Hacker News Reader

Comment by cmdli | Hacker News Reader

> "Being as I’m not an idiot, I elect to bring a witness of my own (@lizthegrey ). She slightly livetweeted that conversation until VP VMware tells her to stop. "

This, I think, is the point that caused the firing. It's pretty clear that if you choose a witness who then posts everything publicly that you are not discussing in good faith. Like, it's your right to speak your mind, and maybe you think you are in the moral right, but if you intentionally antagonize the people you work with you won't be working with them for much longer.

View on HN

and that was an "external" witness, not even an employee of the company. Which company would tolerate that? Social media has somehow conditioned people to think they can air all of their opinions with no filter and when there are consequences, they act surprised.

I took external to mean someone not involved in the conflict. If they actually were external to the company, that's insane and definitely cemented them being fired. Maybe even before the second round of live-tweeting.

It must have been external to the company, because later they say that they were asked not to invite someone external, so they invited a fellow employee instead.

I mean this is just baffling to me, why is VMWare even allowing her to bring a random person external to the company as a witness to a meeting related to a company's employee, and then that person decides to TWEET that meeting?

It sounds like some weird joke. What goes in those people's head?

You are allowed to discuss workplace conditions. That's like, protected concerted activity 101.

If the business was uncomfortable with their treatment of their employees being public, maybe that activity wasn't ethical.

There's a difference between speaking publicly about workplace conditions and livetweeting the details of an individual conversation in a (likely) mocking tone. At that point, the only thing standing between you and being fired is whatever legal defense you can muster, because no reasonable person is going to want to work with you after that.

What's your source for the mocking tone? Is lizthegrey known for tweeting about hr proceedings in a moving tone?

Also, what is tweeting if not "speaking publicly"?

And what are workplace conditions if not "how I am disciplined at work"?

In short, yes. If you're unfortunate enough to be involved in a conversation with that individual, prepare to be insulted

I'm in slightly overlapping social circles with Liz and have never felt remotely insulted the times we've chatted. I don't follow her on Twitter anymore and haven't been around her since the pandemic started, but I'd be shocked if she insulted people indiscriminately.

For all I know she might insult people when she sees them say things she thinks are shitty, but I haven't experienced that and I think we've disagreed on things in the past.

It's the "live-tweeting" aspect. You're not showing a basic level of respect to the nature of the conversation.

She wasn't live tweeting her hr warning, her witness was. (Who was likely not a participant in the conversation).

To me, that's just as bad.

Someone you brought in is doing something disrespectful and indicative of the central problem to the conversation.

If you come to my house and draw on my walls - I ask you to stop and let's have a conversation about it, so you bring a friend who starts drawing on my walls while we're talking about you drawing on my walls.

You've lost all goodwill that I was willing to extend to you.

To me, that is even worse.

How is it that you think this makes it better? I’m asking in all seriousness. To my mind, I can’t conceive of ever thinking this way, so I’m trying to understand what your thought process is.

Bullshit. Bringing someone from outside a business to a conversation that "slightly livetweets" what is being said is totally not acceptable. I invite you to bring an outside party to your next business meeting, standup or all hands meeting and have them "slightly livetweet" it. You will find the door before the meeting ends.

Businesses have every right to some level of obscurity on what happens internally. There is a very clear difference between using a tape recorder or your smartphone to record a conversation (after clearly stating that you will do so!) and having someone without any relation to the company present and blurbing everything into the ether.

Those meetings are not disciplinary meetings where your performance is being discussed. Everything in a disciplinary meeting is workplace conditions, full stop.

And if hr disagreed, they could have asked the guest to leave.

How does it being a disciplinary meeting effect the validity of bringing in an external party that isn't professionally tied to any party and which "slightly livetweets" events to the general public?

Were they not livetweeting: fine, you can bring a family member or friend to these meetings.

But they were.

What?

While I have an internal meeting I would NOT assume someone is life tweeting this.

An internal meeting is a much broader category than "a disciplinary meeting to issue a verbal warning from hr".

You are allowed to do many things that will piss off your employer so they want to find a way to fire you.

If anyone is wondering who lizthegrey is, search for “consent accident” on your favorite search engine.

> that you are not discussing in good faith

I'd think a VP (many levels above) coming to DM someone for a private chat isn't likely coming in good faith to begin with so it goes both ways.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com