Hacker News Reader

Comment by parineum | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, I thought the same thing. Like, yeah, the guy was being thin-skinned and over reactive but publicly accusing your employer's client of war crimes should get you fired. If you're upset that your employer is dealing with these people, quit. Work for someone you don't hate.

View on HN

I don't think it's thin-skinned to complain about those tweets. It would bother me too if someone who attended my presentation in professional capacity personally attacked me in a public way like that. It's absolutely completely unacceptable, even in a more casual setting (I'd expect to get banned or at least a stern warning if I said something like that on HN, for example).

If you think what your employer does is unacceptable you shouldn’t work for them (even if this happens via an acquisition).

But most people are extremely hypocritical, and will gladly ignore their “ideals” in the name of the holy fat paycheque.

>If you think what your employer does is unacceptable you shouldn’t work for them (even if this happens via an acquisition).

I disagree. If leadership of a company makes an ethically questionable decision and everyone who disagrees with that decision quits, that leaves an even more ethically questionable organization behind. I think all good people have an obligation to voice an ethical objection to their company's behavior whenever relevant. Don't just quit and let the amoral/immoral people win.

The author's problem was not that they decided to object instead of quit. Their mistake was doing the objection in both a public and intentionally inflammatory way.

> Don't just quit and let the amoral/immoral people win

If the opposite is stay and actually make efforts for change then yes. If it is staying and keeping your mouth shut then it's just keeping the status quo. And that may be fine and understandable but don't be offended when called out on that.

> think all good people have an obligation to voice an ethical objection to their company's behavior whenever relevant.

Posting a cynical tweet does not reflect a moral high ground, specially if the person doing the tweeting doesn't express any similar concern on any other occasion regarding their line of work and how they contribute directly and indirectly to that moral hazard, and apparently gets disappointed when their employer fires them.

Frankly, it all looks like puerile attention-seeking fuelled by Twitter echo chambers.

He basically admits as such, when he said challenging the nondisparaging clauses in the name of free speech was not worth risking the $40k paycheck.

She. If you are unsure of a person's gender, just use 'they', but don't assume it's a man. In this case the pronouns are right there on the top of the blog though (as well used in the article).

I suspect the author owns quite a few pairs of programming socks, however.

...so?

"He" is also used as a gender-neutral pronoun, much like "man" is used for "person".

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/he#Pronoun

Not a native speaker, but my assumption is that we are trying to go easy on “guys”, “man” and “he”. It is not hard to say “they”, “person”, “people”.

Also, I cannot really explain really well, but it seems like there is a big difference saying “he” about just mythical person, and referring to a real person (whose gender you don’t know).

Yep you’re 100% spot on. “He” works with hypotheticals (even if that’s a bit outdated) but not when talking about a specific person.

> It is not hard to say “they”, “person”, “people”.

Not hard, but incorrect.

Even worse than that. She took the $40k in return for agreeing to not disparage VMware. She then immediately started disparaging them, but it was "in private" whatever that means, so she presumed she wouldn't get caught. And then once her preferred candidate is in the White House she figures it's now safe to violate her agreement in public too, thus keeping the $40k AND going back on her word. She stiffed VMware once at the conference, and then again afterwards! Clearly this person cannot be trusted in any kind of business relationship at all, as the threat of enforcement is the only thing that keeps them from immediately turning around and stabbing you in the back.

> And then once her preferred candidate is in the White House she figures it's now safe to violate her agreement in public too, thus keeping the $40k AND going back on her word. She stiffed VMware once at the conference, and then again afterwards!

Regardless of how the vicissitudes of politics go, the current NLRB has made its decision, so the author is acting in accordance with the law. Their legal counsel agreed. Perhaps you find this dishonorable or morally disagreeable because of the particulars of this case, but given this is about an individual employee vs. megacorp, it seems no different in principle from the adage of "don't feel bad for quitting, your company would lay you off without a moment's thought." That VMWare vice president is not losing any sleep over the $40k.

"Stabbing you in the back" is pretty strong language for posting social media about a personal experienced at a job she no longer has at a company that will barely see any consequences from this post using a right that literally the government has granted all workers now.

Like what world do you live in that people don't complain about their old jobs such that you think it's that unacceptable?

People can complain about old jobs, sure. But not if they explicitly make a promise not to do so, especially not if they get paid in return for that promise. Whether governments will let her get away with it or not, it's a backstab to extract cash from someone in return for a promise to be nice, and then to break it.

That explicit “promise” is a simple contact, the likes of which companies break all of the time when fiscally advantageous and legally permissible, whether against employees, former employees, or against each other. Also, VMWare isn’t even painted as the villain in this account. You are getting outraged on behalf of an entity that cares not.

Funnily enough, it would seem that VMWare historically has bigger things to worry about when it comes to the military, protests, and broken contracts:

> The Defence Information Security Agency (DISA) reversed a decision to award VMware Inc. with a $1.6 billion contract, following a protest by number of tech companies last February.

> The Pentagon’s decision to cancel its joint enterprise licensing agreement with VMware means the Government Accountability Office (GAO) was able to dismiss protests against the award made by Amazon Web Services (AWS), Citrix Systems Inc., Nutanix and Minburn Technology Group, LLC, as per the statement at this link.

https://siliconangle.com/2015/03/17/u-s-military-drops-1-6b-...

Stab in the back feels apt for signing something to get money in exchange for not saying bad things, only to go and say bad things once the OP realized there would not be consequences for that.

It depends- was that clause the linchpin of the agreement, or rather just a technicality that became obsoleted as it became unenforceable? A bit of click-through EULA.

