It might be that the business had some delivery date for some product and really needed to manpower to do it. Once that manpower failed they renegotiated a new delivery date at a loss, and could make do with less employees until they hire more, so the employee’s presence was not so urgent anymore, and, since they didn’t deliver when necessary, were fired.
I see no hypocrisy here. The owner might be a scumbag for reaching that conclusion but they are no hypocrite for firing them.
Edit: Y’all seem quite pissed with my conditional read of the post, but sure as hell agreed with the other side since the most upvoted comment is calling the boss a hypocrite. Idk man, if you are going to entertain one interpretation of the story but refuse the other one, you are kind of a hypocrite.
They are no hypocrite for firing them assuming your fantasy scenario is reality
Fantasy scenario? have you even worked in consulting and project deadlines? It’s my everyday life.
In any case, let it be clear that the boss is a piece of shit and that although consequences should be in place, firing is way overboard. I’m just being a tad pedantic and saying that no, they are not a hypocrite necessarily.
And I’m being a tad more pedantic pointing out that “they are no hypocrite” and “they are not a hypocrite necessarily” are not the same statement, that one of them is baseless, and that you lead with the baseless one.
