Much easier to ruin a career than mess with a corporate cash cow | Hacker News Reader

Much easier to ruin a career than mess with a corporate cash cow

taibbi.substack.com

50 pointstosh12 comments

Right. Instead, Apple should continue to pay someone that employees don't want to work with. To be a leader in the organization people need to trust him and want to work with him. Enough people at Apple said, "No thanks. I can be happier working with other people on other things." So, why should Apple keep him on?

I don't think Apple employees are interested in seeing if they become characters in his next book. Making money and fame off of mocking your colleagues is not going to help you gain the trust of your future colleagues. That was his choice. Other people didn't "ruin it for him". Apple doesn't owe him a career. His colleagues don't owe him a second chance to not publicly shit on them and influence their careers.

He can continue writing, consulting, and doing a variety of other money-earning activities.

> Enough people at Apple said, "No thanks. I can be happier working with other people on other things."

That sounds so cool and casual. Not at all like

> “Given Mr. García Martínez’s history of publishing overtly racist and sexist remarks, we are concerned that his presence at Apple will contribute to an unsafe working environment for our colleagues who are at risk of public harassment and private bullying.”

Yes, I was paraphrasing. But my point still stands.

Mr. Garcia Martinez did publish those remarks. I don't know that I would use the word "unsafe", but definitely uncomfortable and less meritocratic if people can go around saying things like that with no consequences.

When leaders make that behavior ok, it gives a pass for others to behave that way as well, and creates a terrible work environment.

We can argue about whether "unsafe" is the ideal word choice. But I don't think it changes that Apple has every reason to fire him if their employees don't want to be led by him.

Isn't this a bit like "pre-crime”? He hasn't said anything about his colleagues at Apple. He's allowed to think things of them, and allowed to say what he wants (if he wants) later.

We are all potential future publishers of a tell-all.

Apple could have done the smart thing and had him option all future books about his time at Apple for $1.

Re: his past statements: It seems like the baseline assumption is that nobody ever exaggerates their own opinion, changes an opinion, grows as a person, etc. So if there's any proof that you said something unfavorable at any time, well, you're "a dyed in the wool X".

I can see why his coworkers are uncomfortable. I don't see why the knee must jerk so swiftly.

I don't think it's like pre-crime. What he wrote isn't a crime. No one is calling for him to be jailed. He exercised his right to free speech, wrote a book that disparaged his former colleagues, and now his current colleagues are exercising their right to free speech and declaring that they are uncomfortable working with him.

When I apply for jobs, my past work is the main factor in determining whether I am the right fit for the job. His job at Apple was working in ads, his book was about shitting all over the people he used to work with in ads at Facebook. I think it's perfectly reasonable for Apple to say, "Based on your previous work, we no longer think you are a good fit for our team."

He is not being uniquely screwed. The idea that he should get to disparage people, and that everyone else needs to accommodate his rude behavior and work with him anyway sounds really entitled to me. We teach this concept to children: if you behave like an asshole, don't be surprised if you don't have friends to play with.

>saying things like that with no consequences.

Should I be allowed to deny the sanctity of Christ in public without consequences? You would be hard pressed to find in all of Tudor England a man to defend such an outrageous proposition.

In all seriousness, this new religious struggle will probably tear the US apart over the next two decades. Hopefully it wont be as bad as the reformation was in Europe.

So words should have no consequences whatsoever?

If I go to an interview and I'm rude, I probably won't get hired even if I am the most qualified candidate. If I mock people and create an atmosphere people don't want to be in, my colleagues will leave and find other places to work.

Yet, my behavior should be tolerated? This isn't a religious struggle or a medieval concept. People don't want to work with people who behave like assholes. Respect and trust is critical for a well-functioning team. This is fundamental to human relationships, it's not a religion.

They would have the young Steve Jobs fired. Wait. That already happened.

And what about Dr Dre and women?

To quote Taibbi:

"But if 2,000 Apple employees are going to insist that they feel literally unsafe working alongside a man who wrote a love letter to a woman who towers over him in heels, I’d like to hear their take on serving under, and massively profiting from, partnership with the author of such classics as “Bitches Ain’t Shit” and “Lyrical Gangbang,” who is also the subject of such articles as “Here’s What’s Missing from Straight Outta Compton: Me and the Other Women Dr. Dre Beat Up.”"

> Most women in the Bay Area are soft and weak, cosseted and naive despite their claims of worldliness, and generally full of shit.

It’s understandable why people wouldn’t want to work for someone who thinks this way.

The cardinal sin committed here is only that he wrote “Most woman” instead of saying “Most people” and that was only done because the statement was made comparing one particular woman to the rest of them in the area.

At the end of the day it doesn’t matter what the sin was. The guy comes off as an asshole and was let go. End of story.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com