Being from the US it wasn't immediately clear to me why they would do this.
Found the relevant part of the article:
> In Poland, workers say they were told by their line managers and HR that they were underperforming and would be terminated if they didn’t leave voluntarily. But in Portugal mutual agreements stated that dismissals were a result of a reduction of 40 per cent in the group’s activity and a 30 per cent excess in staff numbers. By getting employees to voluntarily leave, Revolut has avoided launching a group redundancy consultation, that, among other things would give employees the right to severance payments and the chance to be offered alternative roles within the company.
“[Mutual agreement] is better for Revolut because they can’t go to labour court [employment tribunal],” says the source from the HR department. “The way they prepare the terminations are so bad that if someone would go to court Revolut would lose,” the source claims.
I automatically assumed this was a ploy to dodge unemployment/redundancy benefits for employees. This also happens in the US. Much harder to get benefits if you voluntarily quit versus get fired or laid off.
I find this approach really weird. I’m not sure about Poland, but at least in the the UK, for a mutual agreement (or settlement agreement) to be valid, the employee _must_ receive independent legal guidance.
Anything else and the dismissal would be completely illegal.
I’m not sure, but I would guess the Poland has similar or equivalent worker protections (the EU is generally pretty hot on worker protection). Which means that Revolut are opening themselves up to quite a bit future legal liability and pain. Doubly now that it’s in the press and there’s probably lawyers who see an opportunity to earn a paycheque and do some public good.
In the US it isn't immediately obvious why it would work, either. As a worker you're much better off being laid off than quitting. "Firing" when it is pretty flagrantly just a mass lay-off shouldn't impact future hiring.
I don't know about Poland, but in most EU countries you can not just fire someone and stop paying them. There is a termination period the length of which is relative to the time they were employed at the company. After an initial 'trial' period of typically 6 months, during which both parties can end the contract without notice, the notice period can run between 3 to 24 months for the employer, and 1 to 6 months for the employee. While in case of a firing the employee is in theory still working during that period, in practice most knowledge or commercial workers are cut from access to the company's premises and systems the second after the firing meeting. Companies try to avoid having to pay salary during the termination period by pressuring employees to sign a voluntary immediate mutual contract ending agreement.
Why would any employee take that deal though? When would it make sense to have your employer tell you to quit because they don’t want to lay you off and you just do it??
Revolut is really scary organization... used them for a year or so, and then one day locked my account... harassed me for 6 months, asking for all sorts of documents, which I provided them. then one day, they closed my account, and sent back 2K balance to random people who sent me money in the past. When contacted them via twitter, the blocked my the same day :)
My story with revolut is one day, without warning before, when I opened the app, I'd seen info to update it before I do anything with my money. And in Google Store there was no newer release for my version of Android. The only way to complain is to do this in-app so I was not able to do even this. Basically, I was cut off my money, completely.
After two days I found on their site a form to cancel my account. Which was still not easy, before this they tried to keep me as a customer (suggesting for example to buy newer phone :) )
This is pretty standard banking behaviour if they suspected you of money laundering, and closed your account on that basis.
To be clear, I have no idea if you were money laundering, and have no idea if your account usage had indications of money laundering (valid or otherwise). I can just tell you from personal experience that’s what a banks response to suspected money laundering is.
I couldn’t even register for a business bank account so left a review on Trustpilot. They tried to have it removed as bring fake. Luckily Trustpilot accepted my evidence and reinstated it.
"Random people" sending you money over a period of time will trigger all kinds of AML/KYC alerts
I remember a news article that showed up on HN, when people were all over how Revolut was allegedly lax with their AML controls, according to some news, etc
And then they never think they behaviour is going to trigger the checks and that it's ok to have random people sending them money without any justification.
“Primarily, it starts with their CEO Nikolay [Storonsky] being very vocal about their mentality, that if you do a 9-5 [workday] it won't work out...everything he has said is a recipe for burnout” says Stevie Buckley, co-founder of Honest Work and HR advisor to dozens of startups.
