Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

You Were Fired.

When you have contractor status, are brought into a meeting where they say you are underperforming, not committed, and turn deaf ears on however you try to justify yourself... and you end up leaving the company... you may have been fired.

The biggest mistakes you made was a) still being a contractor b) not asking for severance if you would opt of of claiming unemployment on them.




> You Were Fired.

I don't think you can fairly say a person was fired simply because s/he quit following a dispute with the boss. Maybe the person would have eventually been fired, had s/he not quit. But that's pure speculation.

There's the cliched "you can't quit, you're fired"/"you can't fire me, I quit" scenario. I think the question of who terminated the relationship is less clear there. But that doesn't seem to apply to the story the author tells.

Why quibble over this? Because the distinction between being fired and quitting matters for the employee's future prospects.

> The biggest mistakes you made was a) still being a contractor

How do you know the author was in fact a contractor? The author didn't post his offer letter, tax forms, or other similar documents. So we can't know for sure. But he says he understood himself to be a full-time employee. Some of what he describes, e.g. the boss's comments about hours, seem to support this view.


Re: Fired / Being fired.

The distinction only matters as to whether the OP has leverage over severance or goes after unemployment.

OP's future prospects are hurt either way if the next job calls that PM as a reference -- and slightly by this blog post.


There are times when one must truthfully disclosed previous firings. E.g. a form that says "Have you ever been fired," and later has a warning that falsifying the form can result in penalties.

These are the scenarios I was thinking of. They're the reason the distinction matters.


Just to the last bit, Op said that found out when HR gave him the paperwork that he was somehow a contractor as opposed to a full time employee.


Based on this account of the story the PM sounds like a typical middle-manager with a big chip on his shoulder to prove how alpha-dog he really is and rule over his petty little fiefdom. The author wasn't fired, although I'm sure the PM would disagree, for much the same reasons you listed. That kind of childish passive-aggressive horse shit isn't something anybody should take.


In general if there's overtime you should be getting paid hourly, unless you have more than 1/N percent of the shares where N is the number of employees. (eg. a disproportionate amount of extra value accrues to you anyway)




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: