[deleted]
A Difficult Situation
231–240 of 485 posts
Re: A Difficult Situation
#232They need to update that statement with the fact that the joke was not about her, nor directed at her. Their statement leaves that very important part out, making the reader think otherwise - that she was the victim. At the same time (or around that time) this was happening, here is a conversation she was having - http://i.imgur.com/nRC5J7f.png Another gem from years ago - http://imgur.com/5tbXR2c I'd imagine she was…
> http://imgur.com/5tbXR2c
Wow. I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that minorities in any group can't be racist/sexist/____ist is more than likely a racist/sexist/____ist him/herself and doesn't realize it. All it takes is discrimination against that other group because they are a member of that group.
Re: A Difficult Situation
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't paid too much attention to this story and completely missed it when it first occurred (though I've been a Sendgrid customer are their product is great) but your highlights are very relevant. This is the kind of employee you would refer to as a wild card. You just don't know what they are going to do and you have to do your best to keep them out of your company. Unfortunately for Sendgrid, if she files a sex…
I'm not sure she has grounds for a lawsuit. SendGrid received quite allot of customer complaints about her. Customers were quitting them, and/or making threats of going to a competitor. Then they got DDoSed over this. Also, if I'm not mistaken, they are located in a - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment - state.
California is at-will, but with a good-faith rider. Arbitrarily or maliciously firing someone would probably be grounds for a dispute.
I don't think that dispute would be successful in this case, where some demonstrably poor judgment with predictable consequences was used, but IANAL.
Edit: but as pointed out below, this company is in CO.
Re: A Difficult Situation
#234"Needless to say, a heated public debate ensued. The discourse, productive at times, quickly spiraled into extreme vitriol."
Live by the sword die by the sword. Probably one of the reasons that many people decide to stay anon on HN and online I'm sure. One minute you're the darling and the next minute everyone is in your grill and judging your actions. (Remembering what happened to edw519 recently..)
Re: A Difficult Situation
#235They need to update that statement with the fact that the joke was not about her, nor directed at her. Their statement leaves that very important part out, making the reader think otherwise - that she was the victim. At the same time (or around that time) this was happening, here is a conversation she was having - http://i.imgur.com/nRC5J7f.png Another gem from years ago - http://imgur.com/5tbXR2c I'd imagine she was…
> http://imgur.com/5tbXR2c My first thought was that this quote must be something made up by 4chan users to smear her or something, but it appear to be for real: https://twitter.com/adriarichards/statuses/6039856858
Such extreme ignorance to post such a thing. I'm surprised she kept her job as long as she did.
Re: A Difficult Situation
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lots of people do that. I identify the university I work at in my twitter profile. Obviously I do not tweet on behalf of my university; it's just a way of describing what I do in my day job. Sometimes I tweet negative things about people. It's just words; you know, people talking to other people. Sometimes they even do it in public, like we're doing right here.
It's not obvious who you represent when you have list an employer in your title or bio. The point of listing it is that you're adding that affiliation and connection. Worse are not "just words". If that were true, libel wouldn't exist. Libel can cause significant damage and the connection between your twitter account and your employer makes them a target. So you might want to ask the University's legal department bef…
Yes, I recognize there are some narrow exceptions such as libel, and I'm perfectly fine being held accountable for libel. If I post something which actually libels someone, i.e. something which a court will hold me accountable for having posted, then that's fair, and I'll take full responsibility.
What seems to be in question here, however, is whether people may post truthful comments on twitter, which under U.S. law are by definition not libelous.
Re: A Difficult Situation
#237[deleted]
It's completely valid if you take into account the fact that anonymous and other groups threatened to DDOS sendgrid (and AFAIK they even suffered an attack yesterday). But then again..you've never really been one to take a minute to know facts before you pass judgement have you? :)
Re: A Difficult Situation
#238[deleted]
"At what point does the start-up world help the business world evolve past the point of such corporate-speak bullshit."
In favour of what, startup world bullshit ? ('pivot' and so on.) Any time a corporate entity tries to address people it comes out sounding like bullshit
Re: A Difficult Situation
#239FTA: "Publicly shaming the offenders – and bystanders – was not the appropriate way to handle the situation." So you publicly fire your employee? You hypocrites! If an employer decides it's necessary to let someone go because of a debacle like what's happened here, that's fine. But let the person go with dignity and respect, even if the person doesn't deserve it. If you publicly throw your employees under the bus, wh…
>> So you publicly fire your employee? You hypocrites!
They didn't have a choice. The situation was being followed by the media and if they fired her privately it would be leaked and would give other people the opportunity to spin it. She publicly pulled her employer into the situation on Twitter - from that point on that had no choice but to make their position clear publicly.
Re: A Difficult Situation
#240[deleted]
[deleted]