Never trust a founder who claims that extraordinary work effort is the key; they stand to reap the rewards while the costs accumulate downwards. You have to have significant equity (not options) before the risk/reward works out in your favor.
Everything that comes out of Revolut internally sounds horrific. I applied and was offered an interview, upon further research into how they work I pulled out of the process immediately.
They push their employees to breaking point (and with this, seemingly beyond). I'm so glad I didn't pursue that avenue, and feel so sorry for those caught up in this.
Their have been various articles from credible sources over the last year or two making it clear that they are a really shitty company. You would be crazy to trust them with either your money or your career.
In the US it probably constitutes criminal fraud, as it's a transparent attempt to evade unemployment benefits. Again, though, Poland and the EU may be different.
> “I thought maybe I should speak to another institution for legal advice because I am a foreigner,” Elena says. “[But] they said I had no additional time and that I have 30 minutes to make this decision.”
Really nasty tactics. Impossible to understand the consequences of what you're signing in that short of a time.
Any time a company asks you to forgo cash compensation for stock you should start preparing an exit strategy: this is doubly true if the stock isn't liquid.
I once worked at a unicorn that a week before bonuses were due to be paid changed them from cash to immediately vesting RSUs. Six months later they were filing for Chapter 11.
Get this: before announcing the salary trade-off option, they already gave negative feedback to people in positions they were looking to cut. Then they announced the salary exchange option as an opt-in for the entire company, saying that if people trade at least 30% of salary across the board they wouldn't lay anyone off. You could opt to trade anywhere from 1% to your entire salary for 2x pre-Covid stock valuation. People who were concerned about getting laid off traded more as a result. Some of them were laid off anyways after working for reduced salary.
My boyfriend manages a team at Revolut, and half of them just got laid off despite him fighting to keep them on since shutdown started, when he was prompted to fill out performance reviews. Some of them were hired within the past half year, were on a trial period, and let go the day before the end so they wouldn't receive severance packages. All of them were told it was due to their performance, even though he placed them all at high-performing in his reviews, so that the company can fudge their numbers on covid-related layoffs.
I dont understand how these new startup banks can stay in business. Previously banks could make money on the deposits in check accounts, now with negative rates they can only lose. Even big European banks are slowly dying.
It's like WeWork. These "fintech" companies are primarily in the business of taking money from giant investors who have too much cash (Softbank, Saudi Arabian sovereign wealth fund etc.)
These investors love to make oversized bets in WeWork-style startups which are actually just tech-colored lipstick on an old unprofitable industry, because it ticks the boxes on their "disruption" checklists.
They make all their money on the "value add" services. Things like insurance, loans, cryptocurrencies, fees for a shiny metal card, etc.
Even so, I can't see how they can afford ~1,000 support agents employed with only ~1,000,000 daily customers. I don't want to pay 0.1% of my income to pay for tech support for my bank account!
There are still many ways for banks to make money, and challenger banks are betting on the fact they can do it with less overhead.
Big European banks have started closing down branches and laying off staff, while they were pumping VC money to scale across several countries/continents and acquire a customer base among socio-demographics with high potential (mostly young, tech-savvy, traveling, reasonably good with money). These people eventually grow a bit older and need loans, mortgages, investments...
You would be amazed at how much money a bank can make on card interchange (the fee they earn on every card transaction you make).
Also most central banks don’t have negative base rates, so some money can still be earned from deposit interest. But COVID has of course slashed that revenue stream.
* Transferwise has been profitable for a little while now.
* Their pricing if fairly transparent and they're always upfront when they need to increase some fees. I could be wrong, but it looks like they're trying to stay competitive but not take part in a race to the bottom.
* They haven't been trying to recruit new customers as aggressively as Revolut.
* Their MasterCard is a little bit more lenient with offline transactions, which can sometimes be a problem with Revolut.
* On the other hand, the mobile app is a bit bland. It does the job, but the UX isn't as good.
