3 ms·

Fired means forced to quit employment. It's not illegal to have two jobs, they made him choose, thus firing him. I don't know why Paul is so defensive about t

Fired means forced to quit employment. It's not illegal to have two jobs, they made him choose, thus firing him. I don't know why Paul is so defensive about this.

boringg 2y ago
Easy to understand why he would want to make it look smooth Sam has now generated an incredible amount of power since being at YC. Also most people when they part ways with an organization want to smooth any differences in case there is some way to work together in the future. Also FWIW it just sounds like PG needed someone full time at YC - Sam couldn't and thus he went elsewhere. The length of discussion on this thread is quite long given the banality of the content. Yes I realize by commenting I am adding to that length.
crazygringo 2y ago
> they made him choose Correct. > thus firing him Not correct, because he was free to keep the YC job by leaving OpenAI. Firing is when you aren't given a choice.
- legohead 2y ago
  So if I go to my boss and say I have another job X, they say choose, and I say no thanks I'll keep both. What's going to happen? They essentially fired him, but with different paperwork. Paul is being pedantic.
  - m3kw9 2y ago
    Making him choose isn’t generally considered firing.
  - burnished 2y ago
    Two things: first, you could choose to prioritize the first job whereas firings are unilateral, second, consider yourself in a similar situation making a similar choice and then someone describes you leaving as being fired. You would likely feel badmouthed because of the specific connotations that word has. Oh probably worth considering that we can describe the last position you voluntarily left as being fired - you weren't going to show up anymore, so what was going to happen? You got fired but with different paperwork.
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    No, you still had the choice of quitting the job at X and keeping the one with your boss. Therefore it's not firing. Words meaning things isn't being pedantic. It's that words actually have meaning and you can't just change them to mean what you want -- not if you want to be understood when you communicate. It's no different from if your office moves to a different building 5 minutes away and your boss says you have to show up at the new address and you say no thanks I'll only go to the old address. You're not "essentially fired but with different paperwork". You're being unreasonable and choosing to quit. Expecting to keep a full-time position at one company while also being a full-time CEO somewhere else is being unreasonable and Sam chose to quit.
    - mempko 2y ago
      So they threatened to fire him. And he decided to leave.
- bradlys 2y ago
  > Firing is when you aren't given a choice. Actually, that's not what it is. Your boss can be like, "Hey, you can continue working here but you will need to take a 50% paycut." You say, "Uh, no." So, you end up leaving the place. Were you fired? Yes, that's being fired. They were renegotiating the terms of your employment - just like they were with Sam. The terms of his employment now became contingent on not working at another company - which weren't the terms of his employment before.
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    > Were you fired? Yes, that's being fired. No, it's not. It's getting a (horrific and generally unrealistic) pay cut. In more realistic terms, things like 10% pay cuts sometimes do happen when a company is struggling, and nobody calls those "firings". Because they're not. Words have meaning. Being fired has a specific meaning, which is a different meaning from being laid off, and is a different meaning from quitting/resigning when you don't like how your job has changed. (Also, terms of full-time employment often are contingent on not working full-time at another company -- this is a pretty standard clause. So the terms didn't necessarily change at all -- what changed was Sam became CEO of another for-profit company. That was his choice.)
    - bradlys 2y ago
      Oh cool. I'm not firing any of my employees then. I'm just saying, "Hey, you can continue working here as long as you work for free! No benefits either, haha! You're totally not fired though - just gotta work for free! Definitely don't try to file anything with the unemployment office because it won't work! You're totally not fired!" > Also, terms of full-time employment often are contingent on not working full-time at another company -- this is a pretty standard clause This is also not in any contract that I've ever signed and I've been in SV for a decade.
      - crazygringo 2y ago
        Your example is nonsensical. There are minimum wage laws. And if somebody is not getting paid at all, then of course they are fired. You've completely changed the example to where they clearly are fired, so I don't know what you're trying to argue. > This is also not in any contract that I've ever signed Are you sure you've looked? It can also be implicit in standard clauses such as the company owns all rights to all of your work. In which case starting a second job would be fraudulent. But of course it's also one of those things that's so common sense it doesn't need to be written into a contract in at-will employment countries (although it often is). There's the expectation in a full-time salaried professional job that the employer is getting all your productive professional work. It's mentally impossible to give 100% to two full-time jobs simultaneously. There's no reasonable expectation that anyone should be able to hold a second full-time CEO job. Nobody is "changing the terms" when the terms are commonly understood. If you start showing up to work shirtless and it wasn't in your employment contract that you're required to wear a top, complaining that they're "changing the terms" is missing the point entirely.

