I have a very different take here. I will delete it if it doesn't resonate with others:
Those who live by the sword die by it.
He particularly liked "you're a great cultural fit." That means you are JUST LIKE THEM. We can't say, "same race" (but it's true), we can't say, "same gender" (but it's true), and we can't say, "same taste in technology, living address, clothes and what you do on your off time" (but it's true - to the point that side projects are a part of many CTO job descriptions).
Well, those who live by the sword die by it. What I really like about this story is that it shows just how shallow "cultural fit" is.
At my company, I have no idea what some of my C-level people look like. This will absolutely shock some of you. It also gives me access to talent at a multiple of talent to dollars that you cannot even dream of.
Sure, we will never put an "About us" page up with a 'culturally fit' workforce. We might even just use models of 16 28-year-old men who look exctly the same (maybe off of a swim team), give them all glasses and a Macbook, and put them all in a company T-shirt, with a footnote "Representative models."
Meanwhile the rest of you feel free to continue warming chairs with them.
Just a note that I truly did mean to delete this after seeing what reception it got (a positive one here); however I was called away before even finishing it, and unfortunately it is now outside my edit window. (I was still editing it.)
The comment should be regarded as a draft, only, of a satire and/or opinion piece.
I've read this comment like 8 times now and I'm really starting to believe it's some sort of psychedelic fascist performance act. That rating people by letters bit was gold!
I'm impressed his former boss sent him a note to state that he felt really bad about the way things happened. It would be nice if he'd done more initially but it still takes a lot of character to write that note and apologize vs just blow it off or chalk it up to the past.
I disagree. There was nothing to lose by sending this and everything to gain. There was no character required to write an apology when you're no longer near the situation.
I suspect he's just trying to rebuild burned bridges for better networking in SF (he just moved there).
Never do that. When firing someone in an at-will state, just do it and explain nothing. Explanations can easily lead to lawsuits. It's just not worth the risk.
Unrelated to the validity of this advice: it's kind of sad that our society has evolved legal structures that make it prohibitively risky to tell another human being why you're taking an action against them.
Hmm... what if you could have an employee sign a release as a precondition of being told why they were fired?
At the fear of being labeled immature/unprofessional: i have found that in many cases i morally owe my employees reasons for their being let go. I have never had to release an engineer on behavioral issues, so i always try to be clear with them about paths to improvement.
i'm certain this varies across companies, but in the startups i have worked for i've build very close relationships to many of my coworkers. i like to think there is a mutual trust established in that relationship. Part of that trust includes me looking out for their best interests, which i feel includes explaining to them what their next steps are to further their careers after they depart.
You're absolutely right. You should never tell someone you're firing why you're firing them. They should already know that before they've even walked in the room.
I find it frightening that people's livelihood is subjected to the whims of their boss to such extent.
If anything, a justifiable reason as to why you are fired should be mandatory. You don't have to be a 'protected' minority to deserve a fair justification for being fired.
I'm all for the right of employers to fire who they want, but we can't expect employees to be responsible for how their actions impact the company and not expect the same in return.
He's lucky to have been a self-reliant young entrepreneur with probably other ways to make a livelihood. It could have turned very ugly had he been a father caring for a sick child without other resource than his job, all that because some nitwit didn't like his hairdo.
So in the US you don't have to give explanations? Damn that sucks for the ex-employee. In France you have to write a report in order to fire someone unless they're in their trial period.
> Never do that. When firing someone in an at-will state, just do it and explain nothing. Explanations can easily lead to lawsuits. It's just not worth the risk.
Explain nothing? It may not be worth the risk, but it's a pretty shitty thing to do to another human being.
There's a terrible irony in this as the response to a post which explicitly states: "We all need jobs. We need to be employed. But at the cost of what? Our ethics? Our passions? Those that trust us?"
Nice story, but we're hearing only one side of it.
Was the writer working running his "sex and comedy" blog at the same time as working for the company?
I can imagine the CEO sacking him when he came across the guy's blog; what with the pictures of vibrators and skanky models..
The start-up's customers were looking for Software Developers: unless they were limiting themselves to the young/liberal Bay then this kinda thing will be damaging to their image.
Regardless of whether it's right or wrong, physical appearance can often have a big impact when dealing with certain clientele.
Certain types of clients just prefer to deal with people who conform to what might be considered a more "conservative" appearance. Deviating from their expectations can reduce their level of trust, for instance, which can impact business dealings. This is especially true when dealing with customers from abroad, especially when there are other cultural differences at play.
