151–160 of 320 posts
Umm. It was pretty clearly not done for vindictive reasons. The guy lied about why he was let go and put Reddit in the awkward position of either saying nothing and letting people believe they're a shitty workplace that fires people for disagreeing with management, or telling the truth about why the guy was fired (not laid off.) Frankly, he brought this on himself by forcing Reddit into choosing between two sucky opt…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may have not been done for vindictive reasons, but it was definitely done for the wrong reason. This shows a clear lack of leadership abilities on the part of Yishan. I know people love a Jobsian dick in charge of tech companies (I use that loosely with reddit; they're an entertainment company), but that era is over. Show some professionalism even if someone is unprofessional toward you and your company.
What should Yishan have said?
Yes, being "laid off" is different from "fired" but the ex-employee (dehrmann) actually did say he was fired. He just said it in a very roundabout way. He wasn't using "laid off" in its most obvious definition.
dehrmann said: "I was laid off...no reason...some management doesn't like feedback..." which is his euphemism for saying "fired".
(sidebar: If one is a high profile employee such as an NFL coach or big shot CEO, he/she can simply and directly tell journalists, friends, etc that "I was fired"[2]. For some psychological reason, every one else from middle management down to line workers have a defensive mechanism to avoid the word "fired" and use softer language.)
TheOsiris[1] was of the few readers that picked up on the poster's roundabout language. Many others did not parse it correctly. Unfortunately, the Reddit CEO also didn't interpret it correctly and so he thought he had to correct dehrmann by saying "you were FIRED for the following reasons..." So, a misunderstanding by yishan for not recognizing his ex-employee's strung out phrasing of "yes I was fired" unfortunately lead to the (unnecessary) boldface of "fired" in his response.
Anyways, we can set aside the "laid off vs fired" and recognize that the real disagreement is whether the ex-employee and the the company parted ways because of management retaliation about charity strategy, or because a lack of work productivity.
[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8417769
[2]http://www.siliconbeat.com/2008/06/10/fiorina-to-nyt-i-layed...
Umm. It was pretty clearly not done for vindictive reasons. The guy lied about why he was let go and put Reddit in the awkward position of either saying nothing and letting people believe they're a shitty workplace that fires people for disagreeing with management, or telling the truth about why the guy was fired (not laid off.) Frankly, he brought this on himself by forcing Reddit into choosing between two sucky opt…
He said he had a theory. You need to look up the word "Theory" in a dictionary. He did not say he had proof.
Theoretically (excuse the pun) they could all be disproved some day but most people know they will not be.
To cite wikipedia for lack of a better source:
"Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better characterized by the word 'hypothesis'"
As for me, personally, I think CEO's response was exactly what it should be. Honest, clear, straight to the point. Reddit just earned my respect as a workplace.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fallacy of the excluded middle: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fallacy_of_the_exc... The choice is not between saying nothing, and completely devastating that person. Surely there is a third (or even fourth, fifth) alternative. Also, saying nothing doesn't lead to the belief it is a shitty workplace. Just because someone posting in a forum that he's been fired from Company X for a reason he doesn't underst…
True in theory, but in practice, even HN is full of comments like "Google is evil because [link to a random unfounded speculation/whining of ex-Googler]" and people believe them uncritically .
I don't trust either of them. At all. What I do know, though, is that one of them wrote a comment which is tremendously meaner than those of the other person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe it's not "professional", where that word has the common meaning of avoiding saying hard truths on the grounds that someone's feelings and/or political position might be hurt. This significantly elevates Reddit, IMO. Their CEO acts like a fucking human being instead of a politicized, sanitized, pretentious, weasel-wording sock puppet like so many other CEOs. You have no idea how much respect I have for this.
A CEO's job isn't to be "a fucking human being". It's to be the public face of the company, and represent its interests in all of his/her professional (and often personal) interactions. To get stroppy like this abrogates that responsibility in such a way, and to such a degree, that it may well be actionable.
https://np.reddit.com/r/RedditCensorship/comments/2ifd3p/ude...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"because I pissed off management with my feedback" Umm -- did he say that, in the words you are using (and took the trouble to put in quotes)? If so, where? It doesn't seem to appear anywhere in the comment thread.
I was paraphrasing: "Officially: no reason. And I get this; I vaguely know how CA employment law works and that you limit your liability by not stating a reason. It's also really hard to work through in your mind. The best theory I have is that, two weeks earlier, I raised concerns about donating 10% of ad revenue to charity. Some management likes getting feedback, some doesn't. ..." When you make a statement like "S…
I think you meant to say, "Sorry, I was just making that up."