Why on earth would anyone voluntarily quit, particularly as in Portugal you will be eligable for unemployment benefits from having been laid-off, vs quitting and not being eligable for the same.
Call their bluff. (I live in Portugal, and some foolish bosses tried the same and were rebuffed. FWIW the gov't agreed to pay 60% of the workers benefits during the lockdown in an effort to stem layoffs and furloughs etc.)
By the way, anyone knows a competitor to Revolut that respect privacy (online banking, able to send/receive other currencies easily).
I would love to switch but it is hard to find anyone actually better from a privacy point of view.
The companies behavior was indeed poor, but I wonder how many people realize that laws that make it hard to reduce your workforce lead to this bad behavior.
Business needs change all the time, and being able to adjust your workforce in response is critical. Not being able to do that can be very costly for both the business owners and employees in the long run, or even the short run if the business has revenue or cash-flow problems.
Alternatively, companies need to accept that being able to adjust your workforce is costly and account for that. This is not something new for them. Revolut knew damn well what the labor laws looked like when they opened their Poland offices.
Following laws and regulations is part of the cost of doing business. There's no need to make excuses for companies that fail at doing this.
Sounds like all they had to do was give people proper departure operations, and although they would have not saved as much expense, they would have avoided looking like amoral jerks and maybe even avoided a bunch of labor lawsuits in various places.
Just treat people decently, and you don't have to be painted as callous bastards.
I think people who crave stability should purchase it with their own money (for example, by saving or buying some sort of employment insurance). Forcing businesses to fulfill their fantasies is a terrible idea both morally and economically. Even if you think everyone needs a big institutional daddy to care for them, simply paying unemployment benefits would likely work a lot better than penalizing the employers for adapting to changing conditions (effectively incentivizing them to keep unproductive employees).
[+] [-] metalliqaz|5 years ago|reply
Found the relevant part of the article:
> In Poland, workers say they were told by their line managers and HR that they were underperforming and would be terminated if they didn’t leave voluntarily. But in Portugal mutual agreements stated that dismissals were a result of a reduction of 40 per cent in the group’s activity and a 30 per cent excess in staff numbers. By getting employees to voluntarily leave, Revolut has avoided launching a group redundancy consultation, that, among other things would give employees the right to severance payments and the chance to be offered alternative roles within the company. “[Mutual agreement] is better for Revolut because they can’t go to labour court [employment tribunal],” says the source from the HR department. “The way they prepare the terminations are so bad that if someone would go to court Revolut would lose,” the source claims.
[+] [-] Klinky|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] avianlyric|5 years ago|reply
Anything else and the dismissal would be completely illegal.
I’m not sure, but I would guess the Poland has similar or equivalent worker protections (the EU is generally pretty hot on worker protection). Which means that Revolut are opening themselves up to quite a bit future legal liability and pain. Doubly now that it’s in the press and there’s probably lawyers who see an opportunity to earn a paycheque and do some public good.
[+] [-] joncrane|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] loeg|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PeterStuer|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ornornor|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ddon|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saos|5 years ago|reply
https://web.archive.org/web/20200406205828/https://jobs.leve...
> School/university Olympic medal in competitions in physics, maths or programming
:/
[+] [-] kkarpkkarp|5 years ago|reply
After two days I found on their site a form to cancel my account. Which was still not easy, before this they tried to keep me as a customer (suggesting for example to buy newer phone :) )
[+] [-] avianlyric|5 years ago|reply
To be clear, I have no idea if you were money laundering, and have no idea if your account usage had indications of money laundering (valid or otherwise). I can just tell you from personal experience that’s what a banks response to suspected money laundering is.
[+] [-] 00deadbeef|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eeZah7Ux|5 years ago|reply
More importantly, what alternatives are available? Ideally:
- has an API
- reasonably priced or free
- works in EU
[+] [-] raverbashing|5 years ago|reply
I remember a news article that showed up on HN, when people were all over how Revolut was allegedly lax with their AML controls, according to some news, etc
And then they never think they behaviour is going to trigger the checks and that it's ok to have random people sending them money without any justification.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] DrBazza|5 years ago|reply
https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/3/18248826/revolut-workplace...
