
Reddit CEO Calls Out Former Reddit Employee on Reddit - brbcoding
https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2iea97/i_am_a_former_reddit_employee_ama/cl1ygat?context=3
======
pgrote
The CEO has responded to the criticism of how it was handled:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditCensorship/comments/2ifd3p/ud...](https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditCensorship/comments/2ifd3p/udehrmann_i_am_a_former_reddit_employee_ama_riama/cl25q4l)

"Hiya. It was a harsh response, I agree (there's actually more, but we're
pulling our punches, if you can believe it), and in fact all day yesterday I
didn't want to post a reply, hoping his AMA wouldn't get too much traction or
he wouldn't spout too many misconceptions and we could all just continue going
our separate ways.

Problem is, this was starting to really irritate a number of employees who'd
worked with him, and he's the kind of guy who enjoys the attention he can get
by saying "I used to be a reddit admin" even though he'll just post spurious
stuff he doesn't know about, and left unchecked the positive attention
encourages him to do it more.

In running reddit, there's an interesting balance between the normal standards
of professionalism (which we try very hard to uphold even when someone is
being unreasonable) and the fact that we're a huge internet forum where a
higher degree of openness is expected. I'm actually really focused on building
competent, professional management precisely because the spotlight is always
on us - and also because I've been at other Silicon Valley companies where
that hasn't always been the case - but it also means that because of that
spotlight, any tiny deviation can be hugely magnified."

~~~
danso
Without knowing any of the sides here, all I can say for sure is that the ex-
Reddit employee is showing a baffling amount of bad judgment here, even when
benchmarked against other young-techie-implosions. Maybe he thought, "Oh no
biggie, I can always delete this thread later and my real name isn't on
it"...yes, until the thread explodes and now one of the many tech-news blogs
jumps on it...the "no doxx allowed" rule doesn't exist outside of Reddit. And
now your Google results will, for the rest of your life or until you invent
the cure for cancer, have this dumb fiasco tied to your name.

And for what? I would think a Reddit insider, of all people, would know how
transient karma and internet fame is. Some employers are going to reject him
because he now has a history of spectacularly ripping on his own company. But
I have a negative opinion of him because at best, he's someone who shoots his
mouth of when it's just not worth it, and at worst, he's a chronic attention
seeker.

Rebels are fun. But this isn't Jimmy McNulty complaining about unpunished
murders in Baltimore. This is an engineer complaining about business strategy
above his pay grade...even worse, he takes the side against the (purportedly
unwise) do-gooders at Reddit, so he doesn't even young-headed idealism to
blame.

And this isn't even taking into account whether the CEO was speaking truth, in
which case, if you were fired for alleged incompetence and you try to play it
off publicly as if you were fired for taking a stand...that's just a whole
different level of shortsighted stupidity.

That said, the CEO should've taken a few deep breaths before posting what he
did. Wrestling with a pig in mud and all...it's not his job to be part of the
sideshow and I'm having a hard time imagining that employees feel satisfied
about this resolution...other than the fun of water cooler gossip.

edit: The worst part of the CEO's comment..."we're pulling our punches, if you
can believe it"...no, I can't believe it, nor did I really care. But now
you've shown that you'll play the stupid innuendo game, a rhetorical maneuver
that has no upside to the company at all. _Christ_.

~~~
grimtrigger
People who take the "moral high ground" always have to deal with the same
criticism. Edward Snowden? Doing it for attention. Assange? Total attention
whore

At some level its true. People take principled stands in the hope that
somebody pays attention. That doesn't mean their criticisms or opinions are
invalid.

~~~
munificent
There's nothing wrong with wanting attention. The only question is what do you
give in return for it?

Some of the most significant experiences in my life came from giving my
attention to authors, musicians, etc.

------
arram
Umm. It was pretty clearly not done for vindictive reasons.

The guy lied about why he was let go and put Reddit in the awkward position of
either saying nothing and letting people believe they're a shitty workplace
that fires people for disagreeing with management, or telling the truth about
why the guy was fired (not laid off.)

Frankly, he brought this on himself by forcing Reddit into choosing between
two sucky options.

