I was let go once. I've told the story, but I have never mentioned the name of the company and I won't tell you if asked. I also had a horrible experience with a co-founder in my first startup to the point that I consider the guy a con man, but likewise I will only tell the story with all names and identifying details omitted. Calling people out in a public forum -- even if you are in the right -- just makes you look like an asshole.
But this response is also a terrible response from a CEO. He descends rapidly into the same muck as the original "AMA" poster. I agree that he was presented with two sucky options, but he should have taken the high road with his response and simply said something like "all I can say is that this individual was terminated for different reasons than the ones he states." In public at least, leave it at that.
Reddit in general is an increasingly toxic community. There was a great writeup a while back theorizing about various reasons that social networks select for snark, cynicism, and obnoxiousness over deeper and more thought-out content. If someone recalled it I'd love a link.
> Reddit is not laying anyone off, you were fired.
> Your comments about our revenue had no effect on this decision. This type of criticism is welcome and even encouraged at our company.
> I don't believe it is in good taste to publicly discuss the reasoning for any termination unless it is absolutely necessary.
> If you'd like some additional clarification on our decision to fire you please contact me or (Someone in HR) directly.
> Thanks
But at the same time I realize this is something you need to try to do, especially when you're dealing in the realm of personal business relationships where it matters most.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
Things like this have a real business impact. I've cancelled interviewing at companies based on conversations with former employees that the company didn't have a satisfactory answer for.
If I saw this in a public forum and Reddit failed to point out that the former employee was fired (and was aware he was fired) in a public setting (which would make them liable for being sued, if Reddit lied) holds alot more weight than "Oh, ya, that guy. He was full of shit" told to me privately would.
Maybe I just have bad experiences in life but generally people who can't say "Hey, we don't fire people in retaliation" without getting sued are people to avoid.
Every large company has fired at least one person, and every large company has at least one "full of shit" disgruntled ex.
Most companies haven't had a CEO Mushroom Stamp Heard 'round The World, though.
What false statement?