the lifetime of the company but leave with a positive impression because they
weren't escorted around like a criminal?

It's a matter of your outlook on society. Do you have trust in the public, or
do you target the worst-case scenario? This is the same thing as onerous
requirements for getting welfare or unemployment payments. They are focused on
the 1% or less who are trying to the game the system. In the process, they are
hurting the 99% who just need a hand getting through a tough time. Why
optimize for a 1% case?

~~~
cobrausn
This completely depends upon the industry, but from my experience in retail,
I'd say the percentage of deadbeats / honest folks (when it comes to work
ethic) is higher than you might think. At least here in the US.

~~~
Pxtl
Well, it's retail. Retail jobs are a dime a dozen. Employees and employers
both treat each other as completely expendable. That's why Costco swears by
their approach of paying above market rate - it makes sure that their staff
actually _value_ their job, because it's not instantly replaceable by walking
to the next high-turnover purgatory up the street.

~~~
cobrausn
Yeah, there is an establishment north of Houston that is a very common stop on
the way from Houston to Dallas. They pay pretty high above market, and from
what I can tell, it seems to work. Kinda sad that, by definition, everyone
can't do that, although I do wonder if the above market pay just lets you find
those who are stuck working retail but are willing to value the job.

------
sirkneeland
Nokia has been a special place to work. I have loved working here and learned
so much as the company invested so much in me and in others.

But the market doesn't reward companies for doing the right thing for its
employees. It rewards companies for making products that people wanted to buy.
And we failed to do that (mainly because we made catastrophically wrong
choices in which operating systems to get behind).

It is a shame. As someone staying behind in what is now "New Nokia" I can only
hope the company remains a special place to work.

EDIT: by "we" I mean "our leadership". I don't think many of the Nokia rank-
and-file would have supported the 2011 decision to do Windows Phone and _only_
Windows Phone (if anyone would have asked them).

------
dijit
Good PR for Nokia, it was a lovely company but I don't see how they are still
relevant in this time of Android and iOS.

The Windows phone, while not terrible, is completely eclipsed by the
forerunners which have cornered the smartphone and tablet markets, using
experience to guide them.

Windows mobile seems to still operate under the illusion that they can dictate
how you use your phone, which would work, if they'd been as ubiquitous as iOS
has become.

~~~
Rezo
With the sale of the phone business to MS, Nokia is pivoting to mapping and
connected cars: [http://conversations.nokia.com/2012/09/28/top-auto-brands-
tu...](http://conversations.nokia.com/2012/09/28/top-auto-brands-turn-to-
nokia-for-location-content/)

Nokia bought Navteq for ~$8 billion a few years back. They're the only source
for mapping data that is comparable to Google.

~~~
hexagonc
A recruiter from Nokia contacted me about a Android developer job. I'm not
sure if this was the Microsoft Nokia or the other Nokia.

------
jmspring
Nokia was on the decline even as early as 2005. The iPhone just exacerbated
things. The enterprise division, primarily based in the US was not treated as
well as the programs in this article. Many in the enterprise division based in
Finland were folded into other groups, which was good.

Also the reorganization under Elop wasn't all warm and fuzzy either, from what
friends in Finland told me. Recall the protest over the Windows Phone
decision.

I liked Nokia, left on my own, but this warm fuzzy, not always the case. The
fact that many started their own companies, etc, is a great thing to learn
though.

------
w1ntermute
Things could have been so different for Nokia if it had gone with Android
instead of WP. There would also be a lot better designed Android phones.

------
hexagonc
One question I have for European companies with branches in America: do the US
arm of these companies have similarly good benefits for their US employees or
do they revert to the norm for American companies?

------
edvaz
to read this article right after reading
[http://i.imgur.com/huUv09m.png](http://i.imgur.com/huUv09m.png) (the Zynga
today's articles on HN) was intriguing.

------
sudomal
One benefit of this is Nokia could potentially acquire the successful ventures
- once Microsoft is out of the picture and they're allowed to return to the
smartphone business.

------
jotm
I like the Lumias, I would buy one with Android.

------
mueslix
The upside to being let go by Nokia is not having to work for Nokia any
longer.

