
Why I Was Fired From a Tech Startup and What My Boss Had to Say About It - jfarmer
http://www.fdpod.com/why-i-was-fired-from-a-tech-startup-and-what-my-boss-had-to-say-about-it/
======
logicallee
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.

~~~
logicallee
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.

------
jusben1369
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.

~~~
krainboltgreene
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).

------
cjensen
His boss fired him and told him why?

 _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
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?

~~~
shubb
I got a CV through the other day from a stranger.

The guy had some great experience but the CV was weird.

It was 10 pages long for 4 jobs. He listed every course he'd ever been sent
on, including health and safety and diversity training ones, and just mixed
his degree in somewhere with them. He listed each version of word he'd used
(seemly every version released) with equal prominence as Java and SQL. Each
time he'd been hired as a temp contractor he wrote his job title as CEO,
because he was getting paid via his company.

My boss laughed at it and told me to bin it.

He needed to know what was wrong, or he'd stay unemployed (which was a shame
for a guy with some great skills). I agonized for about a day and finally sent
him some tips from my personal email, but I'm sure we could get sued if the
strangeness was due to a disability. Something wrong there.

~~~
nknighthb
You can't be liable for a disability you don't know about, and I wouldn't
assume he has one.

At some point, probably around the time he was graduating from high school or
college, somebody helped him put together his first resumé, and since it was
naturally thin, they probably encouraged him to put in everything that might
catch an employer's eye. He's probably never read anyone else's resumé.

I've seen this several times, and I've seen the opposite extreme, too.
Somebody gets told early on "fit it on one page", and thinks that's how all
resumés should be, forever. None of these people have any disabilities I'm
conscious of, though in tech, a mild ASD would hardly be shocking. They've
just been given advice that's either wrong or incomplete.

Meanwhile, I know one guy very well who does have a disability, and whose
resumés have frequently been complimented. You'd have no way of knowing from
them that he's in possession of a document from a psychologist that says PDD-
NOS on it, and unless you know exactly what you're looking for, you're not
going to notice when you meet him, either.

~~~
7Figures2Commas
> You can't be liable for a disability you don't know about, and I wouldn't
> assume he has one.

When it comes to employment matters, you can be sued by just about _anyone_
for just about _anything_.

Opposing counsel can and will spin every fact that seems meaningless or
innocuous. For example, the poster here indicates that he responded to the
applicant through a personal email. This is not normal behavior, so you can
bet a plaintiff's attorney would focus in on that and try to use it to suggest
that the poster didn't response through his work email because he knew
something wrong was being done.

Talk to any defense-side employment attorney and they'll all tell you the same
thing: flimsy, baseless lawsuits are filed against employers every single day.
But responding to a flimsy, baseless lawsuit costs money, and many of these
lawsuits are settled because it's more cost-effective and expedient to pay to
make the case go away.

Bottom line: taking action based on an unrealistic "you can't be liable..."
attitude is extremely dangerous.

------
radicalbyte
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.

~~~
brianmcconnell
I can imagine 99% of customers never putting two and two together in the first
place. I talk to salespeople all the time, and not once have I thought to
inquire about their personal interests, side projects, etc.

~~~
PommeDeTerre
That may be true for you and the other 99% of customers. However, if that 1%
of customers who do consider such things to matter are the most important of a
given firm's customers, then their opinions on such issues can have an
astronomical impact on the business.

~~~
FDpod
Hi there. I'm the author of the piece (my friend just emailed me to tell me
I'm on here - which is all sorts of cool and weird).

I didn't run the Full Disclosure site at the time but I was doing standup
comedy, which certainly could've been one of the reasons. Comedians have to
have a web presence, so if you were to google my name, videos of me doing
standup may have appeared.

But to tell someone not to pursue their extracurricular passions while
bludgeoning their soul during the day for a paycheck, just sucks. Maybe it's a
reality, but it did not leave a good taste in my mouth about my employer.

~~~
blisterpeanuts
Sorry for what happened to you, but in reality what you do off the clock does
indeed matter. Companies have an image to maintain, not least startups which
are trying to woo more venture capital, and you can bet that the VC's staff
will be researching each and every employee. And if it's not VC, it's a
potential purchaser or a broker that's going to take you public.

It sounds like your CEO was probably a jerk, but in his mind he may have had
his company's welfare as top priority.

Now as for sacrificing one's soul for a paycheck, well, that's a personal
choice. Maybe you should be up front with your next employer about your stand-
up stuff and see how they respond. Once it's out in the open, you will at
least know where they stand.

Best of luck.

