Relevant context: https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2iea97/i_am_a_former_r...
From the NYT: "That incident, according to people close to the company, made some of Reddit’s current employees uncomfortable."
From the NYT: "That incident, according to people close to the company, made some of Reddit’s current employees uncomfortable."
Companies have to act and usually act quickly, handling a public issue privately, no matter how successfully, would leave a lingering impression of "Yahoo hires just about anyone with a fake diploma" or "Uber drivers beat up passengers with hammers as often as they please".
The response lacks all proportionality. A former employee is saying mildly critical things about you in a public forum? Ok, I don't think anyone is really going to mistake that kind of rumormongering for gospel. Destroying that person's future employment prospects from on high is not only unnecessarily cruel, it also creates a story where there wasn't one before. We never would have heard about the thread if he hadn't done this. It certainly never would have made the mainstream news.
He could have said nothing. He could have sent the employee a private legal warning. Or he could have posted a nice non-response to indicate that they saw the thread, but as a company staffed by adults Reddit is above that kind of name-calling. He did the opposite and looked like a child.
In addition to being really poor form, his response very likely opens the company up to a lawsuit. If I were the besmirched fired employee, god forbid, I would immediately be contacting an employment attorney.
He also publicly spoke out about someone's work ethic and performance of which we're only getting one side of the story anyway. If his real name is associated with his reddit profile then future employers will see the CEO of a public internet company lambasting him. Whether it's deserved or not at the time is irrelevant; there are plenty of people who, for one reason or another, do terrible at a job and later are highly valued. This could ruin any attempt at redemption.
I call it "thinking with your tattoos". People simply aren't cognizant that decisions and actions have long-term consequences. You may really want that tattoo on your face, but it will make you virtually unemployable for the rest of your life. They're simply unable to project out complex interactions of consequences, their brain simply can't do the calculus or views it as overstimulus or something simply filters out everything to do with long-term planning and executive function.
In the U.S. it does, since untruth is a required element of libel.
The employer would have to prove it's true in a suit hence my comment. Paper trails are king.
The CEO has a right-of-reply and a duty to protect the reputation of the company against accusations, and he fairly exercised that right.
There was no slanging match, and the response consisted of a single post amongst hundreds in that thread.
I don't see a problem with having both positions made public after the ex-employee initiated the public confrontation. As always The truth is probably going to lie somewhere in the middle.