It seems to be a weird thing to focus on, that's all. He wanted to come back, they told hit to hit the bricks and did it in a crappy way. So technically, no he wasn't fired. But he was let go, or whatever.
So yeah, you're technically correct but it seems to me to be a distinction without a difference.
In the context of whether it was the right decision or not it seems to be weird to focus on the specific nomenclature of the action. I don't know if calling it a firing or a "non contract renewal" makes it better or worse.
I’ve been a contract worker; maybe that gives me a different perspective. Contracts end all the time and incumbents who wish to return have to not just earn it through their prior performance, but demonstrate an advantage over their competitors. Simply put, when you’re fired, you’ve done badly enough to be removed right away; when your contract is not extended, you might not have been awful, but you weren’t good enough to come back.
The discussion of davey and his shortcomings is totally separate from the debate over whether Dusty was good enough to bring back. And while I 100% agree that the way it was handled was weak, i can absolutely see where ownership did not think Dusty earned another contract. (FWIW I don’t think he would have been actually fired if he had another year on his contract— I don’t think he was bad enough to fire, and yes you can be both not bad enough to fire and not good enough to deserve another contract.)