~~~
kazinator
Fallacy of the excluded middle:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fallacy_of_the_exc...](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fallacy_of_the_excluded_middle&redirect=no)

The choice is not between saying nothing, and completely devastating that
person. Surely there is a third (or even fourth, fifth) alternative.

Also, saying nothing doesn't lead to the belief it is a shitty workplace. Just
because someone posting in a forum that he's been fired from Company X for a
reason he doesn't understand, that doesn't automatically mean that Company X
is wrong and shitty; not everyone jumps to this conclusion, and certainly not
based on the absence of any response from Company X.

~~~
TeMPOraL
True in theory, but in practice, even HN is full of comments like "Google is
evil because [link to a random unfounded speculation/whining of ex-Googler]"
and people _believe them uncritically_.

~~~
waterlesscloud
All the CEO's response accomplishes for me is prove the accusation that was
out there.

The ex-employee implied management doesn't like criticism. Management then
completely overreacts to criticism.

~~~
szierk
It's not the criticism; it's the fact that an ex-employee is lying through his
teeth about the company.

~~~
q2
where are the proofs that ex-employee is lying? It can be CEO is covering up.
Is it not?

~~~
TeMPOraL
Is this probable given how much risk he would be taking on himself in this
situation? It could be a career-and-company-ending move.

~~~
ForHackernews
> It could be a career-and-company-ending move.

Are you kidding me? What world do you live in where corporate executives and
companies are punished for lying?

~~~
TeMPOraL
Most cases you're probably thinking about are of CEOs of big companies issuing
CYA-statements that minimize legal attack surface. Here, the guy just exposed
himself completely. Also Reddit is not Goldman Sachs; it's value is directly
proportional to how much people like the company, and Reddit finds itself in
the middle of another funding round.

I do see a great potential for bad consequences here.

~~~
ForHackernews
I doubt the unemployed guy would have the resources to mount a legal attack
anyway. As for bad PR, take a look at this thread (or the reddit thread): the
majority of people are reflexively siding with the CEO.

~~~
opendais
Reddit just raised $50 million. A lawsuit is the kind of thing some lawyers
take essentially on commission when the target has money.

------
tdicola
Good lord, I hope the $50M investors in reddit are beating down the doors to
get a PR person at the company so the CEO stops making crazy moves like this.
There's no way a good developer would want to go work for Reddit when the CEO
slaps people around in public (whether they deserve it or not). Sometimes you
need to be the bigger man and move on instead of quarreling in public.

~~~
penprog
Agreed, this post only makes reddit look like a very unprofessional workplace.

~~~
Karunamon
Maybe it's not "professional", where that word has the common meaning of
avoiding saying hard truths on the grounds that someone's feelings and/or
political position might be hurt.

This significantly elevates Reddit, IMO. Their CEO acts like a _fucking human
being_ instead of a politicized, sanitized, pretentious, weasel-wording sock
puppet like so many other CEOs.

You have no idea how much respect I have for this.

~~~
rosser
A CEO's job isn't to be "a fucking human being". It's to be the public face of
the company, and represent _its_ interests in all of his/her professional (and
often personal) interactions.

To get stroppy like this abrogates that responsibility in such a way, and to
such a degree, that it may well be actionable.

~~~
jsmthrowaway
Disagree. Nipping the rumor in the bud that Reddit management fires for
dissenting opinion has tangible value to hiring and retention, so a case could
be made that Yishan was compelled to provide this response as part of his
fiduciary duty. Reddit is a special case that is very pitchfork-happy when it
comes to online drama, and even a mere offhand rumor will grow legs.

This _specific_ response with that level of harshness is definitely worth
discussing, but if you're going to make the abrogation of fiduciary duty
argument I think I'd side on him doing the right thing here (with respect to
that).

~~~
michaelochurch
Tech companies fire people for dissenting opinions. I'm not sure that it's
news, or even especially wrong. That's an unwritten rule of the workplace:
don't question or embarrass your boss or his boss. Ever.