~~~
VexXtreme
> Maybe you should be up front with your next employer about your stand-up
> stuff and see how they respond.

What someone does off the clock with their own time, unless they're a public
figure representing their company 24/7 (such as various high profile CEOs)
should have no bearing on how they're perceived either by their employer or
clients.

As long as you are performing your work duties efficiently and doing your job,
you are holding up your end of the bargain and that should be the end of it.
If your employment contract doesn't stipulate that you are not allowed to
engage into certain activities outside your working hours, then you can do as
you please and your employer has opened themselves up for a gigantic lawsuit
by pulling these kinds of shenanings.

I for one would sue the hell out of you if you fired me based on what I do on
my own time, if you can't prove that I was underperforming or damaging the
company in any way.

~~~
blisterpeanuts
"I for one would sue the hell out of you..."

No, you wouldn't. It's incredibly expensive and without a really blatant
reason like "We're firing you because you're black, old, and gay", no lawyer's
going to do the work on contingency.

Anyway, the company is never going to say they fired you for running a
knitting website, or whatever it is you do. They'd just say they're
downsizing, sorry, and while they're grateful for your contributions, market
conditions necessitate an occasional reorganization.

------
PommeDeTerre
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.

~~~
nknighthb
> _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.

~~~
PommeDeTerre
I take it that you're not a "person who wears a suit"?

The reality of the business world is that those who control the money are
often "people who wear suits". This is especially true when large sums of
money are involved.

If a given business wants such people (and the organizations they represent)
as clients, then the business will need to conform to the expectations of
these potential clients. The impact of such conformance can be even greater on
a startup, which may not have much leeway or influence in such dealings.

I'm not "defending" nor "promoting" what happened in this case; the details
are much too vague. I'm merely pointing out that there are factors at play in
the real world which may make such decisions more plausible and more
comprehensible.

~~~
nknighthb
> _I take it that you 're not a "person who wears a suit"?_

I'm a person whose life experience tells me anyone wearing a suit is, to a
very high degree of probability, evil, stupid, or both.

Do your justifications work both ways or not? If it's just fine to
discriminate against someone for not wearing a suit, is it equally fine for me
to discriminate against someone for wearing a suit?

> _the business will need to conform to the expectations of these potential
> clients_

If people would stop appeasing these idiots and instead do the ethical thing
by telling them to take a hike, it wouldn't be an issue.

~~~
PommeDeTerre
Of course you can distrust somebody who wears a suit. I didn't say that you
couldn't, or that you shouldn't.

You keep forgetting about the context we're discussing here, though: real-
world business dealings. When one party has money, and the other party wants
some of it, the party with the money generally sets the tone of the business
relationship. This may involve certain expectations with respect to how the
people they deal with appear and behave.

Yes, maybe startups seeking business relationships with larger, wealthier
organizations shouldn't put up with expectations that they feel are
unreasonable. But that's not how the real world works, unfortunately. If money
is to be made, then some sacrifices of various forms will very likely need to
be made. I'm merely pointing out this very real fact of today's business
world, and how it's plausible that appearance can play a very significant role
in business relationships.

~~~
nknighthb
> _Of course you can distrust somebody who wears a suit._

I didn't say distrust, I said discriminate against. As in, "I don't like that
you wear a suit, so you're fired.".

> _I 'm merely pointing out this very real fact of today's business world, and
> how it's plausible that appearance can play a very significant role in
> business relationships._

You're pointing out that many people are willing to be unethical to make
money. This is neither surprising nor interesting.

It is, however, disgusting, and doubly so because the appeasement is the only
thing that allows it to persist in the first place. If the person with money
had trouble finding vendors who lived up to their arbitrary expectations, the
incentive would exist to change those expectations.

------
peter_l_downs
> I was told that neither salary nor equity were negotiable, but I was sold on
> the promise of the company.