Some people have also had very, very bad experiences with other people who dress or groom themselves in a specific way. It's not the appearance itself that is harmful, but rather the association it has to other people who were directly involved with bad experiences in the past.
An example of this are those Ruby on Rails developers who choose a so-called "hipster" appearance. It can only take one disastrous Ruby on Rails project for a client to consider all software developers who have such an appearance to be untrustworthy and unprofessional. Again, whether it's right or wrong, this can happen very easily.
The specifics of this particular case aren't very clear. But I wouldn't be so quick to underestimate the importance or impact of physical appearance in general, when it comes to business dealings.
> Some people have also had very, very bad experiences with other people who dress or groom themselves in a specific way.
I've had very, very bad experiences with people who dress in suits. Indeed, the people who have had the most severe negative effects on my life have invariably worn suits. And I can't name many people I've had positive experiences with who ever wear suits.
Yet, somehow, I don't think that's what you had in mind when defending this nonsense.
Everything can be negotiable. But it's important to know exactly what your pull is in the negotiations. I recently negotiated a recruiter out of their standard contract for freelancers, and had them accept my proposal for a contract.
This only happened for two reasons: there was some bad stuff in that contract that I really didn't want to agree to, and if they didn't sign a contract with me, I could go directly to their client. They had no power over me, and we both knew it.
Well, you can negotiate to not take the job... I don't see why a company can't hold its ground on salary if it chooses to rule out anyone wishing to get a bit more.
I've never understood that. Just taking a job because OH MY GOD JOB. I've been in on going salary negotiations for over two months, all while they paid me the highest contrator salary just to have me stay on. Straight up said "Pay me X or I walk, thanks". 5 second meeting.
FUCK company/corporate loyalty. I'm here to get paid so I can fund an adventurous life, not to make you richer. I'm here to make myself richer and that's 100% all there is to it.
This is basically why unions were formed in the first place. HR is there to protect the company, and they are owned by the company. Unions are there to protect the employees, and they are owned by the employees.
I know the current attitude is against unions, and there are probably a lot of anti-union people on HN, for good reasons. Unions realized their power and became corrupt, became money-hungry, became power-hungry. Unions were one hand in the pot that bankrupted Detroit. And that's a shame, because now employees have literally no one watching their backs. At-will employment and an employer-friendly environment creates a hostile work place where employees of many companies never know when or why they're going to be fired.
Unions aren't entirely bad. Employers aren't entirely bad. It's just a shame we can't figure out a good balance of employer and employee protection.
It's a bit naive to believe that HR is about anything other than protecting the company.
Sure, employees have the side benefit of having someone to go to to answer questions about pay schedule, holidays, and benefits, but that's all it is: a side benefit. The real reason is to limit the company's legal exposure.
My take was that once you strip away all the unicorn and ice cream BS, there's little magic that prevents a startup from being based on the same values that drive the largest companies. Bad leadership and greed tend to have the same result, whether in SF, Chicago, or St. Louis.
Very tough story. What I don't get is why someone who is so good at sales (the story supports this) is on food stamps. If you can say, "I landed clients A, B and C" then a competitor would hire you to do it for them too, no?
Ah, the magic of "at will" employment. It's an excellent tool for those who rely on fear based management, and a horrible deal for employees.
Based on my experience in the tech industry, I assume I am being lied to. Things have only gotten worse recently with all of the fast money sloshing around and the bad actors it has drawn in.
One of the more frustrating things about working in the Bay Area is having to deal with finicky personalities like the OP's boss & CEO. It really takes a psychopath to court a potential hire so hard and then fire them 5 weeks later due to their appearance (after they sign a couple of large customers, btw).
If this were NYC, I could understand stabbing someone in the back after they secure a couple of large customers. Though, in the Bay Area, it's like being stabbed in the back by a meth addict; sometimes it makes sense, most of the time it doesn't.
I watched a CEO fire someone he had recruited cross country just weeks after he had relocated his family to the Bay Area. They screwed him and his family over real good. Not long afterward, the CEO fired his outside accountant and made his wife the CFO of the company. I straight up asked if he was hiding something, knowing that he probably was and that my stock and bonus were fictional.
I was fired immediately afterward. I laughed gleefully on the drive home from the comically bad exit interview.
"If this were NYC, I could understand stabbing someone in the back after they secure a couple of large customers."
Why would that make sense in NYC or anywhere else? If someone brought in some large customers, I'd expect them to be able to bring in more large customers in the future. Firing someone with that track record would just be stupid.
Yeah I cant understand why they had such a problem with his look looks perfectly ok for a start up and slightly less hair product and a tie I could see him working for a blue chip.