This kid had very little credibility. Oddly enough, though his situation is
overall worse now that Yishan responded, he has more.

What we now have is a factual event, not speculation, and it's far more
damaging than a rumor that someone might have been fired over a dissenting
opinion (which is not unusual).

~~~
jsmthrowaway
It is absolutely unusual, and undoubtedly wrong, to be fired because you
disagree. I disagree to the fullest extent with the project I am currently on
and its overall direction and I have made that clear to my management. We've
identified that opportunity to scope it better and, amazingly, my badge still
works.

That you think you were "pushed out" of Google because you disagreed with the
direction of G+, and that they were headed for _certain failure_ unless they
dropped everything and pivoted due to your boundless German card game
experience, is not evidence that Google regularly fires those that disagree.
_How_ you disagree also matters, and your little charade on eng-misc is a
legend to this day. I have no love for Google but even I am the first to
acknowledge that they have created an environment wherein dissent is
encouraged and welcomed and, in my brief tenure, was given ample opportunities
to have my voice be heard and considered.

I will disagree wholeheartedly with you taking your experience (as flawed as
your interpretation of events is) and attempting to justify firing over
disagreement as a normal practice. I disagree with my boss, and his boss, and
his boss all the time. I've disagreed with my director in front of people, and
called him out on bullshit in front of his boss. You just don't know how to do
so effectively, mchurch, which leads to embarrassing situations like the one
you've been trying to pin on Google for a few years.

And yes, I am aware of the letter.

~~~
michaelochurch
Did I mention Google on this thread?

------
TeMPOraL
Ok, I don't get it. So everyone here says that CEO's statement was childish,
and yet next time when another company issues a professional statement, people
will be calling it content-less cover-your-ass PR fluff, and crying for more
honesty and straight talk. Make up your mind.

As for me, personally, I think CEO's response was exactly what it should be.
Honest, clear, straight to the point. Reddit just earned my respect as a
workplace.

~~~
nknighthb
Maybe your confusion will be reduced if you meditate on a few concepts:

* "Childish" and "unprofessional" are not synonyms.

* Neither are "adult" and "professional".

* Neither are "childish" and "honest".

* Neither are "adult" and "dishonest".

* PR fluff is not the same as the general concept of public relations.

* "We will not discuss this." is honest and straightforward, as are a number of alternative statements people have suggested.

* A statement made by an individual with limited power and resources may have very different implications and be perceived very differently than the same statement made by one with great power and resources.

* HN is composed of many individuals with nuanced opinions and worldviews.

* Individuals with diametrically opposed viewpoints in some areas may have very similar viewpoints in others, and sometimes the reasons for that may be subtle.

* No particular comment thread will necessarily have a representative sample of individuals participating.

* Confirmation bias exists.

~~~
ddoolin
Nope, not reduced a bit. Only your last 6 bullets were even semi-relevant (but
still snarky) as the rest were mostly semantic nitpicking.

FWIW, "Childish" and "unprofessional" can arguably be used interchangeably in
this case since they both present the concept of acting in contrast to the
social norm of the group (adults & professionals), though their dictionary
definitions are far from synonyms.

~~~
nknighthb
To me, "unprofessional" means "human", "professional" means "dishonest
sociopath".

These are not semantic nitpicks. They have much deeper meaning. I cannot stop
you from dismissing them, but I hope you will consider them more than you
have.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I actually upvoted you, because all your bullets are technically true and are
worth meditating on.

But I guess in this case, the most relevant conclusion would be that people
whining about unprofessionalism and people whining about professionalism are
two different groups; usually one speaks up and the other stays silent.

------
bane
Once again, reddit is a free-for-all until it looks like reddit might lose
face, then we get an amateur level public response.

The employee might not have been a good employee, but this kind of public
dressing down is absolutely unprofessional by the CEO.

Also:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2iea97/i_am_a_former_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2iea97/i_am_a_former_reddit_employee_ama/cl1vmcs)

~~~
blantonl
You try going and running an "AMA" on your former employer's platform - if
that time ever comes. Frankly, you mess with the bull, you get the horns.

