Unity fires manager who tweeted the company is “out of touch”
vg247.com
vg247.com
Renting an apt in SF would cost me over half my gross mothly salary :( Probably 3/4 of my takehome at least”
I agree with her
I’m not an exec but I’ve said things at work I regret. I’m sure many of us have. You just say a stupid thing here or there sometimes. It seems destructive to bring that all out publicly on Twitter.
One employee is now terminated for having reasonably driven vitriol from random internet Twitter users to another, by name.
> That oversimplifies this situation because an employer, regardless of it having outrageous work environment characteristics, has a responsibility to its employees. Like, in court.
Butttttt I gotta say companies routinely violate said legal obligations and intentionally commit resources to continued abuse of said obligations - knowing individuals lack the resources to fight back or institute meaningful change through legal recourse without great cost.
An I whole-heartedly agree with you. It's horrific when companies violate legal obligations, hoping to skate by undetected, making power-plays against their own employees. It's unethical.
Here, to repeat, it seems the issue is simply the employee revealed personal information about a coworker.
I feel critical, because the employee could have raised her "can't afford to live here" with someone in the company - requesting a pay raise, and then hypothetically gotten some REAL WHISTLEBLOWER DIRT if they responded with something like, "tough luck, poor-ie employ-ee lolzzz." But she did not, and the company did not, and she shamed her coworker (and being an exec should not mean you get publicly shamed IMO).
The fired employee named the executive, on Twitter, in the same thread before being fired.
And, Twitter, as you're all probably aware, can be a cesspool of under-moderated hate, lately.
The company and executive should reasonably expect that the executive will receive a lot of hate from randos, due to the tweet thread.
I suspect this tweet thread opens Unity Inc up to risk by funding, through keeping on the payroll, a person who, in turn, drives hatred and vitriol online to another one of its employees. So I imagine unity decided to put an end to this liability.
In my estimation, and having worked at Unity, Unity is not that big where a first name couldn't uniquely identify a female executive.
So the risk is real.
Unthinkable. That sort of accountability is only for those plebian workers.
Yikes - as opposed to these hypothetical concerns, the employee neatly doxxed a coworker, and complained about an un-raised (as far as we know she did not ask for a cost-of-living-adjustment) internal grievance in a public forum. Reality is she behaved unethically, in my view.
Number 2: Nudge theory is absolutely a thing, and barring a technical reason for RTO, it is 100% a powerplay by management. I have been in on meetings where those types of measures are discussed.
Poor response by management types to laborers naming and shaming is generally a very good signal that someone was relying on worker discretion or control of the flow of information to get something past the radar.
Newsflash:
People can, and absolutely should talk. Half of being a leader or person in management is ensuring that you keep your nose clean enough that the people below you don't feel the need to speak out, and if they do, that you're ready for the fallout.
It ain't hard to do that if you're being ethical, and are equipped with real, valid reasons other than narcissistic upper management dictat to back up why the company is doing X.
If you don't have that, then maybe you need to reevaluate whether or not you want to be in that spot.
I think I am getting where you are coming from and have a better sense of the value of talking-back, and of unethical management being in competition with non-management.
I tend to work around others' faults (instead of challenging) - and I may be projecting that attitude in my position.
Here I still feel bad for the singled-out exec - though that could simply be me denying the intentionality and tactics of a person in a "powerful" position.
So while I may want to defer to the dominant paradigm, to work within the bounds, I see the value of changing it - of ensuring all workers have safe avenues for communicating dissent.
As opposed to firing the employee and giving her good reasons to deliberately send harassment trolls after the former employer.
Another trend I've been seeing (speaking a general sense, I know no knowledge of this particular case) is that people who have been laid off will pull a stunt like this to try to 'go viral' and get a job. I have no idea if it works or the wisdom of it, but I've seen about a half dozen people in my network who I know were laid off in a general and impersonal layoff post sob stories about being fired by an unreasonable and mean boss.
We also fired a guy who posted about being laid off from our company, despite our company not going layoffs. Legal had to send him a little reminder about the terms he signed when we offered severance and that falsely the company feels claiming the company is doing layoffs is damaging to the company.
Overall I feel like I have become aware of more people trying to position their termination in ways that aren't truthful but they feel are more advantageous for generating interest from future employers.
I'd love to see data on this. Old advice guides against hiring such people, since they're liable to return the favor on you. But maybe the cost-benefit has changed.
>gag
/s
People should freely be able to have opinions on Twitter, Youtube, TikTok, CBS News, etc. and those opinions should not get them fired from their jobs just because some exec or some vocal group disagrees... as long as they're not representing the company. "I work for Pepsi and think the President is "..." for example.
On the other hand, unless it's whistleblowing, badmouthing your company to a broadcast audience when you don't have the imprimatur to do it, will most likely have consequences. Broadcast communications are the purview of The PR dept. This is for the PR dept to handle. You can opine it with your friends, family, etc. but not to a broad audience like that, unless you are considering the consequences.
That is an unrealistic take. Especially when the opinion is critical of the company. Much less when it's something as simple as the company not wanting to be associated with such viewpoints.
What They are normally not tolerated for is for maligning the company, institution or organization. That one should keep to friends, family, trusted people, but not something you voice in a megaphone of a public forum.
Currently it's 38 points with 18 comments, while "Chaos Communication Camp 2023 – Call for Participation" have 3 pt, zero comments but is on the front page.
Odd algorithm...
Use precise geolocation data."
Flag this website.