They are doing the dirty job to maximise shareholders’ profits at the expense of workers, all while abiding religiously to the current political correctness policy.
I just think that this in your face virtue is modern pharisaism.
And you can just use their name and skip over them in an email signature, anyway.
This doesn’t seem to be a case of maximizing shareholder profits because it doesn’t seem like it was part of the layoff plan, but a directed termination because of behavior (as noted in the important part of the email).
Because at my company I never see anyone but the HRs stating their pronouns systematically. Yet they are the one to pressure you to implement alienating policies.
Wolves dressed as welcoming and inclusive sheeps.
I think it’s possible to be respectful and treat the recipient with respect while also doing something that they don’t like. HR often has to terminate people based on someone else’s decision. Does that mean they shouldn’t do it respectfully?
The same people constantly tooting their own horn about how respectful and human-centred they were would go out of their way to rip the soul and humanity out of everything they touched.
This is probably why GP is in opposition to the pronoun thing. It's got nothing to do with the merit of the idea itself, but the people implementing it - similar to how people are against the Metaverse simply because Facebook own it.
No, I am also an SWE as well. I am a manager though, so I understand the “corporate” side of things and what it takes to fire and lay people off. It definitely sucks being on that side too.
> The same people constantly tooting their own horn about how respectful and human-centred they were would go out of their way to rip the soul and humanity out of everything they touched.
Jeez, it sounds like you worked for a terrible place. And I would be unsurprised if it was just HR because those attitudes usually get pervasive. I’m sorry you had that experience.