81–90 of 492 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I thought the same thing. Like, yeah, the guy was being thin-skinned and over reactive but publicly accusing your employer's client of war crimes should get you fired. If you're upset that your employer is dealing with these people, quit. Work for someone you don't hate.
> publicly accusing your employer's client of war crimes What other factual statements should you not be allowed to make about your employer's clients?
> "Being as I’m not an idiot, I elect to bring a witness of my own (@lizthegrey ). She slightly livetweeted that conversation until VP VMware tells her to stop. " This, I think, is the point that caused the firing. It's pretty clear that if you choose a witness who then posts everything publicly that you are not discussing in good faith. Like, it's your right to speak your mind, and maybe you think you are in the mor…
You are allowed to discuss workplace conditions. That's like, protected concerted activity 101. If the business was uncomfortable with their treatment of their employees being public, maybe that activity wasn't ethical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I thought the same thing. Like, yeah, the guy was being thin-skinned and over reactive but publicly accusing your employer's client of war crimes should get you fired. If you're upset that your employer is dealing with these people, quit. Work for someone you don't hate.
If you think what your employer does is unacceptable you shouldn’t work for them (even if this happens via an acquisition). But most people are extremely hypocritical, and will gladly ignore their “ideals” in the name of the holy fat paycheque.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you read the rest of my comment, I don't actually have a problem with accusing people of war crimes. I think it's assinine to think one could do so and hope to continue to be paid by those people though. I would think that someone so ready to stand on this moral high ground wouldn't want that money but I guess when it actually comes to backing up her morals, she'll take the money instead.
So, free speech doesn't extend to criticism of the government? People should lose their jobs because they said mean words on Twitter?
If you publicly make personal attacks against employees of your employer's biggest customer, isn't firing you a completely reasonable thing for your employer to do?
Is saying "the blood never washes off" the hands of this DoD employee really a personal attack? I mean, it certainly seems like a consistent and reasonably widely held belief that military industrial complex jobs cost lives. There's of course the opposite opinion too. I'm not interested in trying to demonstrate that one opinion is right or wrong, just that like, is this really an attack ?
We’ve all worked with these people. Nice to see the company just get rid of one for once.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you read the rest of my comment, I don't actually have a problem with accusing people of war crimes. I think it's assinine to think one could do so and hope to continue to be paid by those people though. I would think that someone so ready to stand on this moral high ground wouldn't want that money but I guess when it actually comes to backing up her morals, she'll take the money instead.
Your critique only makes sense if she's working for the DoD, or negotiating those contracts for VMWare, or VMWare's business is significantly DoD contracts, none of which are true.
Nice read, thanks for sharing. It's interesting (to say the least) that they more or less used a "no talking about politics" clause to fire this woman, even though the other guy's statements about DoD weapons systems are certainly just as political. But he's an Air Force guy, she's a dissident, he's establishment, she's counterculture, so he got to push her out of a job for meeting him on his playing field, so to spe…
No, it's absolutely not about how "counterculture" her opinions are. It's about using offensive language. She probably would have avoided all trouble if instead of talking down a fellow participant of the conference, she plugged her beliefs in pacifism in a positive manner.
But I also dislike the idea that offensive language is somehow not pacifist behavior, whereas developing weapons of war is perfectly fine so long as you're polite about it. Regardless of how you feel about weapons of war, it's hard to deny that they hold a certain non-neutral weight.