Yo, fuck that. Everything is negotiable to one degree or another. That sounds
like someone trying to take advantage of you.

~~~
rfnslyr
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.

Know your value, unless you're _really_ in a bind.

That was it.

~~~
redblacktree
I'd say in a healthy employee/employer relationship, you're both making each
other richer.

~~~
coldtea
Nope -- you always make the boss richer.

~~~
redblacktree
Well, in the strictest sense, I'm getting richer by being employed. Of course,
good money handling and living below my means are required for me to make
progress.

I think you mean to say that "my boss" is capturing more value from my work
than I am, which is probably true, but that doesn't mean that we're not both
benefiting. I look at it as a simple transaction; I give my time, he gives me
money. I don't plan to keep this arrangement forever, but it's certainly
making me richer right now.

------
ececconi
> Human Resources is not your advocate. Human Resources is a risk-assessment
> department.

Powerful statement.

~~~
freehunter
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.

~~~
mcv
Good unions are great. For employees, for the economy, and even for the
employers. I don't understand how American unions got so crazy and self-
destructive (or if they're not, why so many Americans are convinced the are).

~~~
rrouse
I'd say it's because of the same reason why some people vote against their own
best interests (e.g. less taxes on the wealthy). They believe that one day,
they will be rich and powerful, so they had better not vote in things that
would affect them when they get there.

The problem is, most of them never get there.

------
bdcravens
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.

------
mathattack
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?

~~~
toyg
After an experience like this, somebody like him would probably swear never to
put himself in that position again.

~~~
FDpod
Yes. Exactly (I'm the author). I never want to work in a cubicle again. Which
is what the whole Full Disclosure thing is, trying to create my own business
as to never deal with this or these types of people again.

~~~
mathattack
OP - If you can sell, you can sell yourself and your firm. Short term you'll
have problems, but medium term you'll be ok and long term you'll do fine. Hang
in there!

------
brianmcconnell
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.

~~~
vinceguidry
Yeah, it's to where if I get a whiff of dishonesty, I start submitting
resumes. This is my third job since April and I've already started looking for
the fourth. I used to think job-hopping would raise a red flag and keep me
from getting hired, but it hasn't yet. I think if anything it signals value
that you can find work at will.

~~~
mratzloff
It hasn't yet _that you are aware of_. I would immediately pass on your resume
without a second glance. Four jobs in less than six months very strongly
signals a number of negative things to prospective employers.

Perhaps the only companies willing to hire you now are those with high
developer turnover who just need a warm body to fill the last vacated seat?
And perhaps you are perpetuating that?

~~~
vinceguidry
Hmm. The 3 jobs I've gone through were all very different. One was a very
small software development company, they decided after three weeks that they
wanted someone with a lot more experience. I went from there to a huge
corporation, where I was unhappy so I found another job. This one I'm at now
is a largish "small business", like 300 employees.

I'd be confident in my ability to find another should these guys suddenly not
want me. But they told me when they hired me that it wasn't even a
competition, I was that much better than their other candidates. It was like
that at BigCorp too.

Another thing is that all three were contract-to-hire, except for BigCorp,
which omitted the hire part. I had significant accomplishments at each of
them, making and delivering entire apps. This is reflected in the resume.

It's a different world out there. You really have to try people out before you
can commit to them. Many times it just doesn't make sense to continue.

~~~
mratzloff
Where are you in your career? Just based on what you've written, it sounds
like you're early on in your career and don't have a good idea what the right
questions to ask during an interview are. Interviews are as much about you
vetting the company as the company vetting you.

~~~
vinceguidry
Yes, I'm still learning. But it's hard to really know what a company's like
from any amount of questioning of your interviewer. I feel like my jobs have
given me a good picture of what the industry is like at the various levels.

Right now I'm just trying to get a decent salary. This contract-to-hire
nonsense has to go. I'm sick of $20 an hour. If I jump again, they're going to
have to offer $70K+ right from the start. No more recruiters, my last two jobs
went through recruiters, I need to be my own advocate.

I would love to be able to stick around, but in many cases that's just not
smart. I just so happened to have strung three such situations together.

------
epoxyhockey
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.