Let's not kid ourselves, this guy knew why he was let go. If he didn't, then
that is an even stronger case for why he was let go.

He made the conscious decision to do an AMA on reddit's platform fully knowing
his position on his employment. I think reddit's CEO was completely on target
with his post. It was concise and professional - and stated the facts.

If you want to throw rocks at a hornets nest, be prepared to get stung.

~~~
bane
The former employee is not the issue here. While reading through most of his
AMA he seems pretty fair, respectful and thoughtful in his answers and he's
entitled to his opinion, it doesn't discount him from having been a terrible
employee. I'm not defending him in any way shape or form, but you'll notice he
was very careful with how he worded his statements.

The problem is that as a CEO you _never_ do this. There's a lot of very good
reasons why. At the start of that list is "it's unprofessional and bad form",
at the bottom is "you'll get your company sued for libel" and in the middle
are a whole long list of reasons like "damages current employee morale".

As much fun as it is seeing what appears to be an ungrateful shiftless
employee get his comeuppance, airing dirty laundry like that as the CEO of a
company is an absolute and very basic no no.

We, as the public, don't even know if what the CEO was claiming is true. If
it's not, he just opened his company, now fat with cash, up to a very nice
libel lawsuit. If it is true, he may have just irreparably harmed the career
of a young tech worker at little consequence to himself, that's just bullying
and really bad form.

If what the ex-employee said is true, he was fired for questioning a company
policy, I'm sure there's a lot more to the story than that. He could have
become disruptive over his questioning and the decision was made to terminate
his employment. I don't think most people would have any issue with that,
lesson learned on all sides, move on. If it's not true, it's not really all
that big a deal, I'm not buying stocks based on his say-so anyways. People
make all kinds of claims about their own employment all the time.

The CEO shouldn't have said anything at all. If he felt he _really_ needed to,
a simple "Yes, we terminated his employment, those are not the reasons, the
reasons are not public" and leave it at that.

------
dreamweapon
Sounds like a toxic environment. 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.

~~~
opendais
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
_" 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
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.

~~~
UK-AL
That combined with Yishan's reply makes it LOOK more retaliatory.

~~~
opendais
You are welcome to your opinion. ;)

But anyone who responds to being called out publicly, isn't retaliating imo.

~~~
UK-AL
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.

~~~
opendais
> 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.

------
SeoxyS
I feel like it's relevant to point out that Yishan, Reddit's CEO, has written
some of the most thoughtful advice on engineering management. I have
personally benefited a lot from his thoughts on this:

[http://algeri-wong.com/yishan/engineering-management.html](http://algeri-
wong.com/yishan/engineering-management.html)

------
WestCoastJustin
In these situations, the outcome is almost always bad for everyone involved,
but these types of things happen from time to time. The git pull jokes,
harassment accusations, and firings. Personally, I don't know if we are
helping by giving more attention to it. We look on, face palm, etc, but the
effects on these people is real and lasting. Personally, I have flagged this,
because if this were me, I would hate to have a spotlight on it. We have a
brief sliver of what is going on, speculation going wild, and this is
basically on the public record now. We're all human, do dumb shit from time to
time, and it's on the world stage. Hindsight sight is 20/20 and I'm sure they
wish this never happened now. Yada, yada, yada.

------
jcampbell1
I really don't like this. The problem is that Yishan never explicitly states
that there was an exit interview, and the reason for the termination was
clearly explained.

He could have a half assed HR person that gave some bullshit reason like "you
are not a good fit", and the ex-employee is legitimately confused about why he
was terminated.

The other potential issue is that employees go into shock when they are told
they are terminated, and are highly unlikely to remember the rest of the
conversation correctly. People that get fired, generally aren't good at
digesting feedback in the first place.

~~~
jedberg
In California, a termination conversation usually begins and ends like this:
"Thank you for your time, your services are no longer required. Please collect
your belongings."

Anything else opens the company up to liability.

