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...
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?
To clear things up - I started writing for Broke-Ass Stuart in January of this year. The FDpod site launched in July 2013 (previous podcasts were hosted on my comedy site). I was mistaken in the timing of the escorting podcast - it was released a few weeks AFTER I was fired (in August 2012), because I felt comfortable at that point.
But things were definitely said around the office about my sexuality, questioning it, etc. which I am obviously more open about than most.
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.
Really? You don't think that might have been relevant to the story? And since you have just said that you weren't doing your Full Disclosure stuff at the time I assume that you went on someone else's podcast and talked about this stuff. That associates the company with what many consider unacceptable behavior because you are their representative. Now I wonder if the conversation wasn't more on the order of, "The CEO thinks we have an appearance problem, so we are going to have to let you go"
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.
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!
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.
The way I see it, what you do off the clock is exactly none of your employer's business. Unless you are the CEO of the company, customers don't much care either.
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.
> 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.
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.