When I interviewed at a start up I was introduced to our art director and my first thought man your nail varnish is chiped - he was an out tranny.
Sounds like the CEO is one of those people who should not be running a welk stall.
Personally if it was in the UK I would have seriously considered taking the company to a tribunal over this - and have a paid pit bull flay the CEO in public one guy I know in the field is a proper working class Glaswegian and makes Malcolm Tucker look like a little pussy cat.
If he had competing offers, he was in a good negotiating position. I can understand believing in a great company and drinking the kool-aid, but if you have competing offers and a company explicitly states, "Salary and equity are non-negotiable" - that's a huge red flag.
You should be allowed to negotiate as a savvy prospective employee. With very few exceptions, you don't want to put yourself in an environment where terms are dictated to you rather than opened on a floor with you for your input. Even if you fail miserably at the negotiation, at least you had an opportunity.
Second to this - unless you're literally at-will employee, this is grounds for liability. The author was explicitly told, "You didn't do anything wrong, we're just getting rid of you because you don't fit." IANAL, so I won't harp on this as I don't know the particulars, but I'm fairly sure this is a case most lawyers wouldn't shy away from if everything is to be taken at face-value here (anyone with a law degree can correct me if I'm wrong).
In any case...I'm glad the author received validation of his abilities, even if it was nearly a year later. Maybe his former boss will grow a backbone and rehire him for something awesome. At least he didn't burn a bridge.
I got fired from a hardware startup because I wasn't pulling enough billable hours (actually, it was because I argued too much, didn't think it was good to put all of our eggs in one basket with one client--especially an abusive one--when we were trying to not be a consulting company, but the billable hours issue is what they went with). Of course, if they had not ignored my reports on a quarter million dollars of missing license revenue... oh well, their loss.
It seems he didn't because he feels his former boss is untrustworthy and lacking in character; someone who's ready and willing to be someone's unthinking paid henchman.
> His ethics meant nothing as long as he was having a paycheck lorded over him.
> We need to be employed. But at the cost of what? Our ethics? Our passions? Those that trust us?
I had to do a lot of extrapolating to come to this conclusion. Given the circumstance I wouldn't meet this former boss either. I learned a long time ago that people who'll screw me over once will screw me over again.
"Well it turns out I could [be fired], unless it could be reasonably inferred that I was being fired for being part of a protected class. So had my boss said “The CEO thinks you dress like a faggot” or “The CEO thinks that’s what a nigger would wear”, things would have been different. But as it stands, the fact that my boss told me I was being fired related to appearance at all was definitely a dicey, questionable move."
I've no idea why he feels the need to talk about how "protected classes" can't be fired when he's talking about why he was fired, but it seems as if he's no idea why some people are protected based on their sex, sexuality or color.
Unless the author is gay, then “The CEO thinks you dress like a faggot” is in no way equivalent to "The CEO doesn't feel you have the right look for the company."
More than the article itself, it's amazing how much prejudice people have, especially related to skin color.
The guy can say "faggot" but if he says "nigger" you have a bunch of people saying how bad it is to use the "n" word.
Oh come on.
What he meant is as clear as water.
People should grow up and realize that by doing that they're just stigmatizing the object of prejudice even more.
I figured the whole "be loyal to yourself" stuff almost in my first job when I was not allowed to rise up the ladder too quick as "more senior people" need to be promoted first. That day I decided my job will always be my plan B. I am happy to report now I run my own , very profitable business and have achieved financial freedom from JOBS and BOSSES
[+] [-] logicallee|12 years ago|reply
Those who live by the sword die by it.
He particularly liked "you're a great cultural fit." That means you are JUST LIKE THEM. We can't say, "same race" (but it's true), we can't say, "same gender" (but it's true), and we can't say, "same taste in technology, living address, clothes and what you do on your off time" (but it's true - to the point that side projects are a part of many CTO job descriptions).
Well, those who live by the sword die by it. What I really like about this story is that it shows just how shallow "cultural fit" is.
At my company, I have no idea what some of my C-level people look like. This will absolutely shock some of you. It also gives me access to talent at a multiple of talent to dollars that you cannot even dream of.
Sure, we will never put an "About us" page up with a 'culturally fit' workforce. We might even just use models of 16 28-year-old men who look exctly the same (maybe off of a swim team), give them all glasses and a Macbook, and put them all in a company T-shirt, with a footnote "Representative models."
Meanwhile the rest of you feel free to continue warming chairs with them.
[+] [-] logicallee|12 years ago|reply
The comment should be regarded as a draft, only, of a satire and/or opinion piece.
