I currently work at Netflix. Opinions contained herein are entirely my own, sorry for any errors I typed this on a phone. Hope I can help you make a decision. More than willing to answer any questions, just reply here. :)
The turnover rate you quoted is undoubtedly overstated or at least out of date. As for getting fired within a month, it won't happen. People are generally let go for a repeated pattern of major failures, and I can elaborate here if necessary.
I work on an incredibly high performing team at Netflix and would consider myself to be one of the bottom percentile people on the team. I don't fear for my job, and I don't have to. I get amazing coworkers, and I learn a lot almost every day. I can really depend on my team.
I'll address a few criticisms I've seen in other comments:
Unlimited vacation: It's not BS. My manager recently told the team to take more vacation. I responded by letting him know that next week if be taking a month off. His response "just so we're both clear, you're telling me, not asking me, because I'd be really uncomfortable if you felt like you had to ask."
Performance: Coworkers are generally really high performers, people genuinely care, but the tendency to hire senior employees means a lot of family people, and there is work life balance. There is no "stack ranking" system in place and to my knowledge there never has been.
Unlimited stock contribution being a bonus for already rich employees: Really? Really?! I say this as someone who came in with a negative net worth and no cash flow. You're taking risk in exchange for potential reward with the stock plan. Those who are rich can afford to take more risk, and they are taking more risk by putting more in. Sure maybe not risk of ruin but there is financial risk. What's wrong with this? it's been lucrative, I was considered a "heavy contributor" by company standards but pretty light compared to some I talked to.
Expectations: You set and manage these for yourself. Sometimes you screw then up. This is sometimes a challenge for me, but it's entirely within my own influence. This quarter I set lower commitments and took the first month off. It hasn't been an issue.
> Those who are rich can afford to take more risk, and they are taking more risk by putting more in.
No, that's not how ESPP works. There is zero risk that they'll make less money than someone who takes it all as salary instead. It's a guaranteed significant increase in income.
> Unlimited stock contribution being a bonus for already rich employees: Really? Really?! I say this as someone who came in with a negative net worth and no cash flow.
Yes, really. Wealthier Netflix employees are paid more than you because they can afford to defer 100% of their comp for six months.
Right, I apologize, I had assumed you're familiar with the Netflix option program and just inappropriately using the term ESPP. We have a rather straightforward option program in which you purchase an immediately vesting option for 40% of the current market price, strike price is equal to the current market price. If the stock doesn't increase 40% (used to be 20%) then you don't just break even, that money is gone. There is risk.
I wasn't asking really in terms of wether or not it was true, I'm asking really as in you somehow think this is some negative point against the company. I'm just not sure I understand how providing an opportunity to employees is a negative?
The wealthier Netflix employees who accept more risk than me are paid more than me, because they're in a position to accept more risk.
This sounds terrible. I can't find option data since they just had a split, but 40% sounds incredibly high even if the options don't expire. Furthermore the growth phase for NFLX likely has peaked, so what is the point in buying illiquid options? Can employees even sell these options?
Furthermore at-the-market strike prices give you the least amount of leverage. What is the point of accepting the risk of complete loss and illiquidity when you can put up just 2.5x more and buy the damn shares outright?
I don't believe there are any limits on the option program contribution. I'm not trying to refute your point, I imagine we just both have a philosophical difference in view on wether or not this is good.
Repeated major failures would be something like regularly failing to deliver or making a critical error multiple times. A pattern of behavior that doesn't fit the culture, NOT a one off mistake. A great example of this would be the engineer who accidentally leaked House of Cards a week early. The only consequence is that a "process" was removed to make doing what he was trying to do easier. I don't think firing this individual was ever considered. He didn't have a pattern of carelessness and this just happened to be a mistake.
I'm told the only "fuck up" that will get you fired on the spot for the first occurrence is sexual harassment.
My experience is fairly consistent with others I know, there are of course a few exceptions. Though please do bear in mind I have a severe observation bias here. I interact with significantly more people that want to work at Netflix than I do those who don't.
Tolerance of failure is different for ICs and Managers, partially because Managers tend to have such an ability to really screw things up in a way that isn't technical and has an impact on a bunch of other people in the company.
The shortest IC tenure I've seen here was the result of being a brilliant jerk (which interviewers did not catch during the interview cycle (and I speak here as one of the people who interviewed this person)). The shortest Manager tenure I've seen here was noticeably shorter than this, and was the result of pissing off your engineers.
I've not seen any IC here screw up on a technical level in such a way as to get fired for a first or even second screwup -- it really takes a pattern. My shortest IC termination was six months from hiring to termination.
The turnover rate you quoted is undoubtedly overstated or at least out of date. As for getting fired within a month, it won't happen. People are generally let go for a repeated pattern of major failures, and I can elaborate here if necessary.
I work on an incredibly high performing team at Netflix and would consider myself to be one of the bottom percentile people on the team. I don't fear for my job, and I don't have to. I get amazing coworkers, and I learn a lot almost every day. I can really depend on my team.
I'll address a few criticisms I've seen in other comments:
Unlimited vacation: It's not BS. My manager recently told the team to take more vacation. I responded by letting him know that next week if be taking a month off. His response "just so we're both clear, you're telling me, not asking me, because I'd be really uncomfortable if you felt like you had to ask."
Performance: Coworkers are generally really high performers, people genuinely care, but the tendency to hire senior employees means a lot of family people, and there is work life balance. There is no "stack ranking" system in place and to my knowledge there never has been.
Unlimited stock contribution being a bonus for already rich employees: Really? Really?! I say this as someone who came in with a negative net worth and no cash flow. You're taking risk in exchange for potential reward with the stock plan. Those who are rich can afford to take more risk, and they are taking more risk by putting more in. Sure maybe not risk of ruin but there is financial risk. What's wrong with this? it's been lucrative, I was considered a "heavy contributor" by company standards but pretty light compared to some I talked to.
Expectations: You set and manage these for yourself. Sometimes you screw then up. This is sometimes a challenge for me, but it's entirely within my own influence. This quarter I set lower commitments and took the first month off. It hasn't been an issue.
Again, opinions are my own.