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

Netflix employee fired for sharing personal details in retreat trust exercise

nypost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 527 posts

Re: Netflix employee fired for sharing personal details in retreat trust exercise

#421

Post by ocschwar »

riddlemethat wrote: post #199

Last 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…

> My fraternity was more tame and we used to have guys gazing each other in the main room during parties.

Joining a fraternity makes you jointly and severally liable for anything your frat brothers do. It's the very opposite of working or investing in a limited liability company. Makes sense for a fraternity to be more tame...

Re: Netflix employee fired for sharing personal details in retreat trust exercise

#422

Post by chronos00 »

asdfasvea wrote: post #415
oliwarner wrote: post #389

Earlier 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…

Religion is a protected class, and many religions don’t drink. If the reason they don’t drink is their religion, it isn’t a valid reason to state for not hiring them. Yes, most hr people in this case would use some other alternate reason that isn’t linked to the protected class.

Re: Netflix employee fired for sharing personal details in retreat trust exercise

#423

Post by DANmode »

asdfasvea wrote: post #415
oliwarner wrote: post #389

Earlier 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…

> cant quickly come up with any protected class that is assigned as teetotalers

Religious or spiritual belief.

Re: Netflix employee fired for sharing personal details in retreat trust exercise

#424

Post by DANmode »

toader wrote: post #404
fg137 wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have a "retreat" every other year or so at a certain resort across the country. What happens is that the company flies everyone there + including overseas employees) do 3 days of meeting plus 1 day of free time before flying everyone back. 2 employees share a room, no family or friends allowed even if you want to pay for your hotel rooms out of the pocket. I don't see any point of this. Such a waste of time and je…

You are forced to share a room with another employee?

The golden-handcuff stories just keep getting weirder as I go down the thread.

Re: Netflix employee fired for sharing personal details in retreat trust exercise

#425

Post by arw0n »

icepush wrote: post #248
ksenzee wrote: post #185

Earlier 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.

Why are there people that want this in the office? Don't want this.

I'm spending almost a third of my life at work, no shade to the people having to work to pay the bills, but I'd like to get a bit more than just that out of that time: Learn new skills, meet interesting people, have good conversations, have fun. Having something akin to friendship with long-term coworkers and collaborators makes all of that much easier.

Re: Netflix employee fired for sharing personal details in retreat trust exercise

#426

Post by finnthehuman »

ksenzee wrote: post #414
finnthehuman wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 da…

Oh. I see the disconnect between us.

To me, either the culture bubble is extremely strong in your area, or being able to admit alignment with ideas shared by a major political party in an area where another party is more popular is an very low bar.

On the scale of topics that I conceal about myself, politics is as easy as talking about the weather.

Re: Netflix employee fired for sharing personal details in retreat trust exercise

#427

Post by DANmode »

clemailacct1 wrote: post #417
riddlemethat wrote: post #199

Last 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!

If you’re looking for employment that’s as stable as a minor-league cartel, sure.

Coke, machetes, and drunk driving gets your passion moved?

Concisely, seek help.

Re: Netflix employee fired for sharing personal details in retreat trust exercise

#428

Post by DANmode »

bijowo1676 wrote: post #42
ab71e5 wrote: post #22

So he was fired for sharing he had ketamine based therapy for depression? Why? Like is it promoting drug use or something?

isn't this highly illegal, since it is used for medical purpose (mental health) ? its like firing a person who was sedated by professional Anesthesiologist with Fentanyl during surgery (A friend of mine had a surgery and was administered fentanyl)

Legally, yes.

Medically…no. It does not seem to be equivalent, especially with any amount of regular repetition.

Re: Netflix employee fired for sharing personal details in retreat trust exercise

#429

Post by yifanl »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #223
anderber wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly this. No matter how they dress it up, HR is there to protect the company, not you.

Genuine question. Can you tell me why people love saying this so much?

They have authority over you, therefore all interactions must be taken under that context.

Re: Netflix employee fired for sharing personal details in retreat trust exercise

#430

Post by wat10000 »

thot_experiment wrote: post #167
wat10000 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's adversarial then why are they willingly entering into a mutually beneficial arrangement?

A mutually beneficial agreement can still be adversarial? If you're getting shaken down by the mafia it's beneficial for you to pay them protection money.

You’d be better off without the shakedown altogether. Not true for a job you willingly take and stay in.
Post reply on HN