Comment by slipperyp | Hacker News Reader

Comment by slipperyp | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

He wasn't laid off - he was fired. This is the first point the CEO makes and it's an important distinction that the poster seemed to not own up to at all. Not knowing the difference between being fired and being laid off is bad - there's a pretty remote possibility that the poster's direct manager didn't own the message well and told the guy "we're letting you go" and he didn't understand he was being fired, but even if that's the case, most organizations of any reasonable size should have someone in HR handling the exit interview who makes things like this super clear.

I have no insight into what happened here, but I definitely have had experience working with and processing the termination of underperformers who don't recognize or accept that they are not meeting the bar and this sounds a bit like one of those cases.

There are probably some aspects of this separation that were imperfectly handled on both sides, but given the context of "guy is fired from company chooses to be interviewed on company site and say the company didn't give him any reason why he was fired" and the company says "you weren't doing your job" - I tend to trust the company.

You are taking the CEOs words as fact when the reality of the situation is, we don't know what the truth is right now. Judging from the fact that the CEO responded in such a childish manner I really have no reason to believe anyone in this situation. What if the CEO just posted what he thought was the reason why this employee was fired. What if there is no documentation backing up the CEOs statements.

First of all, I wouldn't call CEO's response childish, I'd call it exactly right. Honest, clear and straight talking is what we need to have more, and not some corporate contentless PR fluffs.

Secondly, CEO just exposed himself to a potential lawsuit and a total loss of respect from his subordinates if he lied even a little bit in that statement. That is kind of a whole lot of evidence favouring trusting him over the other guy.

How do you know its clear and straight talking? It could be complete bs, and same for employee. When your angry/hateful towards someone, all logic falls out the window.

I don't see anything angry or hateful in that response. I think people here are just projecting.

That response sounds angry to me.

It was over the top, and against the general grain of "don't talk about your employees' work histories publicly".

And admin didn't clarify things that would make judgment easier like: Did you tell the employee they were fired? Are you calling him a liar? That isn't clear to me... too many employers hide firings behind other, less obvious reasons.

He wasn't laid off - he was fired.

Laid off? Fired? I'm not sure we even know which it was.

Both the CEO or the employee can be misrepresenting things, or (more likely) be simply misinformed about the technical nature of the separation. In any case, I see no special reason to take the CEO's word over that of the employee in this situation.

> I was laid off. > > What was the reason?... > > > Officially: no reason...

This basically reads like he was trying to dance around saying he was fired, but he was saying he got fired. You don't get laid off by yourself, and you definitely don't get a "reason".

If he wanted to dance around, when asked "Why did you quit?", he could have given a generally vague answer like "I was let go." This could mean fired or laid-off. But he chose the specific "laid-off" answer. This means something very different than "fired." I don't think he was dancing around as much as just in denial about getting fired.

It reads to me like when he was let go, he might not have been given the clearest of communication as to the nature termination. I've been fired before, and I've been laid off. It was unambiguous in both cases.

That's not to say he wasn't clearly fired, and isn't dancing around that fact, but based on the available information, the broader internet bystander community doesn't have sufficient information to tell which story is true.

You're positing competence and or ethics when neither can be presumed. I can only wish they were safe assumptions. In fact in every layoff I've participated in (on either side) a reason for the layoff has been offered.

In one case where I and others were laid off we were told it was a layoff, our severance paperwork said it was a layoff, and the government was informed (for each of us individually) that it was for cause. The motivation was to get around the legal restrictions for layoffs and avoid an increase in their unemployment insurance contribution. In another case I was the only person laid off (from a small team), it was explicitly a layoff & my severance was paid out, and I later found out that it was part of a deliberate attempt to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the dev team. The company officer in question was later abruptly terminated and may have faced criminal charges.

In both of those cases you could argue by the standard you're using that I was fired instead, but I've got the legal documentation and if needed the witnesses to prove otherwise.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com