Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Should I testify?

news.ycombinator.com

201–210 of 250 posts

Re: Ask HN: Should I testify?

#201
post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Confucius once wrote that 'seeing the right thing and not doing it is cowardly'. This is still true today. But you are right that the life of a coward is easier. Living a virtuous life is always 'hard mode'; if it were not, would we ever have bothered to identify virtue?

Why stop here then? Why not donate 90% of your income to charity and live in a shanty town?

Sometimes doing the wrong thing (or at least "not the right thing") allows you to do a much bigger right thing in the end.

For example, Bill Gates. We all hated on Microsoft in the 90s. But Gates has become an amazingly generous humanitarian, which he couldn't have done if he donated all his money to charity in the beginning and didn't focus on ruthlessly building his company.

Re: Ask HN: Should I testify?

#202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A lot of companies will quietly remove you from consideration This is probably true. At the same time, some will certainly see it as a good thing and want to hire OP.

That seems very unlikely. If given a choice between two candidates, equal in capabilities, where one has had some amount of public exposure in the manner described, and the other is relatively anonymous, generally the corporation is going to pick the anonymous one. There's no upside to attracting unnecessary, uncontrolled publicity. At best, they'll ignore it. It won't be a net positive unless the hiring company is s…

I would like to see your data for "generally the corporation is going to pick the anonymous one."

Regardless, I personally would favor any candidate who did the right thing in difficult circumstances. I don't hire people who will just go and do whatever I tell them; I've got computers for that. I hire people to help make good things happen. And for that, I need some confidence that when faced with a choice between easy and good, they'll pick good.

More than a decade back I was brought into a company to help them experiment with new ways of working. There was one engineer on my team who thought my ideas were nuts. He argued so much that the management offered to give me somebody more tractable. I stuck with him, though, and as he worked in the new approach, he came to appreciate it. By the time I left, he was an unstoppable advocate for improving my client's engineering practices. Over the next few years he made a huge difference there.

When I look back upon the best people I've worked with, they're all like that. They're professionals, in the sense of having a strong sense of professional and ethical duty. As far as I'm concerned, one person like that is worth any three over-obedient clock-punchers.

Re: Ask HN: Should I testify?

#203
post #101

Let's be realistic: there are many companies that won't hire you after this. The question is, are those the companies that you want to work for? It's a tough choice, of course. You mention that the company you worked at is popular here on Hacker News. So let's assume we are talking about Apple or Google or perhaps AirBnB. So from now on, when people look up your name, they will see something like "Testified against A…

> Let's be realistic: there are many companies that won't hire you after this Based on? This sounds important enough to warrant real data rather than our guts, whims, direction of the wind, or whatever else.

I think there is definitely risk, but how serious that risk is depends entirely on the context. Very early on in my career, my employer sued me for breach of contract. I was working for an influential contractor but they we incredibly abusive to heir staff (as many contractors often are). I quit after 6 months and found another job (in that order). The job I found happened to be with one of their clients. I had been careful to check my original contract to make sure there wasn't a competition clause that would stop me from doing this and there wasn't. For whatever reason (nothing I said since I barely knew anyone in the company and had worked all 6 months off site), when word got out that I landed a job at one of their clients, virtually every developer jumped ship. It almost drove that influential contractor into the ground -- fortunately for them the government bailed them out. Anyway, they sued me and luckily for me my new employer sent out nazgul-like lawyers their way and the case was dropped.

For many, many years after that, when I was looking for a job in that city I had to put an asterisk on my CV that said "Did not part ways amicably. Please contact me for details" -- everybody in that city knew this employer and many people had heard of the story. Possibly this hurt me for jobs, but of course I never noticed. I worked for other very prominent companies in that city with no problem at all. I have never had difficulty finding good work, so it was fine.

I had one other experience (with another prominent big company) where I was ordered by a very high up executive to add code to the system that was illegal (this was a telephone system, so there are some laws about what you are allowed to do). I refused and they threatened me, but I didn't back down. I think they found someone else to do it behind my back. Again, this could have been quite risky for me, but I refuse to do anything illegal in my job and do not want to work for a people who think I should have caved.

