[hortense]

I would say he's trying to control the narrative so that his future prospective employers believe that he was not laid off because of his performance.

[tayo42]

What narrative is there to control? It's not like Twitter was about to put a big post out saying we fired him. He put all of this out their on his own. He wouldn't even need to bring up being fired in interviews, just say he left

[tschwimmer]

He will be effective in doing so because the email screenshot he included indicates exactly that: he was fired for non-performance related reasons. "Your recent behavior has violated multiple policies" is pretty unambiguous to me.

[karaterobot]

That's unambiguous to you? It's equivalent to "you were fired for reasons".

[tschwimmer]

I think the operant phrase is “policy violations.” I’ve never heard that associated with anything but breaking a corporate rule: talking to the media unauthorized, leaking, harassment, etc.

[za3faran]

Do you think that will sit well with a potential future employer regardless?

[cmrdporcupine]

Said person could go back to working at Google anytime, likely. I don't think he needs to worry about covering for his reputation on this matter.

[Firmwarrior]

I dunno man, if I had a spare $300-$600k/year lying around I'd love to have this guy work for me even if he is a whiny smart aleck

[prepend]

There’s likely a policy about having good performance.

Lots of people got laid off, I don’t think it will be a problem to find a new job unless this turns into something crazy.

[dekhn]

If I had headcount for his particular role, I'd hire him in a second and let him know it's OK to continue making his cartoons (which are very on-point and useful to execs who want to learn more about their orgs than what their middle managers are telling them) but he should of course be aware that my abilities to protect him if an SVP gets annoyed are going to be limited.