In any case, regardless of the intentions of the author, VMWare doesn’t look particularly worse off for having this story publicized. It feels like they were caught between a rock and hard place.

This individual has shown they lack a moral compass and will happily lie and disparage anyone they want in both public and private life. Their community of friends are enablers of this negative behavior. I would not hire them.

Agreed. As to the world lived in: most people are so enthralled with money that any risk to earning more in the future is unacceptable to them, sadly. Companies then bank on that behaviour to help sweep things under the rug.

No, the "agreement" was struck down as illegal suppression of labor rights by the NLRB. Non-disparagement clauses are patently bullshit, and their elimination was a big, positive change for everybody who isn't a living caricature of the monopoly man.

She?

Every person has their price. I have lots of ideals too but also have my price. Given enough money I could literally shun society and create a small oasis where said ideals hold true. If given even more money I could lobby governments. The power just keeps expanding the bigger the payment.

But hey, they want to make change from within™

Or you know, most people still need the food and rent.

Do you go all out on your ideals? Does your employee not do anything that violates them?

> Or you know, most people still need the food and rent.

this is complete bs. it's not 'VMWare or unemployment' (or any $bigtech or unemployment). there are a ton of employers ready to pay competent people a decent salary.

The poster made a huge point of how they were not willing to avoid posting things on social media and hunger wasn't a condition for that.

There's even a middle ground where we don't have to agree with everything our employer does but also they don't get all whiny when we tweet about it.

> publicly accusing your employer's client of war crimes

Where did you read this?

I don't think it's a stretch if you're accusing a member DoD of having blood on their hands to assume that the intent of that statement is that the blood is there due to unjust actions and, since the DoD primarily kills people through war like activities, that the blood that was on their hands was from some sort of unlawful, war like activity, aka, war crimes.

My bad, misunderstood

I was referring to the person she was talking to.

"defamation only applies if it's published on paper, right?"

> publicly accusing your employer's client of war crimes

What other factual statements should you not be allowed to make about your employer's clients?

Setting aside the gigantic leap and cognitive dissonance required to imply that a short-serving Chief Software Office is somehow a war criminal and answering your actual question: Avoiding factual statements that have to do with race, religion, politics, sexual orientation, and gender is a good start.

So, if say you're black and your employer pulls some racist shit on you, or a woman and they pull some sexist shit, you shouldn't post any factual statements about it, right?

If you read the rest of my comment, I don't actually have a problem with accusing people of war crimes. I think it's assinine to think one could do so and hope to continue to be paid by those people though. I would think that someone so ready to stand on this moral high ground wouldn't want that money but I guess when it actually comes to backing up her morals, she'll take the money instead.

Your critique only makes sense if she's working for the DoD, or negotiating those contracts for VMWare, or VMWare's business is significantly DoD contracts, none of which are true.

Why does it have to be a significant part of VMWare's business? DoD money is flowing into her pockets and she's fighting to keep it that way.

The DoD also performs public services that ostensibly protect her life and liberty at some level, and doubtless she doesn't disagree with those functions. The amount one benefits from an entity one disagrees with can be variable, and debatable.

It's not an accusation.

So, free speech doesn't extend to criticism of the government? People should lose their jobs because they said mean words on Twitter?

You’re free to say funny words on twitter, they’re free to fire you for it. Everyone wins.

Or you think you can be obnoxious clown without repercussions?

> Or you think you can be obnoxious clown without repercussions?

Seems to be working for Elon, tbh.

If you're the owner of your company, the company won't fire you. You can still harm your company (and thereby yourself) by attacking your biggest customers on social media.

Who needs government censorship when you can outsource it?

This is not about free speech, this is about company policy.

On his private twitter? While NOT posting about the company at all?

It was a customer of the company that got offended. Should he know every customer of the company? If the company has 1000s of customers, are they all off limits? Are you supposed to know who they are?

If you work for AT&T and an AT&T customer (of the millions it has) is a jerk or you have some political disagreement with their views, do you get to tweet about it on your personal twitter account? Should they be able to complain and get you fired?

She insulted one of her company's client. So yeah, you risk your job when you do that.

Aren’t most a Americans at-will employees? You can be fired for being too ugly, let alone things which might damage a company relationship.

I don't think anyone is debating VMWare's legal right to fire her, just the wisdom of such a decision.

If I was a big tech company especially one trying to find people interested in working lower down the stack, I wouldn't go around pissing off leftist furries.

It’s very clear that in the interest of business, those statements should not be made by an employee.

They are free to make these claims in a way that doesn’t damage the business. Like a second personal Twitter account.

> They are free to make these claims in a way that doesn’t damage the business. Like a second personal Twitter account.

Are they, though?

I mean, presumably they were posting from a personal account to begin with. Just how separate would a second account have to be - Is it enough to just say all opinions are their own, and only post on their own time? Could they use their own name? What about an online handle they'd used before, if a highly motivated doxxer could possibly identify their employer?

I feel that it's kind of odd that you question this. Acting with professionalism isn't all that hard.

Neither is not bombing civilians, yet here we are.

Christ, don't cut yourself with that edge.

Careful with leaps like that.

Not throwing a tantrum on Twitter is much easier than conducting any kind of military operation.

Someone oughta tell that to Prigozhin!

I don't know about that, the smartest man in the world can't seem to stop posting while multiple distinct sets of complete idiots have managed to take over Afghanistan in the past two decades.

> What other factual statements should you not be allowed to make about your employer's clients?

The author seemed perfectly fine with getting paid by their employer, but somehow felt morally justified to openly criticize the way they got their paycheck. It sounds like a very selective self-righteous position.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com