There is always work for good programmers. There are also always things that will prevent you from working with some specific companies, whether that be a bad performance on the day of your interview, bad luck about getting your CV seen by the right people at the right time, a mismatch in personalities or skills, or sometimes situations in your history. It depends on the situation, but it is far from game over to have a mark like that in your history. I no longer put an asterisk on that company on my CV. They even called me up one time to try to recruit me. I had to remind them what happened the last time I worked there. Time heals all... eventually.

Re: Ask HN: Should I testify?

#204
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's like the generic advise that everyone already knows. "be yourself!" isn't super helpful when he/she is asking specifically about career impact.

That's a very compact rebuttal! I hope I can one day express myself so efficiently. Impressive. There was a time when I didn't know how useful "being yourself" was. I don't believe I'm the only one. For instance, people substitute defining themselves by a contrarian viewpoint relative to others, until they work out who they really are. Case in point: the petulant teenager. And when you don't know you don't know, the…

> That's a very compact rebuttal! I hope I can one day express myself so efficiently. Impressive.

Just in case I'm misreading you, this post comes across as quite passive-aggressive and patronizing given your opening line.

Re: Ask HN: Should I testify?

#205
post #62
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fucked up, but organizations are often so. You can choose not to be a part of these organizations.

You can certainly aspire to that. Some companies are really good at hiding their true colors. Mortgage, kids... Sometimes you need a paycheck.

PayPal comes to mind.

Re: Ask HN: Should I testify?

#206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very compact rebuttal! I hope I can one day express myself so efficiently. Impressive. There was a time when I didn't know how useful "being yourself" was. I don't believe I'm the only one. For instance, people substitute defining themselves by a contrarian viewpoint relative to others, until they work out who they really are. Case in point: the petulant teenager. And when you don't know you don't know, the…

> That's a very compact rebuttal! I hope I can one day express myself so efficiently. Impressive. Just in case I'm misreading you, this post comes across as quite passive-aggressive and patronizing given your opening line.

No I don't think you're misreading. Maybe you're right and it is patronising and passive aggressive. I'm struggling with a response to this, and I meant every word. The rebuttal is very compact and I admire that. I'm often too verbose, and value clarity.

Anyway I'm trying to say something like:

Not everyone may know that. Being yourself is important, all decisions flow from your values works. Sometimes it works to address the substantive content of a question which may differ from the literal.

If you have any ideas how I can say this in a way that works, thank you :)

Re: Ask HN: Should I testify?

#207
I can't tell you what you should do. I can say for myself, what matters the most to me is what looks back at me in the mirror. If I felt my former employer had done something for which they should be held accountable, I would testify. I would not worry about future employers who would discard my resume over my choice...I would instead welcome the benefit of their filtering action, which would lead me away from companies that are intent on breaking the law, leaving only companies that are lawful and ethical as potential employers. Companies who would view my actions as those of someone with integrity. Because the bottom line, the only company who would pass someone over for something like this is one that operates on legally shaky grounds to begin with.

Re: Ask HN: Should I testify?

#208
post #87
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when is having a moral compass a platitude?

It's like the generic advise that everyone already knows. "be yourself!" isn't super helpful when he/she is asking specifically about career impact.

Thanks for sharing that my answer doesn't contribute a thing for you! I invite you to create your own answer which does, so we can learn from you :)

Re: Ask HN: Should I testify?

#209
HN tends to be populated by people who either are or claim to be very successful, and are very confident they will always have well-paid work.

But many other people have to pay their bills and exist in a hiring environment which is somewhat hostile - maybe they can't move to the Bay Area, they are not very outgoing and networked, rumors have been spread about them, they are old - this industry is punishingly picky and hiring managers like nothing better than filtering you out. So, bottom line, a lot of us don't have leverage and do have to play stupid corporate games (and work at shitty and occasionally unethical employers) on pain of losing our livelihoods. It's all fun and games until you have to stop writing code and go work at Wal-mart.

If this issue is of Schindler's List magnitude, I guess you have to bite the bullet, but if all you're doing is making a law firm happy by being a +1 that might not be worth the risk of self-destruction.

Re: Ask HN: Should I testify?

#210
post #119

Tell them to subpoena you - then the choice to testify is not yours any more. You'll have to. But you can tell future employers that you were forced, if you'd like to.

Excellent advice. Also ask if they can subpoena you and depose you rather than have you testify in court.

Yup, and they're likely to go the deposition unless he's a "star witness" they rather have for the dog & pony show in court.
Post reply on HN