~~~
atwebb
Do you think this former employee was planning on this kind of a reaction from
Yishan?

~~~
jedberg
I haven't the faintest idea. :)

------
throwawayornot
"yishan 27 points 15 minutes ago Hiya. It was a harsh response, I agree
(there's actually more, but we're pulling our punches, if you can believe it),
and in fact all day yesterday I didn't want to post a reply, hoping his AMA
wouldn't get too much traction or he wouldn't spout too many misconceptions
and we could all just continue going our separate ways. Problem is, this was
starting to really irritate a number of employees who'd worked with him, and
he's the kind of guy who enjoys the attention he can get by saying "I used to
be a reddit admin" even though he'll just post spurious stuff he doesn't know
about, and left unchecked the positive attention encourages him to do it more.
In running reddit, there's an interesting balance between the normal standards
of professionalism (which we try very hard to uphold even when someone is
being unreasonable) and the fact that we're a huge internet forum where a
higher degree of openness is expected. I'm actually really focused on building
competent, professional management precisely because the spotlight is always
on us - and also because I've been at other Silicon Valley companies where
that hasn't always been the case - but it also means that because of that
spotlight, any tiny deviation can be hugely magnified."[1]

[1]
[https://np.reddit.com/r/RedditCensorship/comments/2ifd3p/ude...](https://np.reddit.com/r/RedditCensorship/comments/2ifd3p/udehrmann_i_am_a_former_reddit_employee_ama_riama/cl25q4l)

~~~
dreamweapon
_TL;DR_ : "We got antsy; we didn't know what to do; so we retaliated."

~~~
argonaut
That is _not_ a tldr. That's your interpretation.

~~~
dreamweapon
That's the point of TLDR'ing: what they said was so muddled (or evasive) that
we're _forced_ to draw an interpretation.

~~~
nsmartt
The point of TL;DR is to summarize a longer piece. It literally means “Too
long; didn't read”

~~~
seanflyon
I don't think you can summarize without first interpreting.

~~~
argonaut
No, you totally can. You just repeat the main arguments of the author without
injecting any of your own opinions.

~~~
dragonwriter
_Main_ arguments are a matter of interpretation, so your second sentence
opposes, rather than supporting, the first.

Summarizing is interpretation, since it is relaying the important points of
the source, and determining what is important is a matter of interpretation.

~~~
argonaut
Nope. Selecting which main argument to repeat is a matter of interpretation.
But once you've selected it, repeating it requires little interpretation.
Adding your own commentary requires interpretation in both selection and
writing.

------
jasode
Seeing some of the back & forth among HN'ers about "laid off" vs "fired" as a
lie vs truth, I think it's worth clearning up a particular point.

Yes, being "laid off" is different from "fired" but the ex-employee (dehrmann)
actually _did_ say he was fired. He just said it in a _very roundabout way_.
He wasn't using "laid off" in its most obvious definition.

dehrmann said: " _I was laid off...no reason...some management doesn 't like
feedback..._" which is his euphemism for saying "fired".

(sidebar: If one is a high profile employee such as an NFL coach or big shot
CEO, he/she can simply and directly tell journalists, friends, etc that "I was
fired"[2]. For some psychological reason, every one else from middle
management down to line workers have a defensive mechanism to avoid the word
"fired" and use softer language.)

TheOsiris[1] was of the few readers that picked up on the poster's roundabout
language. Many others did not parse it correctly. Unfortunately, the Reddit
CEO also didn't interpret it correctly and so he thought he had to correct
dehrmann by saying " _you were FIRED for the following reasons_..." So, a
misunderstanding by yishan for not recognizing his ex-employee's strung out
phrasing of "yes I was fired" unfortunately lead to the (unnecessary) boldface
of "fired" in his response.

Anyways, we can set aside the "laid off vs fired" and recognize that the real
disagreement is whether the ex-employee and the the company parted ways
because of management retaliation about charity strategy, or because a lack of
work productivity.

[1][https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8417769](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8417769)

[2][http://www.siliconbeat.com/2008/06/10/fiorina-to-nyt-i-
layed...](http://www.siliconbeat.com/2008/06/10/fiorina-to-nyt-i-layed-
foundation-of-hps-current-success/)

~~~
kelukelugames
No company actually says "You are fired."