~~~
brianmcconnell
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.

~~~
_delirium
There's a certain level of unethical behavior in termination that can lead to
a successful termination lawsuit even in an at-will state like California.
Outright bad-faith conduct still violates the implicit covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, though it's a fairly high bar to be held in violation.

Cases where it's been found in the past include terminating an employee in a
way calculated to harm the employee maximally, due to a boss settling a
personal vendetta and being intemperate enough to say so; and engaging in a
pattern of firing people just before promised benefits vest, in which case the
company can be found to have been falsely promising benefits it never intended
to deliver.

Hiring your wife as a CFA to cover up questionable dealings seems like it
might be leaning in that direction...

------
twigger
Seems like it crashed, here's the cached version:

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.fdp...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.fdpod.com/why-
i-was-fired-from-a-tech-startup-and-what-my-boss-had-to-say-about-it/)

------
dylangs1030
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.

~~~
VladRussian2
>"Salary and equity are non-negotiable" ...

>You should be allowed to negotiate as a savvy prospective employee.

that was the negotiation. The author took "being a part of that revolution" in
lieu of money.

------
moron4hire
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.

------
beefxq
"Anyone who is worth a shit has been fired at least once."

~~~
driverdan
Nope. I know plenty of people who have significant worth to their
companies/clients and never been fired.

~~~
smtddr
... or never told you, or knew that they should quit before getting fired, or
laid off(but the boss knows it was to get rid of him/her).

------
rocky1138
The big question: did he end up getting coffee with his former boss?

~~~
Apocryphon
My big question is how exactly the way he looked triggered his dismissal.

~~~
vinceguidry
I'd have marched into the CEO's office and demanded an explanation. Looked him
straight in the eye and make him justify his decision.

~~~
trustfundbaby
... And probably get hauled off by security or even worse the Police?

~~~
nknighthb
It would be unwise for security to physically "haul" you off unless you were
being violent, and even if they call the police, they will simply tell you to
leave and not come back. Cops won't touch or arrest you in this situation
unless you refuse to comply.

You may or may not get the answer you want, but there's not much they can do
about you making the attempt.

------
HarrietJones
I was cool with it until here :

"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."

~~~
FDpod
It wasn't worth getting into within the post, but there were strong
suggestions that the CEO may have listened to a podcast of mine where I talk
about having been an escort, and many people think I come off as gay. "What
your look may convey to clients" really wasn't my favorite thing to hear.
[http://www.fdpod.com/podcasts/episode-19-coming-out-vince-
ma...](http://www.fdpod.com/podcasts/episode-19-coming-out-vince-mancini-matt-
lieb-interview-eric-barry/)

~~~
askance
You didn't once mention the fact that you're wildly open about your personal
life on the internet: [http://brokeassstuart.com/blog/2013/01/30/cheap-dates-
super-...](http://brokeassstuart.com/blog/2013/01/30/cheap-dates-super-size-
me/)

I don't know about your employer, but I would certainly think twice about
keeping an employee who clearly doesn't realize the effect that this brand of
open honesty has on people outside of SF kink circles.

They didn't can you because you were an escort; they canned you because you
talk so openly about fucking on the internet, attached to your real name and
without any kind of prompting. What else will you overshare?

~~~
acuozzo
Please take your puritanical sensibilities elsewhere and be sure to say
"Sayonara!" to the First Amendment on the way out. kthxbye

~~~
csh1234
The first amendment has nothing to do with this. That governs the relationship
between the government and "the people" and until incorporation via the 14th
amendment it didn't even apply to states and their citizens. It has nothing to
do with the employer / employee relationship. Secondly I didn't see anything
wildly puritanical about the statement. A lot of people aren't comfortable
with that type of content and that fact could have affected the CEO's decision
to fire the OP; because he didn't feel comfortable presenting the OP as the
face of the company, which as the sales guy he was.

------
DallaRosa
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.

------
infoseckid
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

------
jacques_chester
So:

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_.

------
ArekDymalski
"They were going to revolutionize the recruiting industry" by "online
applications that discovered and ranked the aptitude of software developers",
but failed with their own HR. Sigh ...

------
OGC
Yeah, we still don't know why he was fired.

