4 ms·

No. If you make accusations in a public forum (as that employee did) the company is going to respond. That is a given and perfectly normal. The guy basically s

No. If you make accusations in a public forum (as that employee did) the company is going to respond. That is a given and perfectly normal. The guy basically said he was "laid off" followed by "because I pissed off management with my feedback". Claiming it was a retaliatory firing forces a response.

dreamweapon 12y ago
"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.
- opendais 12y ago
  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 "Some management likes getting feedback, some doesn't." in relation to being laid off, you are implying it was retaliatory. I'm pretty sure Yishan saw it as that hence his reply.
  - dreamweapon 12y ago
    Paraphrasing? I think you meant to say, "Sorry, I was just making that up."
    - opendais 12y ago
      > "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." How else could you possibly interpret this rationally in a conversation about being laid off?
      - dreamweapon 12y ago
        A bunch of ways. The point is you didn't present it as an interpretation; you presented it as something he physically, actually said. Which, as you knew, it wasn't.
        opendais 12y ago
        Eh? I literally said -> "The guy basically said " http://www.italki.com/question/143633 http://www.italki.com/question/143633 "When we summarize something that somebody said, we use this expression. " Eh. You have an interesting way of understanding English I've never encountered before. You also fail to provide said intepretation/explanation/whatever you like to call it. So...ya.
        opendais 12y ago
        I'm replying to myself since I don't feel like waiting and I'm not going to be on for awhile... You basically started an argument on the internet over my use of "" to differentiate between his posts. K. Glad we cleared that up and I don't really care anymore.
        dreamweapon 12y ago
        The distinction lies in your use of quotation marks (rather than subordinate clauses). If you had just said: The guy basically said he was laid off because I pissed off management with his feedback. then it would have been perfectly clear that this was an interpretation of what happened, rather than a literal description of what happened.
      - sheepmullet 12y ago
        >How else could you possibly interpret this rationally in a conversation about being laid off? The way his comment actually reads is: "I really can't work out why I was let go. The only thing I have done out of the ordinary in the last few weeks was ..."
      - imanaccount247 12y ago
        >How else could you possibly interpret this rationally in a conversation about being laid off? I dunno, how about interpreting it as what it says instead of making up an evil motive? It says he wasn't sure why and his best guess was that.
  - UK-AL 12y ago
    That combined with Yishan's reply makes it LOOK more retaliatory.
    - opendais 12y ago
      You are welcome to your opinion. ;) But anyone who responds to being called out publicly, isn't retaliating imo.
      - UK-AL 12y ago
        It's not being called out, it's the tone. The tone sounds almost like a playground spat. Which hints at it being personality conflict, rather than a performance thing.
        nilkn 12y ago
        I have to agree with you. The fact that the CEO himself was so riled up about this is pretty strong evidence that there was a lot more to this story than a lack of productivity.
        opendais 12y ago
        > It's not being called out, it's the tone. The tone sounds almost like a playground spat. Which hints at it being personality conflict, rather than a performance thing. I've taken that tone with people in this thread to point out how stupid I consider there demonstrably false absolute statements. So...I think the issue here is some people are bothered by Yishan (obviously) and some people are not. Tbh, given the only way a CEO can safely say "you failed to perform" in regards to an employee is if they have documented missed deadlines by that employee...I don't think your point of view is likely grounded in reality. Most (sane & rational) people don't open themselves up to a lawsuit without being pretty sure they evidence to support their statements.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
penprog 12y ago
The company should have had a long discussion with legal and posted a public statement. The CEO shouldn't have gone on his website and posted a comment as a response that sounds like a 5 year old having a temper tantrum.
- opendais 12y ago
  I never said I was happy with the quality of yishan's response. I just disagree with: "Whatever the employee may have done to deserve separation, it is profoundly weird and troubling (and also, implicitly threatening to all employees, whatever their rank or standing) to see a CEO discuss those reasons in public." Going through legal and posting a public statement is still discussing those reasons in public under the psuedonym of the CEO with the words benig ghostwritten by legal.
  - penprog 12y ago
    Ok, I agree with you then that the company should have released a response. I think what the root comment was discussing was not the fact that they released a response but how they released it and the content of that response.
nknighthb 12y ago
Management being averse to criticism is not unusual, nor is it unusual for someone to believe that is why they were fired, nor is it unusual for someone to say that is why they were fired even if they know otherwise. Until the CEO responded, this was just an ex-employee with limited credibility saying pretty mild and unremarkable things few people would ever see. Now it's a CEO obviously feeling threatened and bringing wide attention to it.
- opendais 12y ago
  Tbh, I view it the opposite way. If an ex-employee publicly posts/publishes in a visible way that would be obvious to the previous employer...and the previous employer says nothing, that speaks volumes more. Generally corporate silence is a sign they can't refute the statement without opening themselves up to libel/being sued. The fact yishan is willing to say this (no matter how poor the delivery) basically means he is comfortable that he won't be sued successfully over it. That means the former employee (at best) failed to understand why he was let go.
  - nknighthb 12y ago
    "It is company policy not to comment on personnel matters." is the standard, expected response, no matter the guilt or innocence of either party. Is it satisfying? No. But it avoids exactly this situation. And by the way, even that response is only expected when the company is directly asked. The correct response until then is to simply pretend nobody (or at least nobody in management) is aware of the issue.
    - opendais 12y ago
      And some potential employees will look at it and go "Well, I am not going to risk working there" as a result either way.
      - nknighthb 12y ago
        His allegations were a mix of the implausible and the cliché. It would take a remarkably naïve candidate to both take these allegations at face value, and think Reddit is somehow unusual in being on the wrong end of them. If not having this stain is the criteria by which they judge potential employers, they will find no employment. Now, however, potential experienced employees who actually live in the real world will be avoiding Reddit. Why put your career at the mercy of an obviously angry, irrational CEO? There are all sorts of companies big and small where the CEO is either rational or at least kept on a short leash by a competent board of directors. Going into ordinary damage control mode whenever somebody says something negative about your company is worse than the original damage. Any statement at all draws attention to the issue and risks making you look defensive. But this isn't even ordinary damage control mode, this is a CEO personally attacking an ex-employee. It may even make mainstream news now (...and so it begins[0]). And worse, he's doing this right after getting another $50 million to play with and announcing a new anti-worker policy. Before seeing the CEO's response, I would have said that responding to the thread at all was the worst possible choice. But I would have been expecting the response to at least be of a remotely responsible form. If the comment hadn't already been two hours old when I saw it, I would have thought it more plausible that the account had somehow been compromised than that anyone would actually think to respond in such a manner. And now he's doubled down, but vaguely[1], "there's actually more, but we're pulling our punches, if you can believe it". If the original comment wasn't legally actionable, that one might be. The CEO has created a PR and potentially legal nightmare where there was originally nothing but some guy howling at the moon. I'm reminded of the OMGPOP/Dan Porter/Shay Pierce fiasco. Troubling that the CEO of "the front page of the internet" wouldn't have learned from that... [0] http://gawker.com/reddit-ceo-shames-ex-reddit-staffer-on-reddit-you-wer-1642998030 http://gawker.com/reddit-ceo-shames-ex-reddit-staffer-on-red... [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditCensorship/comments/2ifd3p/udehrmann_i_am_a_former_reddit_employee_ama_riama/cl25q4l https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditCensorship/comments/2ifd3p/ud...
nilkn 12y ago
He was actually pretty clear that he didn't really know why he was fired. He surmised the feedback might have been a factor, but certainly wasn't as confident about it as you paint him to have been. This is hardly some horrible accusation against reddit. If anything, as far as fired employees talking about former employers goes, this is downright tame and respectful. Moreover, he actually didn't bring it up first -- he was asked about it and simply answered the question.