------
jyxent
Is this legal? Where I live, I'm pretty sure this kind of public disclosure
isn't allowed due to privacy laws.

~~~
tedivm
Yes, it's legal (and I just looked this up to confirm). Many companies will
avoid commenting on these things because if they are not 100% accurate they
raise the risk of a slander/libel case against them. For instance, if it turns
out that Yishan here misspoke about something he could land the company in a
bit of trouble.

Whether legal or not, it's certainly childish. The fact is anyone could have
seen that this was a disgruntled former employee so there wasn't a need to say
anything at all. If they had to comment then keep it brief. However, getting
into a flame war on reddit (even if you are the CEO of the site) just makes
the whole company look bad. Heads of companies simple do not get involved in
pissing matches with former employees like this without a hit to their own
reputation.

~~~
smileysteve
> For instance, if it turns out that Yishan here misspoke about something he
> could land the company in a bit of trouble.

This is where the post goes horribly wrong, too much detail. If the former
employee wants to start a lawsuit, any detail that can not be defined, was not
measured, or is not written down is a liability. For example "not getting much
work done"

~~~
FireBeyond
Precisely. It's a hugely, and highly subjective detail. Is he a lazy slacker?
Or was his idea of a full-time job not in line with management's (possibly
onerous) vision of the same?

------
VLM
No comments here on HN yet along the lines of all PR is good PR?

Lets face it, this is Reddit. He didn't get fired from the local railroad
yard. They're getting excellent traffic off this story. Even the guy who got
fired is at least getting "internet famous" for a day.

The whole story boils down to "reddit AMA's, something interesting to look at
and talk about". Not seeing a problem here.

A real conspiracy theory would be playing this game to get some traffic was
part of his severance package (In exchange for a faux argument in a AMA with
our CEO, you'll get an extra 6 months salary as a severance bonus plus an
extra month if the HN story gets over 100 comments, etc)

~~~
skeletonjelly
Filed under "so crazy it just might be true"

------
ddoolin
I read a lot of comments on HN about his response being unprofessional and
harsh, and on the latter of those counts, I do agree, it definitely had a
negative tone. What I want to know, though, is _why_ so many consider it
unprofessional. To me, and I'm making the assumption that Yishan isn't lying,
any pleasantries owed this man ended the moment he decided to not only
publicly broadcast his employment, but also falsify details regarding his
termination.

Regardless of what I think, what actually makes this whole exchange
unprofessional to others? Why should these details be protected, and why
should companies and individual remain silent on these issues? I'm lumping
this into the "political correctness" category until someone tells me it's
about something more than someone having their feelings hurt (that they may
have been asking for, even). Putting on my future-employment-perspective
goggles, I can kinda-sorta see why this wouldn't be good, but I'd also be the
type of person to argue that the current state of PR is particularly dismal
when employers can't give any kind of factual details about a former
employee's work record beyond whether or not they were fired. Why not just
report details of employment and follow-up with the employee on any
questionable/negative remarks? My guess is that a bad apple ruins the bunch
when companies didn't/don't investigate those details with the employee and
just pass them up altogether, creating an unfair situation for the prospective
employee.

------
q2
I do not know much about laws. After working some years at an organization,
asked to leave without stating any reason can be painful, traumatic to the
employee. Employee can be alone with dependents and all of a sudden his/her
world can be crashed.

Basic human courtesy can be to let the employee clearly know why he/she is
asked to leave. At least, after knowing the reasons, he/she may change his
behavior in future employment. If reasons are not known, employee can never
know in reality what mistake is made/highlighted/led to this drastic decision
and some times that act may be accidental or any politics by some other person
...etc. Since the employee says " by not stating a reason. It's also really
hard to work through in your mind." i.e. he/she is still clueless on what
exactly happened.

1\. Is it not fair/humane to give employee a chance to hear charges and to
tell his/her side of story so that independent body can decide fairly?

