Can you cite where it’s been said he’s firing 25% (or any significant percentage) “for
cause”?
The only parties being cited as fired for cause are the outgoing executives, and WaPo article at the top of this post provides reasons for that.
The only parties being cited as fired for cause are the outgoing executives, and WaPo article at the top of this post provides reasons for that.
Elsewhere in this thread, people are discussing a potentially-credible (but maybe you disagree) report on this from Gergely Orosz that does not paint this as "only the 3 senior executives".
https://twitter.com/gergelyorosz/status/1587042365084209153
> I talked with an engineering manager who was at Twitter for 5+ years, and got laid off on Sunday "for cause". They were too exhausted from working over the weekend to talk longer: they first need to sleep.
What I'm trying to wade through is the vast oceans of nonsense being fielded in the media and in comments that do not add anything to the story and are just trying to prop up one side or another. There's an ocean of difference between one item of hearsay that you point out (hell, maybe that one EM was due to be fired "for cause" who knows? do you? I sure don't!), and 25% of the workforce being fired "for cause", and 4 executives (not 3 as you point out).
This is an oxymoron, so either the tweeter or the manager have no idea what he is talking about.
And the WaPo article states: “ The first round of layoffs, led by his lawyer Alex Spiro, will target 25 percent of the workforce”
I think this might be the confusing part, because he's trying to claw back as much compensation as possible, maybe he's trying to avoid paying severance as well