Hacker News Reader

Comment by jyxent | Hacker News Reader

Is this legal? Where I live, I'm pretty sure this kind of public disclosure isn't allowed due to privacy laws.

Yes, it's legal (and I just looked this up to confirm). Many companies will avoid commenting on these things because if they are not 100% accurate they raise the risk of a slander/libel case against them. For instance, if it turns out that Yishan here misspoke about something he could land the company in a bit of trouble.

Whether legal or not, it's certainly childish. The fact is anyone could have seen that this was a disgruntled former employee so there wasn't a need to say anything at all. If they had to comment then keep it brief. However, getting into a flame war on reddit (even if you are the CEO of the site) just makes the whole company look bad. Heads of companies simple do not get involved in pissing matches with former employees like this without a hit to their own reputation.

> For instance, if it turns out that Yishan here misspoke about something he could land the company in a bit of trouble.

This is where the post goes horribly wrong, too much detail. If the former employee wants to start a lawsuit, any detail that can not be defined, was not measured, or is not written down is a liability. For example "not getting much work done"

Precisely. It's a hugely, and highly subjective detail. Is he a lazy slacker? Or was his idea of a full-time job not in line with management's (possibly onerous) vision of the same?

"When an employee is dismissed from employment at a company, the policy of almost every company (including reddit) is not to comment, either publicly or internally. This is because companies have no desire to ruin someone's future employment prospects by broadcasting to the world that they were fired. In return, the polite expectation is that the employee will not go shooting their mouth off about the company especially (as in your case) through irresponsibly unfounded speculation. Signing a non-disparagement indicates that you have no intention to do this, so the company can then say "Ok, if anyone comes asking for a reference on this guy, we needn't say he was fired, just give a mildly positive reference." Even if you don't sign the non-disparagement, the company will give you the benefit of the doubt and not disparage you or make any negative statements first. Unfortunately, you have just forfeited this arrangement." -Yishan to former employee

If nothing else the Streisand effect insures Reddit is going to get about a million times more bad exposure, now that its going viral, than they would have when it was just a thread from a disgruntled ex employee.

People were starting to question whether Reddit had a good CEO and corprate culture already, now its certain to gain momentum.

I came away from this with more respect for Reddit and it's CEO than I had before, so painting this as bad publicity for them isn't just something that can be assumed here. What the CEO said didn't seem inflammatory or over the top at all, it was just the facts with little or no vindictiveness. I'm not sure where anyone's sympathy for the former employee is coming from, or how anyone reading what the CEO wrote could parse it as the childish, unprofessional flame that it's being described as.

A lot of people have a natural tendency to always side with the underdog regardless of the facts of the situation, especially when it's one guy vs. any sort of institution (a company, school, whatever). That probably says something nice about humanity, but it doesn't make it any truthier.

You seem to have a natural tendency to side with the authority figure which is just as bad if not worse :)

How did you jump to the conclusion the CEO's version "was just the facts"? You seem to be saying because he is the boss that he is being factual and the employee inherently was not.

The CEO's spin might be the facts but it would be impossible for anyone who wasn't there to know. That's why an employer wouldn't normally air stuff like this in public, its one person's word against another, and the liability risks are steep.

I'm not basing my comments on which one of the two parties was being truthful, they might both think they are. You would have to do an indepth analysis of the employees performance, and the circumstances of his termination to know for sure.

I'm saying it was really poor judgement for a powerful employer to unload on a relateively powerless former employee, and air what should have been confidential HR information in public like that. If I were applying for a job with the guy I would think twice about working for someone willing to savage an employee in public like that. If I was on his board I'd sure think twice about whether he is the right person for a CEO job.

Privacy? Why would privacy law say an employer can't tell people you're unproductive?

I live in Alberta, Canada. The Personal Information Protection Act governs the use of personal information by the private sector. Companies are allowed to give references when asked, but I believe public posts such as these would be illegal under the act.

Even giving references can be an issue. The law states that the company must make an effort to make sure the information is accurate and complete. For subjective measurements, there may be argument over what is accurate. When my father was working, their lawyers recommended they not give any information other than confirming employment dates and duties for references.

Its perfectly legal given that the former employee aired the laundry publicly. Once you do that, people have the right to defend themselves, yadda yadda.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com