2\. Reasons given by CEO such as incompetence,inappropriate comments,not
taking feedback by managers may or may not be true in reality since proofs are
not provided. Software development is a team work. So some times, mistakes of
others can create burden on other and management may not aware of real
culprit. Feedback is tricky aspect. I noticed management sometimes can be
highly opinionated without real understanding of complexity of
work/problems/issues, solutions tried ...etc. Managers just for their
bonuses/promotions or to appear good in front of their bosses, act as
intelligent or knowledgeable, though in reality they can be novices in many
aspects. So if feedback is irrelevant or if feedback lacks common sense or
lacks domain knowledge ...etc, then how employee can accept it?

We do not know many specifics about the incident and we do not have proofs So
we clearly cannot point out who is wrong but employee should have been given a
hearing by independent group on the charges so that he can defend and if that
independent group do not agree, then they can ask him/her to leave.

Even in courts, where death sentence can be given, charges will be told and
accused can provide his story/point of view on what happened and then court
passes judgment. Then why similar facility cannot be provided to employee
rather than throwing out like used tissue paper? It does not sound humane at
all.

~~~
herge
> After working some years at an organization

How many years has this person worked at reddit?

> Is it not fair/humane to give employee a chance to hear charges and to tell
> his/her side of story so that independent body can decide fairly?

The employee does have a chance at redress by an independent body. At least in
California, they can sew their past employer for wrongful termination. It will
probably cost them a lot of money, especially if they were rightfully fired,
but who were you hoping to pay for the 'independent body' to defend? The
employer can't, it would be a conflict of interest.

~~~
q2
>> How many years has this person worked at reddit?

I do not know. It can be some days/weeks/months ...etc. You can read it as
"after working some time" but integrity of the message/comment won't change.

>> The employee does have a chance at redress by an independent body.

What I mean is, independent body inside the organization, taking employees
from different other groups so that they can judge fairly. It should not be
difficult for any one since it takes just few hours occasionally but at the
end of the exercise, everyone can have a feeling of fairness, justice and
there will be no rumors/ill-feelings ...etc. After all, we are mere mortals.

------
DanBC
I'd love to know what the inappropriate interview qusstio s were (if that bit
is true).

~~~
atwebb
Giving the benefit of the doubt I'd guess things that were just off script,
even more guessing, either silly stuff or trying to make the candidate feel
uncomfortable/inferior. Those are the most common I've seen at least.

------
bhangi
This is an unfortunate display of bad judgement by all parties concerned.

The disgruntled employee, even if he had not signed an NDA, did something
fairly stupid and verboten -- namely, he bad-mouthed a former employer and ex-
colleagues. The (tech) world is small and such public displays of
indiscretions always come back to bite you.

Yishan Wong had a lot more to lose IMHO by engaging in this manner with the
ex-employee in a public forum. He risks the reputation of his company and his
own personal brand. Based on Yishan's writings that I've read, I found him to
be a thoughtful manager who seemed ready to make the jump to executive cadre.
I'd have expected a more mature reaction and ideally not a public one. No
matter, we all have lapses of judgement -- hope that Yishan is getting
appropriate counsel from more experienced executives and is able to defuse the
situation without more damage -- reputational or otherwise.

------
balor123
Sure the guy did some stupid things but who knows what his life is like and
we're all human and do stupid things. The CEO's reaction was simply
insensitive. Here's what the CEO should have done: have their lawyers draft a
polite letter showing that they're serious about having him shut up. When he
doesn't, ask your lawyers to take the next step.

His comments were temporarily mildly irritating to the company at best and
would be forgotten within a few weeks (same goes for his reply). There's too
many memes going around for anyone to remember stupid AMA posts.

My takeaway? If hiring this guy, then I'd judge him on his own merits.
Otherwise, I'll avoid applying to Reddit for some time. I just hate those
hard-ass get your shit done kinds of environments.

------
thrillgore
No CEO worth his salt ever turns negatively disparaging remarks about an ex-
employee into a soapbox. He just opened Reddit up to legal ramifications.

And with all the remarks here about how its "politically correct" to put on
the HR spin about never going this low, i'm just shocked and amazed. I can see
why its hard for these companies to find staff for HR.

------
NSAID
yishan just gave some more background about his comment in the discussion in
r/RedditCensorship.

[https://np.reddit.com/r/RedditCensorship/comments/2ifd3p/ude...](https://np.reddit.com/r/RedditCensorship/comments/2ifd3p/udehrmann_i_am_a_former_reddit_employee_ama_riama/cl25q4l?context=3)

------
yuhong
Found this on California defamation law:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/2igkke/reddit_ceo_ca...](http://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/2igkke/reddit_ceo_calls_out_former_reddit_employee_as_to/cl26fha)

Wonder why it was designed that way.

------
BigChiefSmokem
I don't care who did what but the CEO of a company should not be making public
statements like this, especially in a forum the likes of reddit.

Does this company have a Corporate Communications officer? This event makes me
question the logic of reddit's investors.

------
yuhong
"When an employee is dismissed from employment at a company, the policy of
almost every company (including reddit) is not to comment, either publicly or
internally. This is because companies have no desire to ruin someone's future
employment prospects by broadcasting to the world that they were fired."

IMO there need to be a better solution than this. I also don't like anti
discrimination laws and I have a proposal for getting rid of them:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7727917](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7727917)

