Besides, it's a dumb thing to do. Depending on the state you or the HR person is in you could be violating 2-party consent laws.
If you grew up filming the most trivial aspects of your life it should not be a surprise if you feel the need to film something as important as losing a job.
Personally, it wouldn't even occur to me to film such a thing let alone to post it online. I would have assumed it would be illegal to film without the other side having a clue you are filming.
If I grew up filming literally everything though the idea of it being illegal I am sure would sound ridiculous and not even enter my mind. I am sure the thought process didn't go beyond this being some potentially really good "content".
The strangest thing to me is I have been let go from a job before. It is surely not a moment I wish to relive.
Every layoff should be recorded and she broke no laws.
in this same thread you replied to someone with "You offer no support for your claim."
https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/georgia-recording-law
The thing that rubbed me the wrong way is that @legitster most likely knew this, and this why they said, "could be violating ..." and then the whole comment comes off like a pro-corporate scare post to not call out shitty tactics. It is disingenuous. It is shallow and dismissive to call what she did the act of a performative millennial.
By the point this article came up, it was widely known for those paying attention that Pietsch committed no crimes in recording this.
You knew what state the other people on the call were in? Were their names even revealed? Even if they were, why would you assume others are as invested in this story that they’d seek out that info?
what state were the other two callers in? you also wrote all layoffs should be recorded knowing that it would violate law in some states. this sounds pretty disingenuous. by "paying attention" you mean someone highly invested in this like you are, with the same weirdo aggro activist tone