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/revolut-trade-unions-labour-...
[+] [-] ashtonkem|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zkid18|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wastedhours|5 years ago|reply
They push their employees to breaking point (and with this, seemingly beyond). I'm so glad I didn't pursue that avenue, and feel so sorry for those caught up in this.
[+] [-] hermitcrab|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] klmadfejno|5 years ago|reply
In the US this could probably qualify for nullification as it was made under duress. Don't know anything about Poland.
[+] [-] newacct583|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MichaelApproved|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AlexandrB|5 years ago|reply
Really nasty tactics. Impossible to understand the consequences of what you're signing in that short of a time.
[+] [-] nkingsy|5 years ago|reply
I've worked for dysfunctional companies, but I guess I'm lucky I haven't run into management trying to steal from me.
[+] [-] objclxt|5 years ago|reply
I once worked at a unicorn that a week before bonuses were due to be paid changed them from cash to immediately vesting RSUs. Six months later they were filing for Chapter 11.
[+] [-] technorally|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hypnotist|5 years ago|reply
that is good enough reason to not use their product at all.
I am sure there is plenty of capable competitors.
[+] [-] technorally|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rb808|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pavlov|5 years ago|reply
These investors love to make oversized bets in WeWork-style startups which are actually just tech-colored lipstick on an old unprofitable industry, because it ticks the boxes on their "disruption" checklists.
[+] [-] londons_explore|5 years ago|reply
Even so, I can't see how they can afford ~1,000 support agents employed with only ~1,000,000 daily customers. I don't want to pay 0.1% of my income to pay for tech support for my bank account!
[+] [-] TrackerFF|5 years ago|reply
2. Make it digital
3. Collect VC money
4. Subsidize service / product with VC money, and expand
5. GOTO 3 until IPO pressure starts mounting
6. Pray to god that you've outspent and outlived your competitors when it's time to go public
[+] [-] hocuspocus|5 years ago|reply
Big European banks have started closing down branches and laying off staff, while they were pumping VC money to scale across several countries/continents and acquire a customer base among socio-demographics with high potential (mostly young, tech-savvy, traveling, reasonably good with money). These people eventually grow a bit older and need loans, mortgages, investments...
[+] [-] avianlyric|5 years ago|reply
Also most central banks don’t have negative base rates, so some money can still be earned from deposit interest. But COVID has of course slashed that revenue stream.
[+] [-] dede4metal|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hocuspocus|5 years ago|reply
* Transferwise has been profitable for a little while now.
* Their pricing if fairly transparent and they're always upfront when they need to increase some fees. I could be wrong, but it looks like they're trying to stay competitive but not take part in a race to the bottom.
* They haven't been trying to recruit new customers as aggressively as Revolut.
* Their MasterCard is a little bit more lenient with offline transactions, which can sometimes be a problem with Revolut.
* On the other hand, the mobile app is a bit bland. It does the job, but the UX isn't as good.
[+] [-] raincom|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hogFeast|5 years ago|reply
Shame. Shame. Shame.
Even worse, they are a bank. Who would trust their money to people who behave this way?
[+] [-] hootbootscoot|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sdgjhfdlkgjhdf|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] obayesshelton|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] richardARPANET|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joelbluminator|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mdavis6890|5 years ago|reply
Business needs change all the time, and being able to adjust your workforce in response is critical. Not being able to do that can be very costly for both the business owners and employees in the long run, or even the short run if the business has revenue or cash-flow problems.
[+] [-] chucky|5 years ago|reply
Following laws and regulations is part of the cost of doing business. There's no need to make excuses for companies that fail at doing this.
[+] [-] frei|5 years ago|reply
This argument doesn't make sense to me.
[+] [-] zentiggr|5 years ago|reply
Just treat people decently, and you don't have to be painted as callous bastards.
[+] [-] flohofwoe|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] entropyneur|5 years ago|reply