4 ms·

I start a side gig and my employer tells me to choose the side gig or my employment. I choose side gig and lose employment. I am fired.

• raverbashing 2y ago
  PG clarified (on the thread) that if he chose the other way (staying on YC) it would have been fine with them as well
  • cthalupa 2y ago
    That is the exact scenario covered in the post you are replying to.
  • aaronharnly 2y ago
    That phrasing struck me as oddly limp. They would have been “fine” for their president to stay At his job? That’s not exactly a strong statement of support. If my boss told me they’d be “fine” if I stayed at my job I’d be pretty worried.
    • raverbashing 2y ago
      Yeah I agree with this. And you probably know when it's time to move on for one reason or another
    • robertlagrant 2y ago
      You're overanalysing something that wasn't the actual word used, and is an accurate word. We might all be a bit used to hyperbole, but the lack of it doesn't imply anything. Stop reading into it.
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      • tasuki 2y ago
        Indeed, and consider that pg is British. Not all nations share the American need for hyperbole. Some even look down on it. If my boss told me he was "fine with me staying at my job", I'd take it to mean that they were fine with me staying at my job.
    • pydry 2y ago
      It's also the kind of thing you'd say if you knew that their heart isn't in it. I don't think this press release (is it that?) does a very good job of dispelling the rumors that it wasn't entirely mutual, though. He ought to have said something like "delighted to have him stay".
• piker 2y ago
  pg disputing the narrative that Sam was forced out for being dishonest is totally valid, there is just some real interesting language parsing here to rule this not a “firing”. He lost employment at his employer’s behest and it wasn’t a layoff.
  • consp 2y ago
    > pg disputing the narrative that Sam was forced out for being dishonest Yet he doesn't do that (in this tweet) as it's only an alternative reason and does not address those accusations.
  • cies 2y ago
    I think Sam has amassed a net worth enough to live comfortably not having to work another day in his life. To me that changes the meaning of "fired". I'd read it as "co-entrepeneurs parting ways". Yes one of the co-entrepeneurs has more say in who stays and who goes. But even if there was an employment contract, I'd see it more as a good/bad leave clause when no body loses their much required primary source of income.
    • cma 2y ago
      Wouldn't the same be true of him getting fired from OpenAI then? He was never fired since he was independently wealthy?
      • cies 2y ago
        I'm not saying he's technically fired or not (i think "fired" is a term with a law-definition). I'm saying that he prolly has a deal at OpenAI with some stock and a good/bad leaver agreement, and a salary. Getting fired in this cases is not the same as firing someone who has zero stock and needs the jobs to put food on the table. It just does not carry the same weight for me, regardless of the lawful definition.
• cthalupa 2y ago
  Yeah. The provided explanation certainly sounds like firing to me. If he had been performing at a level worthy of his continued employment he wouldn't have gotten the ultimatum. It doesn't sound like he was incapable of doing that - just incapable of doing that while also running OpenAI.
  • DragonStrength 2y ago
    Not that I’m looking to take any side here, but they could see it as a conflict of interest, especially given YC may wish to invest in competitors, which wouldn’t have anything to do with performance.
• trash3 2y ago
  [dead]
• atsjie 2y ago
  It's a bit of stretch to compare a side gig with someone becoming the CEO of a for-profit subsidiary.
  • rendaw 2y ago
    How so? Aren't all side gigs solo entrepreneurial activities?
    • asdfaoeu 2y ago
      A side gig is something on the side, not your "main gig".
• spacebanana7 2y ago
  If your employer previously tolerated your side gig then it's different. An employer who forces employees to stop working from home or leave the company isn't firing them, for example.
  • manquer 2y ago
    It was involuntary that is the point . It was not Sam idea to leave YC at the time Your remote work example is not different companies ask a performance improvement plan they are saying improve your performance or leave. That “ or leave” doesn’t always mean you get fired legally , some companies would be more generous with severance if you resign voluntarily, but it doesn’t alter the fact you were asked to do so and effectively were fired. Senior management typically leave by mutual agreement even if they “asked to resign”. His employment was not terminated by YC legally yes , that would be rare and would happen if there is no trust left that he would do so properly when asked to resign, like it happened in OpenAI for him .
  • taneq 2y ago
    I don't think an employer can legally force that, can they? They can request that employees stop working from home, and they can fire them if they refuse. Forcing them to come to the office would be kidnapping.
• belter 2y ago
  Then your employer makes a diplomatic tweet, because you are known to be a Silicon Valley billionaire with grunges...
