I had to fire a guy today, 4 days after his wife was diagnosed with cancer. People suck. I suck.
A small business owner fired an underperforming employee who had lied about his qualifications and caused significant financial losses, only 4 days after the employee's wife was diagnosed with cancer. The community was divided between those who saw it as a justified business decision and those who questioned the timing, the owner's hiring/management practices, and whether the cancer diagnosis was even legitimate.
Summary
The original post describes a termination decision made by a small business owner. The employee had misrepresented 10 years of experience when he actually had 2 years, lost multiple accounts (totaling at least $1,150 in documented losses), failed to improve despite a verbal warning and performance improvement plan, and was discovered to have been falsifying reports. The termination occurred 4 days after his wife's cancer diagnosis.
The community response split into several camps. Some commenters supported the decision as necessary business practice (u/Known-Practice-4916, u/CarelesslyFabulous), treating it as an unfortunate but inevitable consequence of poor performance. Others raised skepticism about the cancer diagnosis itself, with u/GossipingKitty noting the employee's history of dishonesty and u/SquirrelTechGuru questioning the timing, implying it might be a manipulation tactic.
However, significant criticism emerged from commenters like u/zenonu, who argued the owner bore responsibility for inadequate hiring practices (no background check mentioned), poor management oversight (no root-cause analysis of performance issues), and lack of genuine performance improvement support. This commenter suggested the owner was attempting to shirk accountability.
Other commenters took a broader philosophical stance. u/Kaizen2468 and u/gcoffee66 criticized the prioritization of profit over human welfare, arguing that business decisions that harm vulnerable people reflect problematic values. u/Vast-Departure-3199 pushed back against the notion that business success requires abandoning ethics.
A minor thread questioned whether $600 in losses was significant enough to justify termination (u/automoebeale), suggesting potential scale or context issues in the decision.
About this episode
Long story short, he was faking it to make it. Claimed 10 years experience and had credentials to prove it. Skill set of 2 years experience. He lost the company a major account last spring due to his inability. He got a verval warning and an improvement plan. Slight improvement over the next 6 months. Two weeks ago he lost me $550 and put another account at risk. He got written up and a PIP. 4 days ago his wife diagnosed with cancer. 3 days ago he lost another $600. I start looking into his ...
Key Insights
- Multiple commenters questioned whether the employee's cancer diagnosis was truthful, given his documented pattern of lying on credentials and reports—suggesting his credibility was so compromised that major life claims became suspect.
- u/zenonu argued the owner shared responsibility for the poor outcome by hiring without background checks, failing to implement meaningful performance improvement management, and avoiding root-cause analysis before termination.
- A significant philosophical divide emerged: some commenters argued business decisions must prioritize profit regardless of human impact, while others (u/Vast-Departure-3199) rejected the premise that ethical behavior and business success are incompatible.
- The discussion revealed tension between objective performance metrics (documented losses, falsified reports) and subjective concerns about timing and compassion, with no resolution about how these should be weighted.
- One commenter (u/fattyfattyboomalatty) suggested a middle-ground option of reassigning the employee to hourly work rather than termination, indicating some community members saw alternatives the owner may not have fully explored.
Topics
Transcript
[Original Post] (score: 27, upvote ratio: 85%, by u/Try_Harder7) Title: I had to fire a guy today, 4 days after his wife was diagnosed with cancer. People suck. I suck. Long story short, he was faking it to make it. Claimed 10 years experience and had credentials to prove it. Skill set of 2 years experience. He lost the company a major account last spring due to his inability. He got a verval warning and an improvement plan. Slight improvement over the next 6 months. Two weeks ago he lost me $550 and put another account at risk. He got written up and a PIP. 4 days ago his wife diagnosed with cancer. 3 days ago he lost another $600.…
Full transcript available for MurmurCast members
Sign Up to AccessMore from r/smallbusiness
I interviewed someone for a position at my bakery and they left a negative review on Google after I didn't hire them.
A bakery owner received a retaliatory negative review from a rejected job applicant. The community overwhelmingly agreed that a public, factual reply combined with a formal Google appeal citing conflict-of-interest policies is the most effective response, with most commenters emphasizing transparency and calm professionalism over passive reporting alone.
i raised my prices 20% expecting to lose customers and lost almost none
A small business owner shared their experience of raising prices 20% and retaining almost all customers, contrary to their fears. The community largely validated this outcome, with broad agreement that business owners typically overestimate customer price sensitivity, and that pricing increases often signal quality rather than damage business relationships.
Facing burn out after almost 22 years
A 45-year-old service business owner working 7 days a week for 22 years sought advice on scaling his profitable but solo-dependent business. The community consensus emphasized that without the ability to operate without him, he owns a job rather than a business, and recommended prioritizing price increases, process documentation, and selective hiring of part-time help before pursuing full-time employees.