2 ms·

There was no mention of any warnings or interventions or probationary periods. The OP said he was fired for working 3 jobs, and then later edited that to say it

There was no mention of any warnings or interventions or probationary periods. The OP said he was fired for working 3 jobs, and then later edited that to say it was due to low productivity. Lets be real -- a "brilliant" engineer knows what is expected, knows how to do quality work, and certainly is capable of meeting minimum output to avoid getting fired, even just putting in 10-15 hours a week. The whole story seems kind of off.

rahimnathwani 3y ago
OK I think the point I was trying to make is getting lost. All I'm saying is: 1. The fact that someone hasn't yet been fired for underperformance doesn't mean they're meeting expectations, and will be retained indefinitely without improved performance. 2. If someone in that situation is subsequently discovered to have a secret second job, then the reason for underperformance will be obvious (they never intended to put in the effort that would be reasonable to expect for a full time job), so there's no longer any good reason to believe their performance might improve.
- listenallyall 3y ago
  And I'm saying, the "best engineer you ever worked with" is fully capable of avoiding the low, low bar of being fired for underperformance, even splitting his time 3 ways. So something about the story doesn't seem exactly right.
  - rahimnathwani 3y ago
    The bar depends on the level at which they were hired.
  - ffgjgf1 3y ago
    > is fully capable of avoiding the low Maybe you’ve just worked with different engineers and at companies that have different minimum standards?
    - listenallyall 3y ago
      Or, maybe the original story was true that he was actually fired simply for having multiple jobs, because the bosses were butthurt, and the later edit about low performance was not really entirely accurate. It doesnt sound a bit strange to you when the OP states that "his talent went to waste"? Don't you think the "best engineer you ever worked with" could pass an interview rather easily (I mean, he already did at least 3 times) and get back to work somewhere else? Is the OP implying that losing this particular job was so devastating that this brilliant engineer quit the industry?

rahimnathwani 3y ago

OK I think the point I was trying to make is getting lost. All I'm saying is: 1. The fact that someone hasn't yet been fired for underperformance doesn't mean they're meeting expectations, and will be retained indefinitely without improved performance. 2. If someone in that situation is subsequently discovered to have a secret second job, then the reason for underperformance will be obvious (they never intended to put in the effort that would be reasonable to expect for a full time job), so there's no longer any good reason to believe their performance might improve.

listenallyall 3y ago
And I'm saying, the "best engineer you ever worked with" is fully capable of avoiding the low, low bar of being fired for underperformance, even splitting his time 3 ways. So something about the story doesn't seem exactly right.
- rahimnathwani 3y ago
  The bar depends on the level at which they were hired.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  > is fully capable of avoiding the low Maybe you’ve just worked with different engineers and at companies that have different minimum standards?
  - listenallyall 3y ago
    Or, maybe the original story was true that he was actually fired simply for having multiple jobs, because the bosses were butthurt, and the later edit about low performance was not really entirely accurate. It doesnt sound a bit strange to you when the OP states that "his talent went to waste"? Don't you think the "best engineer you ever worked with" could pass an interview rather easily (I mean, he already did at least 3 times) and get back to work somewhere else? Is the OP implying that losing this particular job was so devastating that this brilliant engineer quit the industry?