• michaelt 2y ago
  It does indeed sound a lot like firing. But what if the conversation went like this: PG: Quit your second job or be fired Altman: You can't fire me, because I quit PG: Great, as thanks for going quietly I'll tell everyone you "weren't fired" It's a firing for all practical purposes, sure. But technically Altman voluntarily resigned. This is actually somewhat common when firing people - if you ever find yourself in a disciplinary meeting with HR and you know you're about to get fired, you can just resign right then and there, one second before they tell you you're fired, and they'll accept. You sacrifice the right to sue for unfair dismissal, in exchange they'll tell future employers that you left voluntarily and weren't fired.
  • whamlastxmas 2y ago
    They can and will tell future employers that you suck and aren’t eligible for rehire though. And you lose unemployment benefits
    • tivert 2y ago
      > They can and will tell future employers that you suck and aren’t eligible for rehire though. I believe that's increasingly uncommon, I believe due to legal risk. I think it's usually the case that HR will only verify the bare objective facts of employment: dates of service, title, salary, etc. I also know of at least one company where policy states everyone who leaves involuntarily is not eligible for rehire, and that includes people who were laid off due to downsizing/site closures/etc. So "not eligible for rehire" my not indicate any performance or behavioral issues.
  • KingMob 2y ago
    You also sacrifice unemployment benefits in many cases, which costs businesses time to administer and risks fines and higher insurance rates. So, a lot of businesses will pressure you to quit instead of being fired, since it's easier for them.
• mihaaly 2y ago
  You chose to be fired, basicly quit. (this whole terminology debate is so futile and useless, mental food for the bored. WTF cares which exact colorful sticker we put on disagreements and the consequent parting. It's over, carry on.)
• 9dev 2y ago
  I live in Germany, a country infamous for its strong employee protections. It’s very hard to fire someone here. Yet, I don’t see how this is in any way unjust. Your employer pays you for putting your skills and time to their use. If you start working on a side gig, that will take up a chunk of your time and invariably occupy your brain; thus, your employer doesn’t get their full value out of you anymore. Up to a certain degree, employers (have) to tolerate this—in Germany, that would be when your performance at your job starts to suffer from it. But once your commitment to the side gig increases so much that you’re about to become CEO, there’s no reasonable way to claim you can still carry out your contractual duties to your employer. If your employer then offers you to either step down from that side gig or lose your employment, that is completely reasonable and frankly something you should expect? Put differently, if you pay me to paint your shed, and after finishing the front side I went off and painted my own house with the rest of the paint, you certainly wouldn’t consider the job done or full payment to be justified.
  • chris_wot 2y ago
    If you do your side gig out of work hours, and it doesn’t affect your work (and you aren’t competing…) then what of it?
    • jstummbillig 2y ago
      Then you are dreaming (because of course running a second demanding company will affect your work, in some way, not necessarily negatively) but, more importantly, people might disagree about the impact and either side would have a hard time proving anything. So probably be upfront about the rules and make a choice, when you have to.
    • eertami 2y ago
      Well in Germany specifically it's a legal issue (and some other EU countries), because there are labour market laws stipulating the maximum amount of time someone can work per week (48hrs). Sure, you can fly under the radar if you're working on your own business/start-up by simply lying about the hours worked, but if you're doing paid work for another employer it will be obvious, and they would not be legally able to employ you if total working time goes above 48hrs/week.
• jstummbillig 2y ago
  Important in this context is the board members insinuation that sam was unwanted. According to pgs account, that was not the case. Perhaps we can agree that "firing" is a fairly fuzzy term, and maybe not entirely fit to meaningfully contain, both: a) me losing my job because I am (apparently) not creating enough value for the company b) me losing my job because I am not willing to split time between my current main gig and my unicorn startup
• jameshush 2y ago
  "I choose to be fired" is quitting in my books. There aren't enough hours in a week to work two 40-hour-a-week jobs if you also want to eat and sleep
  • fooker 2y ago
    These are not factory jobs, most of the job is about making consequential high stakes decisions. It doesn’t take 40 hours of work all the time, especially if you can delegate well.
• lox 2y ago
  No, you resigned. It’s completely possible to have adult conversations and to part ways without being terminated for cause (which “fired” is a euphemism for).
• ben_w 2y ago
  Departure by mutual agreement can be a secret way of getting fired, but if both parties go out of their way to deny it was a firing, then I've no reason to doubt them. Even silence by one or both, which allows doubts to remain, isn't enough to be positive evidence that it was actually a firing, owing to the legal implications of different causes of departure in different jurisdictions. I've had several job contracts which say I'm not allowed to have another job at the same time unless I have written permission, which they can't say no to without good reason — "This has become a conflict of interest, pick one" or "both of these are now full time, pick one" seem like reasonable grounds to for an employer to rescind permission. (It's also one of the ways Musk gets flack, given how many companies he's CEO/CTO/president of).