I have witnessed this happen before. This was approximately ten years ago, but we had a similar thing, a new hire team building exercise. And during it, one of the new hires told a story about how they saved money by taking loads of reams of paper and stuff home from their old office in order to save money. And they were let go during the lunch break. I still feel a bit sorry for them, but I guess saying out loud you were happy to steal stationery didn't go down very well, so it makes sense, but still, it was such a tiny mistake for a 20-year-old. I wasn't in charge of management at the time, but I think I'd have just taken him aside and explained how bad it sounded.
Netflix employee fired for sharing personal details in retreat trust exercise
411–420 of 527 posts
Re: Netflix employee fired for sharing personal details in retreat trust exercise
#412I know some of the younger folk may not realise reality is stranger than fiction, but I too have been on a "work mandated drink alchohol bus" where I remember even though I was young, I was terrified the whole time wondering why we were being forced to drink infront of C suite; forced on a hell ride through the black country ( Thats a region in England). One might think it was naive and odd for me as a young autistic…
Narrator: The CEO wasn't in fact, an "allright c*nt" after all.
Re: Netflix employee fired for sharing personal details in retreat trust exercise
#413Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if the people working in HR genuinely want to do the right thing for the employees, and company policies support them doing that, interactions with HR are inherently adversarial. The people within HR may be friendly, they've probably got friends :). It can be a very people-oriented role. But they are incapable of being your friend when you're interacting with them in their role as representative for the company.…
Entirely this. When you are interacting with HR , that person on the other side is trying to protect the company from whatever claims you are about to make.
Any claims are irrelevant to the inherent adversarial nature of the role, which comes from the authority they wield.
Edit: which also means you're not wrong, if you've got claims that trigger damage control then HR are even less your friend.
Re: Netflix employee fired for sharing personal details in retreat trust exercise
#414Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe not your whole self, but I'd like the people I work with to feel safe talking about their family, their disabilities, their religion, their culture or subculture, the things they love doing, whatever makes them human.
>I'd like the people I work with to feel safe talking about their family, their disabilities, their religion, their culture or subculture Yes, you want to feel like the people around you feel safe to share it. Everyone with things that are uncomfortable to hear have learned that they're not. They know the polite fiction to talk around it and make you feel like they're open. They're not.
Of course people know how to hide things that aren't safe to tell everyone. I do, however, genuinely mean what I'm saying. I worked somewhere once where the nature of the work meant almost everyone was of a particular political persuasion. I was of the opposite political persuasion. I was also one of the most junior employees there. It was a good enough bunch of people that I felt safe mentioning it in passing one day, and it led to a really great conversation. I was not afraid of being fired for it, but more importantly, I was not afraid of being ostracized for it.
Re: Netflix employee fired for sharing personal details in retreat trust exercise
#415Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amen. I only got my first job in tech because i put away 6 pints in the pub after the interview. We conducted interviews after lunch, for this exact purpose. I saw good candidates interview but decline the pub afterwards - they did not get offers. That company had at least two pub sessions a week, typically running to six rounds or more. We hit our medically-recommended maximum weekly intake by Tuesday; Fridays were…
> good candidates interview but decline the pub afterwards - they did not get offers That's one hell of a lawsuit you're opening yourself up to there. People who don't drink have significant overlap with protected classes.
Not trying to go ad hominem, but that's a very ignorant statement.
1. Which ones? I used to be able to stereotype with the best of them, but I cant quickly come up with any protected class that is assigned as teetotalers.
2. Saying you're not hiring someone because they don't drink is a perfectly valid reason for not hiring someone, even if it's a cover for not hiring them because of protected class membership. The laws protecting protected classes are super weak. It is virtually impossible to prove that is the sole reason they weren't hired. All you need is an actual other reason to not hire them--and of course don't put into writing that the real reason is their protected class membership.
Re: Netflix employee fired for sharing personal details in retreat trust exercise
#416Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really don't want to hear about your religion, and I don't want to see your Jesus Loves You gifs posted to the all tech Slack channel.
Sure, but that sort of behaviour is plainly abusive unless you're actually working in an explicitly religious setting. But merely saying "I'm taking next Wednesday off to celebrate Eid" ought to be fine everywhere, as is "this weekend I'm singing in my church choir then going for a picnic". Similarly, wearing a wedding ring or mentioning that you have a partner should never be a problem, but issuing a company-wide in…
I get that.
One persons level of comfort is not the same as others, so just saying I want people to be comfortable having their religious opinions respected is not a simple request.
Some religious opinions are basically oppression of others. I refuse to allow people to be bigots in my presence regardless of their reasoning.
Re: Netflix employee fired for sharing personal details in retreat trust exercise
#417Last retreat I went on the CFO drove drunk around 350 miles to get there. The CEO insisted on heavy drinking for everyone. Then he ordered one of everything on the menu the next morning at a Cracker Barrel for himself and wasted a ton of food. I found out he had a cocaine addiction about a month before the company was acquired. They also had orgies in the office break rooms and gave out a machete to everyone as a Chr…
Dude, that company sounds awesome!
Re: Netflix employee fired for sharing personal details in retreat trust exercise
#418Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good riddance. A “work-life balance kind of person” is not a negative characteristic; even more so at a position where your behavior is an inspiration to many people
Well, I live in India. “Being available” and making others do the same is the national managerial obsession.
Which is why I am sitting right now in a meeting and the presenter is logged in from Bangalore and I don't even want to know what `TZ=Asia/Kolkata date` will tell me.
Re: Netflix employee fired for sharing personal details in retreat trust exercise
#419Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but that sort of behaviour is plainly abusive unless you're actually working in an explicitly religious setting. But merely saying "I'm taking next Wednesday off to celebrate Eid" ought to be fine everywhere, as is "this weekend I'm singing in my church choir then going for a picnic". Similarly, wearing a wedding ring or mentioning that you have a partner should never be a problem, but issuing a company-wide in…
I get that. One persons level of comfort is not the same as others, so just saying I want people to be comfortable having their religious opinions respected is not a simple request. Some religious opinions are basically oppression of others. I refuse to allow people to be bigots in my presence regardless of their reasoning.
Having previously been a member of such a religion, and having left it specifically over human rights issues, I am delighted to inform you that there are many individuals who identify as members of such religions but who are not personally bigoted, and who in fact may privately be uncomfortable about that aspect of their religious belief. If you already know someone, and you have reason to believe they're not bigoted, but then they out themselves as a member of some such group, you don't have to assume the worst.
Re: Netflix employee fired for sharing personal details in retreat trust exercise
#420Earlier quoted context omitted.
> good candidates interview but decline the pub afterwards - they did not get offers That's one hell of a lawsuit you're opening yourself up to there. People who don't drink have significant overlap with protected classes.
Not trying to go ad hominem, but that's a very ignorant statement. 1. Which ones? I used to be able to stereotype with the best of them, but I cant quickly come up with any protected class that is assigned as teetotalers. 2. Saying you're not hiring someone because they don't drink is a perfectly valid reason for not hiring someone, even if it's a cover for not hiring them because of protected class membership. The l…
[deleted]