dreamweapon 12y ago

"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.

opendais 12y ago
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 "Some management likes getting feedback, some doesn't." in relation to being laid off, you are implying it was retaliatory. I'm pretty sure Yishan saw it as that hence his reply.
- dreamweapon 12y ago
  Paraphrasing? I think you meant to say, "Sorry, I was just making that up."
  - opendais 12y ago
    > "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." How else could you possibly interpret this rationally in a conversation about being laid off?
    - dreamweapon 12y ago
      A bunch of ways. The point is you didn't present it as an interpretation; you presented it as something he physically, actually said. Which, as you knew, it wasn't.
      - opendais 12y ago
        Eh? I literally said -> "The guy basically said " http://www.italki.com/question/143633 http://www.italki.com/question/143633 "When we summarize something that somebody said, we use this expression. " Eh. You have an interesting way of understanding English I've never encountered before. You also fail to provide said intepretation/explanation/whatever you like to call it. So...ya.
        opendais 12y ago
        I'm replying to myself since I don't feel like waiting and I'm not going to be on for awhile... You basically started an argument on the internet over my use of "" to differentiate between his posts. K. Glad we cleared that up and I don't really care anymore.
        dreamweapon 12y ago
        The distinction lies in your use of quotation marks (rather than subordinate clauses). If you had just said: The guy basically said he was laid off because I pissed off management with his feedback. then it would have been perfectly clear that this was an interpretation of what happened, rather than a literal description of what happened.
    - sheepmullet 12y ago
      >How else could you possibly interpret this rationally in a conversation about being laid off? The way his comment actually reads is: "I really can't work out why I was let go. The only thing I have done out of the ordinary in the last few weeks was ..."
    - imanaccount247 12y ago
      >How else could you possibly interpret this rationally in a conversation about being laid off? I dunno, how about interpreting it as what it says instead of making up an evil motive? It says he wasn't sure why and his best guess was that.
- UK-AL 12y ago
  That combined with Yishan's reply makes it LOOK more retaliatory.
  - opendais 12y ago
    You are welcome to your opinion. ;) But anyone who responds to being called out publicly, isn't retaliating imo.
    - UK-AL 12y ago
      It's not being called out, it's the tone. The tone sounds almost like a playground spat. Which hints at it being personality conflict, rather than a performance thing.
      - nilkn 12y ago
        I have to agree with you. The fact that the CEO himself was so riled up about this is pretty strong evidence that there was a lot more to this story than a lack of productivity.
      - opendais 12y ago
        > It's not being called out, it's the tone. The tone sounds almost like a playground spat. Which hints at it being personality conflict, rather than a performance thing. I've taken that tone with people in this thread to point out how stupid I consider there demonstrably false absolute statements. So...I think the issue here is some people are bothered by Yishan (obviously) and some people are not. Tbh, given the only way a CEO can safely say "you failed to perform" in regards to an employee is if they have documented missed deadlines by that employee...I don't think your point of view is likely grounded in reality. Most (sane & rational) people don't open themselves up to a lawsuit without being pretty sure they evidence to support their statements.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