Fired means forced to quit employment. It's not illegal to have two jobs, they made him choose, thus firing him. I don't know why Paul is so defensive about this.

boringg 2y ago

Easy to understand why he would want to make it look smooth Sam has now generated an incredible amount of power since being at YC. Also most people when they part ways with an organization want to smooth any differences in case there is some way to work together in the future. Also FWIW it just sounds like PG needed someone full time at YC - Sam couldn't and thus he went elsewhere. The length of discussion on this thread is quite long given the banality of the content. Yes I realize by commenting I am adding to that length.

crazygringo 2y ago

> they made him choose Correct. > thus firing him Not correct, because he was free to keep the YC job by leaving OpenAI. Firing is when you aren't given a choice.

legohead 2y ago
So if I go to my boss and say I have another job X, they say choose, and I say no thanks I'll keep both. What's going to happen? They essentially fired him, but with different paperwork. Paul is being pedantic.
- m3kw9 2y ago
  Making him choose isn’t generally considered firing.
- burnished 2y ago
  Two things: first, you could choose to prioritize the first job whereas firings are unilateral, second, consider yourself in a similar situation making a similar choice and then someone describes you leaving as being fired. You would likely feel badmouthed because of the specific connotations that word has. Oh probably worth considering that we can describe the last position you voluntarily left as being fired - you weren't going to show up anymore, so what was going to happen? You got fired but with different paperwork.
- crazygringo 2y ago
  No, you still had the choice of quitting the job at X and keeping the one with your boss. Therefore it's not firing. Words meaning things isn't being pedantic. It's that words actually have meaning and you can't just change them to mean what you want -- not if you want to be understood when you communicate. It's no different from if your office moves to a different building 5 minutes away and your boss says you have to show up at the new address and you say no thanks I'll only go to the old address. You're not "essentially fired but with different paperwork". You're being unreasonable and choosing to quit. Expecting to keep a full-time position at one company while also being a full-time CEO somewhere else is being unreasonable and Sam chose to quit.
  - mempko 2y ago
    So they threatened to fire him. And he decided to leave.
bradlys 2y ago
> Firing is when you aren't given a choice. Actually, that's not what it is. Your boss can be like, "Hey, you can continue working here but you will need to take a 50% paycut." You say, "Uh, no." So, you end up leaving the place. Were you fired? Yes, that's being fired. They were renegotiating the terms of your employment - just like they were with Sam. The terms of his employment now became contingent on not working at another company - which weren't the terms of his employment before.
- crazygringo 2y ago
  > Were you fired? Yes, that's being fired. No, it's not. It's getting a (horrific and generally unrealistic) pay cut. In more realistic terms, things like 10% pay cuts sometimes do happen when a company is struggling, and nobody calls those "firings". Because they're not. Words have meaning. Being fired has a specific meaning, which is a different meaning from being laid off, and is a different meaning from quitting/resigning when you don't like how your job has changed. (Also, terms of full-time employment often are contingent on not working full-time at another company -- this is a pretty standard clause. So the terms didn't necessarily change at all -- what changed was Sam became CEO of another for-profit company. That was his choice.)
  - bradlys 2y ago
    Oh cool. I'm not firing any of my employees then. I'm just saying, "Hey, you can continue working here as long as you work for free! No benefits either, haha! You're totally not fired though - just gotta work for free! Definitely don't try to file anything with the unemployment office because it won't work! You're totally not fired!" > Also, terms of full-time employment often are contingent on not working full-time at another company -- this is a pretty standard clause This is also not in any contract that I've ever signed and I've been in SV for a decade.
    - crazygringo 2y ago
      Your example is nonsensical. There are minimum wage laws. And if somebody is not getting paid at all, then of course they are fired. You've completely changed the example to where they clearly are fired, so I don't know what you're trying to argue. > This is also not in any contract that I've ever signed Are you sure you've looked? It can also be implicit in standard clauses such as the company owns all rights to all of your work. In which case starting a second job would be fraudulent. But of course it's also one of those things that's so common sense it doesn't need to be written into a contract in at-will employment countries (although it often is). There's the expectation in a full-time salaried professional job that the employer is getting all your productive professional work. It's mentally impossible to give 100% to two full-time jobs simultaneously. There's no reasonable expectation that anyone should be able to hold a second full-time CEO job. Nobody is "changing the terms" when the terms are commonly understood. If you start showing up to work shirtless and it wasn't in your employment contract that you're required to wear a top, complaining that they're "changing the terms" is missing the point entirely.