~~~
VLM
Don't forget that the ex-employee might be gone, but the guy who hired him is
probably still there and doesn't really need documentation of how his judgment
was screwed up at hiring time. So there is very little motivation to document
why someone is being fired unless you can prove in writing the problem began
after hiring or couldn't have possibly been detected in the hiring process.

The explanation is silly (does any company REALLY care about its employees
much less ex-employees?) but the end result is the same, no point in talking
about it.

------
general_failure
Great response. Very risky for a CEO to do it nevertheless.

------
reduce
Forcing employees to sign a non-disparagement agreement? -- Screw that. (Edit:
force, compel, persuade, strongly hint: semantics.)

Saying that a former employee violating a non-disparagement agreement means
that it's now a good idea for the company to take use an eye-for-an-eye policy
in return? -- What.

No (American) non-executive employees should ever be forced to sign anything.
I never have for any job. Employers are in too powerful of a position by
default.

~~~
jerhinesmith
I don't think you're forced to sign. That point is also lightly touched on in
the comment - "the non-disparagement we asked you to sign" and "Even if you
don't sign the non-disparagement".

I've signed these before, and I was under no impression that I was being
forced.

~~~
tghw
His signature was required for the severance package, according to him.

[https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2iea97/i_am_a_former_r...](https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2iea97/i_am_a_former_reddit_employee_ama/cl1u62c)

~~~
exelius
Then he shouldn't have signed the severance deal (which he didn't). An
employer is not entitled to give you money to go away; they give you money in
exchange for certain things, one of those being that you shut your mouth and
not do an AMA on reddit about it.

This guy is an idiot and is likely going to have a hard time finding a job
based on this behavior. What he's doing isn't illegal, but it's quite
unprofessional.

------
C-64-Hacker
yishan needs to be terminated. Even his follow-up posts in other threads is
demonstrating his smug self-righteous attitude that is unbecoming of a CEO in
his position.

------
C-64-Hacker
This guy needs to be fired.

------
thebiglebrewski
Aw man. This is totally gonna get taken down by YC management/altman...

~~~
dang
It's so much easier to casually fling things like this out there than it is to
answer them, but FWIW, what you're insinuating is false. We penalize stories
less, not more, when they're anti-YC, and every moderator is strictly
instructed about it.

~~~
jedberg
And also, technically the YC entity has no investment in reddit anymore, only
individual partners. :)

------
jackmaney
Wow, that was incredibly unprofessional on Yishan Wong's part. I can only
imagine how rotten and horrible Reddit's work culture must be. No one could
possibly pay me enough to work there.

------
ExpiredLink
OMG, reddit hires incompetent people who are not getting much work done. I
thought only demigods work there.

~~~
was_hellbanned
_reddit hires incompetent people who are not getting much work done._

That explains why I don't recall ever seeing a new user feature (e.g. tagging,
user blocking, a useful save or search function) in the years I've been on
Reddit.