penprog 12y ago

The company should have had a long discussion with legal and posted a public statement. The CEO shouldn't have gone on his website and posted a comment as a response that sounds like a 5 year old having a temper tantrum.

opendais 12y ago
I never said I was happy with the quality of yishan's response. I just disagree with: "Whatever the employee may have done to deserve separation, it is profoundly weird and troubling (and also, implicitly threatening to all employees, whatever their rank or standing) to see a CEO discuss those reasons in public." Going through legal and posting a public statement is still discussing those reasons in public under the psuedonym of the CEO with the words benig ghostwritten by legal.
- penprog 12y ago
  Ok, I agree with you then that the company should have released a response. I think what the root comment was discussing was not the fact that they released a response but how they released it and the content of that response.

nknighthb 12y ago

Management being averse to criticism is not unusual, nor is it unusual for someone to believe that is why they were fired, nor is it unusual for someone to say that is why they were fired even if they know otherwise. Until the CEO responded, this was just an ex-employee with limited credibility saying pretty mild and unremarkable things few people would ever see. Now it's a CEO obviously feeling threatened and bringing wide attention to it.

opendais 12y ago
Tbh, I view it the opposite way. If an ex-employee publicly posts/publishes in a visible way that would be obvious to the previous employer...and the previous employer says nothing, that speaks volumes more. Generally corporate silence is a sign they can't refute the statement without opening themselves up to libel/being sued. The fact yishan is willing to say this (no matter how poor the delivery) basically means he is comfortable that he won't be sued successfully over it. That means the former employee (at best) failed to understand why he was let go.
- nknighthb 12y ago
  "It is company policy not to comment on personnel matters." is the standard, expected response, no matter the guilt or innocence of either party. Is it satisfying? No. But it avoids exactly this situation. And by the way, even that response is only expected when the company is directly asked. The correct response until then is to simply pretend nobody (or at least nobody in management) is aware of the issue.
  - opendais 12y ago
    And some potential employees will look at it and go "Well, I am not going to risk working there" as a result either way.
    - nknighthb 12y ago
      His allegations were a mix of the implausible and the cliché. It would take a remarkably naïve candidate to both take these allegations at face value, and think Reddit is somehow unusual in being on the wrong end of them. If not having this stain is the criteria by which they judge potential employers, they will find no employment. Now, however, potential experienced employees who actually live in the real world will be avoiding Reddit. Why put your career at the mercy of an obviously angry, irrational CEO? There are all sorts of companies big and small where the CEO is either rational or at least kept on a short leash by a competent board of directors. Going into ordinary damage control mode whenever somebody says something negative about your company is worse than the original damage. Any statement at all draws attention to the issue and risks making you look defensive. But this isn't even ordinary damage control mode, this is a CEO personally attacking an ex-employee. It may even make mainstream news now (...and so it begins[0]). And worse, he's doing this right after getting another $50 million to play with and announcing a new anti-worker policy. Before seeing the CEO's response, I would have said that responding to the thread at all was the worst possible choice. But I would have been expecting the response to at least be of a remotely responsible form. If the comment hadn't already been two hours old when I saw it, I would have thought it more plausible that the account had somehow been compromised than that anyone would actually think to respond in such a manner. And now he's doubled down, but vaguely[1], "there's actually more, but we're pulling our punches, if you can believe it". If the original comment wasn't legally actionable, that one might be. The CEO has created a PR and potentially legal nightmare where there was originally nothing but some guy howling at the moon. I'm reminded of the OMGPOP/Dan Porter/Shay Pierce fiasco. Troubling that the CEO of "the front page of the internet" wouldn't have learned from that... [0] http://gawker.com/reddit-ceo-shames-ex-reddit-staffer-on-reddit-you-wer-1642998030 http://gawker.com/reddit-ceo-shames-ex-reddit-staffer-on-red... [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditCensorship/comments/2ifd3p/udehrmann_i_am_a_former_reddit_employee_ama_riama/cl25q4l https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditCensorship/comments/2ifd3p/ud...

nilkn 12y ago

He was actually pretty clear that he didn't really know why he was fired. He surmised the feedback might have been a factor, but certainly wasn't as confident about it as you paint him to have been. This is hardly some horrible accusation against reddit. If anything, as far as fired employees talking about former employers goes, this is downright tame and respectful. Moreover, he actually didn't bring it up first -- he was asked about it and simply answered the question.