Thread regarding 2U Inc. layoffs

You know Paul WAS the Chief FINANCIAL Officer of the previous leadership team, right?

I'm not happy with the executive team either. But imagine what would happen if Paul walked out the door. He's been left holding the bag on a stack of terrible decisions made by a previous leadership team. The Board should be (and is) scared shitless. They all have personal liability for the overpriced/underperforming acquisitions that demolished 2U's balance sheet. CEO retention seems like a small price to pay for the possibility they can get this thing refinanced, especially if they manage to do so without having to declare bankruptcy.

I was let go in one of the rounds recently. Leadership changes ki-led our departments soul and layoffs shredded our team morale. Seeing the direction the company has gone since departing is not surprising. The morale was low then. I cannot imagine what it is like now. If anyone is left, stay strong and fight for your unemployment/severance!

I was in the last round of layoffs. Those of you still there, you are on a sinking ship. Start looking now before your competing amongst yourselves for other opportunities.

@1uhk+1s06qJgq. This. These fools need some serious executive coaching. Nothing about the messaging acknowledged any accountability or established trust. It was threatening and sad. They have completely lost control of this company.

@1dsx+1s06qJgq They do this while at the same time criticizing people for using UPTO and other “benefits” and essentially calling those people “not team players.” Absolute jerks.

@1uhk+1s06qJgq Plus, if it’s in writing, it can be used against them. Even if a bunch of people hear them say something, they can just write it off as “they misunderstood.” 100% bet they don’t offer recordings of those office hours.

They should all be fired.

@grm+1s06qJgq definitely predictable. Instead of responding to the criticism directly in writing, critique the method by which the person delivered the criticism, put it on them to approach c suite in an arguably more limited way (not everyone can show up to office hours), and then pretend to still champion transparency and open doors by basically saying a veiled “I bet you won’t say that to my face”. The response should be in writing, if it can’t be put in writing, they should create an all company meeting, not just informal office hours.

Love to see it

If Paul or any execs had an ounce of character, they’d re-invest their bonuses in the company. The fact that they won’t speaks volumes in their belief in the company. They don’t think it will last so they’re taking their $$ and holding on as long as they can. The fact that they won’t nullifies the mission and all of 2U’s workforce should take anything they say as pure BS. They’re here to get rich… not fulfill their promises to the company. Despicable and truly trash humans. And shame on the board for approving these senseless bonuses. Disgusting.

For those who want to raise specific questions but feel nervous or at risk for speaking up (still bound by a degree contract and can't risk being charged the full tuition payback, have dependents reliant on your healthcare, general job insecurity in this tough market...), I advise finding someone who is comfortable and carries less risk to speak on the behalf of many. Have them privately intake questions beforehand and during the meeting (via text if possible). We've used this format in the past and it's helped elevate more voices in intimidating situations.

Post ID: @hns+1s06qJgq, the literal point of the poster is - Do What Needs to be done---THEN, the spoils can follow. And if leadership is not willing to act in that format, then it's "goodbye to you!" Because it is yet to be determined as to whether or not they even have a plan!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/corinnepost/2023/01/02/when-ceos-take-a-pay-cut-what-difference-does-it-make/?sh=4f646c1973ea

A little under 2000 times my retention bonus. Or these 4 bonuses could pay for 5% of edx. It’s clear they have no intention to do anything other than sail away on a golden parachute when it all comes crashing down. I’m down for a mass walkout on Monday

Agreed Chipshairline2. The format is certainly meant to intimidate, but don't let them do that. Prepare your questions and any follow up questions beforehand, just in case you are nervous on camera, the notes will be there to fall back on.

Don’t be fooled by Paul’s response. Disabling the Zoom chat and pushing for on-camera discussions are tactics meant to intimidate and silence voices, so Paul and the deceitful executive team can dictate the narrative that the exec and internal comms teams are preparing as we speak. Instead of letting them off easy, let’s prepare questions differently—maybe by creating a shared document listing our concerns to share with them beforehand, or read off during the call. Don’t let them take the easy way out.

Not an executive. Just an adult that has corporate experience.

Paul came back with an additional response:

I understand and truly appreciate the questions and concerns that have been brought up, and I recognize that many of you feel Slack is your primary means of communication within the company. However, for a topic of this importance and sensitivity, a more interactive and personal setting would be conducive to a more effective dialogue.
To address this, I will be hosting two office hours sessions next week, designed to facilitate an open discussion. It’s important to me that we create an environment where everyone feels heard and respected.
During these sessions, to ensure a constructive conversation, I encourage participants to enable their cameras when asking questions. This will not only help to foster a sense of community but will also allow for a more engaged and personal exchange of ideas. Please note that the chat feature will not be enabled to maintain focus and give due attention to each question or comment.
Further details on the dates and times of these sessions will be forthcoming. I’m looking forward to a productive and respectful dialogue.

I love when the executives come on here to discredit those who ask valid questions and call out their shady behavior. They really just want to collect as much money as they possibly can before this company goes under. They all boosted their titles in order to beef up their resumes for whatever jobs they will get in the future. They made sure to line their pockets before giving the employees scraps. Absolutely garbage humans. This is what working for a soulless corporation is all about.

Why do people who just accepted new titles and raises with those titles need retention bonuses less than 6 months into their new roles? I mean I get needing to focus on retention for employees who have been in the same role with no opportunity for advancement and no merit raises - but these folks JUST got raises with their promotions. The board is worried they are already looking for a way out? The money is crazy but it’s the reason that has me the most upset.

These bonuses may sound like a lot of money - and in a lot of ways it is a lot of money - but I would think they would be in what is deemed an approximate average range for publicly these titles in publicly traded positions. Many publicly traded company exec's make way more then these salaries. You're not going to get someone qualified to do what needs to be done for 200k.

Paul's reply: Good morning Dakota! As you know, you can call me anytime. On this particular occasion. I will await your call.

More like stupid and reckless. It's beyond clear how many people at 2u have never had a real job any where else