[+] [-] redblacktree|12 years ago|reply
You not knowing the C-levels does this?
> Meanwhile the rest of you feel free to continue warming chairs with them.
Who's warming chairs?
[+] [-] ulisesrmzroche|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jusben1369|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krainboltgreene|12 years ago|reply
I suspect he's just trying to rebuild burned bridges for better networking in SF (he just moved there).
[+] [-] cjensen|12 years ago|reply
Never do that. When firing someone in an at-will state, just do it and explain nothing. Explanations can easily lead to lawsuits. It's just not worth the risk.
[+] [-] md224|12 years ago|reply
Hmm... what if you could have an employee sign a release as a precondition of being told why they were fired?
[+] [-] liquidise|12 years ago|reply
i'm certain this varies across companies, but in the startups i have worked for i've build very close relationships to many of my coworkers. i like to think there is a mutual trust established in that relationship. Part of that trust includes me looking out for their best interests, which i feel includes explaining to them what their next steps are to further their careers after they depart.
[+] [-] j_baker|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Renaud|12 years ago|reply
If anything, a justifiable reason as to why you are fired should be mandatory. You don't have to be a 'protected' minority to deserve a fair justification for being fired.
I'm all for the right of employers to fire who they want, but we can't expect employees to be responsible for how their actions impact the company and not expect the same in return.
He's lucky to have been a self-reliant young entrepreneur with probably other ways to make a livelihood. It could have turned very ugly had he been a father caring for a sick child without other resource than his job, all that because some nitwit didn't like his hairdo.
Duties and rights, not just one or the other.
[+] [-] coldtea|12 years ago|reply
That's what you got from this article? Yay for hypocrisy!
[+] [-] AliEzer|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wdr1|12 years ago|reply
Explain nothing? It may not be worth the risk, but it's a pretty shitty thing to do to another human being.
[+] [-] crygin|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] opminion|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] radicalbyte|12 years ago|reply
Was the writer working running his "sex and comedy" blog at the same time as working for the company?
I can imagine the CEO sacking him when he came across the guy's blog; what with the pictures of vibrators and skanky models..
The start-up's customers were looking for Software Developers: unless they were limiting themselves to the young/liberal Bay then this kinda thing will be damaging to their image.
[+] [-] PommeDeTerre|12 years ago|reply
Certain types of clients just prefer to deal with people who conform to what might be considered a more "conservative" appearance. Deviating from their expectations can reduce their level of trust, for instance, which can impact business dealings. This is especially true when dealing with customers from abroad, especially when there are other cultural differences at play.
Some people have also had very, very bad experiences with other people who dress or groom themselves in a specific way. It's not the appearance itself that is harmful, but rather the association it has to other people who were directly involved with bad experiences in the past.
An example of this are those Ruby on Rails developers who choose a so-called "hipster" appearance. It can only take one disastrous Ruby on Rails project for a client to consider all software developers who have such an appearance to be untrustworthy and unprofessional. Again, whether it's right or wrong, this can happen very easily.
The specifics of this particular case aren't very clear. But I wouldn't be so quick to underestimate the importance or impact of physical appearance in general, when it comes to business dealings.
[+] [-] nknighthb|12 years ago|reply
I've had very, very bad experiences with people who dress in suits. Indeed, the people who have had the most severe negative effects on my life have invariably worn suits. And I can't name many people I've had positive experiences with who ever wear suits.
Yet, somehow, I don't think that's what you had in mind when defending this nonsense.
[+] [-] moron4hire|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peter_l_downs|12 years ago|reply
Yo, fuck that. Everything is negotiable to one degree or another. That sounds like someone trying to take advantage of you.
[+] [-] mcv|12 years ago|reply
This only happened for two reasons: there was some bad stuff in that contract that I really didn't want to agree to, and if they didn't sign a contract with me, I could go directly to their client. They had no power over me, and we both knew it.
[+] [-] prawn|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dustingetz|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rfnslyr|12 years ago|reply
FUCK company/corporate loyalty. I'm here to get paid so I can fund an adventurous life, not to make you richer. I'm here to make myself richer and that's 100% all there is to it.
Know your value, unless you're really in a bind.
That was it.
[+] [-] ececconi|12 years ago|reply
Powerful statement.
[+] [-] freehunter|12 years ago|reply
I know the current attitude is against unions, and there are probably a lot of anti-union people on HN, for good reasons. Unions realized their power and became corrupt, became money-hungry, became power-hungry. Unions were one hand in the pot that bankrupted Detroit. And that's a shame, because now employees have literally no one watching their backs. At-will employment and an employer-friendly environment creates a hostile work place where employees of many companies never know when or why they're going to be fired.
