Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Omaha man ‘liked’ a tweet, then lost his job

omaha.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 548 posts

Re: Omaha man ‘liked’ a tweet, then lost his job

#221

Post by rileyphone »

nostrademons wrote: post #161
garmaine wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Californian here. Why would that be “offensive”?

Relevant PG essay: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html "The statements that make people mad are the ones they worry might be believed." At present, the idea that California might be returned to Mexico or that all non-native-Americans might be kicked out of America is sufficiently ridiculous that nobody will take you seriously. Thus, there's no reason to get offended. You can say whatever you want, you're just a nutcas…

I think pg in that essay makes the assumption that morality is absolute, and we should always be questioning the thoughts of ourselves on the basis of where we are now. But the fact is morality isn't absolute; he falls too much into the positivist trap of believing in humanistic perfection, while reality is much stickier than that. Ultimately, people believe in something, and whether or not that is right (to you), that's what's true to them. Qualms about moral relativism aside, you have to at the very least accept what people believe to be able to level with them. I can definitely accept what pg says about moralism insomuch as it 's a force to be questioned, but that's a morality as is any other. Ultimately, morality rests in the collective conscience, even of a nation, and what China thinks is bad is bad for China. Maybe we don't think so, but that's us anyways.

Re: Omaha man ‘liked’ a tweet, then lost his job

#222

Post by mirimir »

garmaine wrote: post #116
mirimir wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are activists who argue that all of the southwestern US should be returned to Mexico. And indeed, the idea generally isn't that unpopular in Mexico. For what that's worth.

Californian here. Why would that be “offensive”?

Maybe not now. But 100 years ago, it certainly would. And that's about where China is now, regarding Tibet, and such autonomous regions as Xinjiang. It takes time for opinions to go from offensive to laughable.

Re: Omaha man ‘liked’ a tweet, then lost his job

#223

Post by PakG1 »

corobo wrote: post #21

The meat of the story is that Omaha man worked for Marriott hotels on customer support. Their support system allows their agents to like tweets. The man appears to have inadvertently clicked like on a tweet while dealing with a large influx of support messages (due to a promo going on) thanking Marriott for listing Tibet as its own country which was a huge no-no due to Mariott's presence in China. Execs fire him as a…

I don't think it was such a big deal for them until China told them that that it was a big deal and punished them accordingly until they fixed stuff according to China's liking. Everything that happened after (including firing the guy) is just fallout to clean up an issue that they didn't predict, and they're taking steps to do what China wants (like not listing Tibet as a country anymore) in order to keep operating there.

Simplest answer is often the best answer. If the survey had never happened with Tibet as a country, the tweet would never have happened, and then the whole scenario would never have come to light. It's easy to predict this in hindsight. I honestly think people didn't think about this in the past. Whether or not it's right is an entirely different question.

Re: Omaha man ‘liked’ a tweet, then lost his job

#224

Post by manigandham »

patmcc wrote: post #214
eagsalazar2 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forcing employers to keep employees they don't like, for any reason beyond discrimination, isn't the answer. The better answer is, IMO, better social safety net so people making $14/hr don't end up on the streets just because their job goes away.

>>Forcing employers to keep employees they don't like Many jurisdictions allow firing without cause - they just make the employers pay (significant) severance, often related to the length of service of the employee. I think it's perfectly reasonable to say "I don't want you in my company any longer", I just happen to think it might be reasonable to pay for that privilege.

Why is that reasonable when firing an employee (vs layoffs)?

So a bad performing person now costs even more to get rid of? That might force the company to just keep them on and try to squeeze out some productivity, waiting until they just quit instead.

Re: Omaha man ‘liked’ a tweet, then lost his job

#225

Post by stevenwoo »

hnaccy wrote: post #172
earenndil wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with what you said, partly. And I agree that there are serious problems with chinese culture and government (at least, from my perspective). But, why should the US government be any better?

>But, why should the US government be any better? Its foundational principles are superior.

As an American citizen, I'm pretty ashamed our Constitution has forever enshrined slavery, and it's something that still resonates today. There is a terrible irony of setting a colony free from the UK and then having the heritage of slavery being celebrated in swaths of the United States for hundreds of years, even after abolition, as some sort of worthy heritage.

Re: Omaha man ‘liked’ a tweet, then lost his job

#226

Post by Aloha »

I'm a Marriott rewards platinum member, with over a year in house, and staying in a Marriott hotel right now, and I find this behavior disgraceful - and while I'm likely to complain to Marriott about it (and did previously), I'm unlikely to change my stay preferences.

Most Marriott employees I know of (not who work for franchises), speak highly of the work environment and culture that I know its a good place to work/be - but behavior like this is still at best foolish - I mean this guy just learned a multi-million dollar lesson, isnt he the one you'd want to keep on?

Re: Omaha man ‘liked’ a tweet, then lost his job

#227

Post by ghostcluster »

And thus the Chinese Communist Party's cold authoritarian censorship extends overseas to strike at the job of a US citizen.

It was just a few months ago that I wrote this here on HN:

> I even feel a personal dampening on what I will say publicly about China on social media, just because of hypothetical tech/travel opportunities, and I don't even live there.

Obviously, those fears were founded. Part of me is happy about the Trump tariffs because it will force more multinational corporations to stand up and show their true selves with regards to what matters more to them: access to the Chinese market, or basic human justice and dignity.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16272683

Re: Omaha man ‘liked’ a tweet, then lost his job

#228

Post by somethingsimple »

badosu wrote: post #113
tatersolid wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much all of them except a few European nations.

I am not sure about that... Not in Brazil at least

One of the few things I miss about Brazil is how much more protection I had there as a worker compared to the US.

Re: Omaha man ‘liked’ a tweet, then lost his job

#229

Post by emodendroket »

corobo wrote: post #21

The meat of the story is that Omaha man worked for Marriott hotels on customer support. Their support system allows their agents to like tweets. The man appears to have inadvertently clicked like on a tweet while dealing with a large influx of support messages (due to a promo going on) thanking Marriott for listing Tibet as its own country which was a huge no-no due to Mariott's presence in China. Execs fire him as a…

Are we really expecting social media employees to be familiar with and adept at geopolitics?

Re: Omaha man ‘liked’ a tweet, then lost his job

#230

Post by patmcc »

manigandham wrote: post #224
patmcc wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Forcing employers to keep employees they don't like Many jurisdictions allow firing without cause - they just make the employers pay (significant) severance, often related to the length of service of the employee. I think it's perfectly reasonable to say "I don't want you in my company any longer", I just happen to think it might be reasonable to pay for that privilege.

Why is that reasonable when firing an employee (vs layoffs)? So a bad performing person now costs even more to get rid of? That might force the company to just keep them on and try to squeeze out some productivity, waiting until they just quit instead.

It's reasonable when firing an employee without cause. If a person is performing badly, document that and then fire them.
Post reply on HN