Unions aren't entirely bad. Employers aren't entirely bad. It's just a shame we can't figure out a good balance of employer and employee protection.
[+] [-] mratzloff|12 years ago|reply
It's a bit naive to believe that HR is about anything other than protecting the company.
Sure, employees have the side benefit of having someone to go to to answer questions about pay schedule, holidays, and benefits, but that's all it is: a side benefit. The real reason is to limit the company's legal exposure.
[+] [-] sown|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bdcravens|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mathattack|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peterjancelis|12 years ago|reply
Looks like his trust was violated and the new discounted expectations make him not apply for equivalent jobs anymore.
[+] [-] toyg|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brianmcconnell|12 years ago|reply
Based on my experience in the tech industry, I assume I am being lied to. Things have only gotten worse recently with all of the fast money sloshing around and the bad actors it has drawn in.
[+] [-] epoxyhockey|12 years ago|reply
If this were NYC, I could understand stabbing someone in the back after they secure a couple of large customers. Though, in the Bay Area, it's like being stabbed in the back by a meth addict; sometimes it makes sense, most of the time it doesn't.
[+] [-] brianmcconnell|12 years ago|reply
I was fired immediately afterward. I laughed gleefully on the drive home from the comically bad exit interview.
[+] [-] greenyoda|12 years ago|reply
Why would that make sense in NYC or anywhere else? If someone brought in some large customers, I'd expect them to be able to bring in more large customers in the future. Firing someone with that track record would just be stupid.
[+] [-] walshemj|12 years ago|reply
When I interviewed at a start up I was introduced to our art director and my first thought man your nail varnish is chiped - he was an out tranny.
Sounds like the CEO is one of those people who should not be running a welk stall.
Personally if it was in the UK I would have seriously considered taking the company to a tribunal over this - and have a paid pit bull flay the CEO in public one guy I know in the field is a proper working class Glaswegian and makes Malcolm Tucker look like a little pussy cat.
[+] [-] twigger|12 years ago|reply
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.fdp...
[+] [-] dylangs1030|12 years ago|reply
You should be allowed to negotiate as a savvy prospective employee. With very few exceptions, you don't want to put yourself in an environment where terms are dictated to you rather than opened on a floor with you for your input. Even if you fail miserably at the negotiation, at least you had an opportunity.
Second to this - unless you're literally at-will employee, this is grounds for liability. The author was explicitly told, "You didn't do anything wrong, we're just getting rid of you because you don't fit." IANAL, so I won't harp on this as I don't know the particulars, but I'm fairly sure this is a case most lawyers wouldn't shy away from if everything is to be taken at face-value here (anyone with a law degree can correct me if I'm wrong).
In any case...I'm glad the author received validation of his abilities, even if it was nearly a year later. Maybe his former boss will grow a backbone and rehire him for something awesome. At least he didn't burn a bridge.
[+] [-] moron4hire|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beefxq|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rocky1138|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kintamanimatt|12 years ago|reply
> His ethics meant nothing as long as he was having a paycheck lorded over him.
> We need to be employed. But at the cost of what? Our ethics? Our passions? Those that trust us?
I had to do a lot of extrapolating to come to this conclusion. Given the circumstance I wouldn't meet this former boss either. I learned a long time ago that people who'll screw me over once will screw me over again.
[+] [-] Apocryphon|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HarrietJones|12 years ago|reply
"Well it turns out I could [be fired], unless it could be reasonably inferred that I was being fired for being part of a protected class. So had my boss said “The CEO thinks you dress like a faggot” or “The CEO thinks that’s what a nigger would wear”, things would have been different. But as it stands, the fact that my boss told me I was being fired related to appearance at all was definitely a dicey, questionable move."
I've no idea why he feels the need to talk about how "protected classes" can't be fired when he's talking about why he was fired, but it seems as if he's no idea why some people are protected based on their sex, sexuality or color.
Unless the author is gay, then “The CEO thinks you dress like a faggot” is in no way equivalent to "The CEO doesn't feel you have the right look for the company."
[+] [-] DallaRosa|12 years ago|reply
People should grow up and realize that by doing that they're just stigmatizing the object of prejudice even more.
[+] [-] infoseckid|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacques_chester|12 years ago|reply
1. What do we know about the Boss? Nothing. Does he have a family? We don't know.
2. Is the Boss meant to quit simultaneously? Why? It's not clear that this would've stopped OP being fired.
If he's such a good boss, quitting makes the situation worse for everyone left behind.