4 ms·

Generally when there's a termination it's because there's a pattern, not a one-off thing. Edit: People who get fired want to believe that they did one "stupid"

Generally when there's a termination it's because there's a pattern, not a one-off thing. Edit: People who get fired want to believe that they did one "stupid" thing and it was "unfair" they were fired. Hiring a new person and training them up isn't exactly cheap, easy or straightforward. I realise there are exceptions but logic would tend to suggest that in most cases businesses don't fire people for one-off mistakes.

afandian 11y ago
Going by the way the rules were applied in the (somewhat mysterious original post) there's no reason to believe the rules are applied in this way.
- empressplay 11y ago
  The perspective of the post is from the person who was let go though. And I don't think that from their perspective they're lying or obfuscating, but perspective is a curious thing: it's different from person to person, and by necessity it favours the person who has it.
- ebola1717 11y ago
  Firing employees for minor things is bad for morale & causes high turnover. Especially in software, a company wouldn't want to fire engineers arbitrarily, since it's hard to train new ones & transfer an engineer's knowledge of the codebase. That makes me really doubt his claim that this was "like jaywalking."
  - empressplay 11y ago
    Especially if they're shown the door immediately and thus aren't available to train up their replacement. You lose domain knowledge and have to rely on a co-worker or manager to train up a new employee which isn't ideal.
metaphorm 11y ago
did you read the linked Quora post? it pretty explicitly details that Facebook has a whole list of zero-tolerance "violations" that they will fire you for doing even once, without warning.
- empressplay 11y ago
  Legally they need to be "zero-tolerance" policies in order to restrict people's ability to contest firings. But in practice it's expensive to hire people, so while zero-tolerance policies are used to terminate people, it's typically not their first offence (unless another employee has an actionable case related to the employee's behaviour.)
  - SeanDav 11y ago
    In the Quora article, there is a reply by an existing Facebook senior manager, who confirms the zero tolerance policy, even stating that people get fired at Facebook for accidentally breaking a policy they were either not aware of, or had forgotten about. Facebook really do apply the policy that ignorance of the law (rules) is not an excuse.
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  It claims Facebook has a bunch of zero-tolerance violations, but in the same sentence it states that commenting on clothes might be reported (which is very different from a zero-tolerance policy, and quite possibly intended to indicate that "loving the slutty tank top" still counts as sexual harassment even if it doesn't involve touching). Meanwhile, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11224057 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11224057 claims they have only one zero-tolerance policy, accessing user data. It seems at least as credible as an anonymous Quora post.
- kelukelugames 11y ago
  I suggest understanding Geller Mann amnesia effect. It's very true of Internet comments, especially about tech companies. “Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.” ― Michael Crichton
forgottenpass 11y ago
Generally when there's a termination it's because there's a pattern, not a one-off thing. Every system will contain components that can be reductivly described to sound on-the-face silly (like complimenting someone's clothing getting reported as harassment). The soundness of such a system relies on how closely tied the correction for that silliness is the expression of the silliness. For example, there was a post on reddit recently about a proposed anti-bestiality law that would outlaw animal husbandry. Of course the easy hand-wave acceptance of this is that cops and prosecutors would exercise their discretion in such a way that this wouldn't be a problem for farmers. But that's still a broken system. And should be mitigated if not fixed as closely to the source of the problem as possible. It's hard to see how the animial husbandry example could backfire, but imagine it's the CFAA which is more murky and politically charged. Or there were a zero-tolerance policy in place. Additionally, having clothing compliments in the class of things reported raises suspicion on an otherwise innocuous action. Basically EVERYTHING that happens at an office can be done in a way to harass someone, but treating one subset with more scrutiny like this raises the baseline apprehension around that activity.

afandian 11y ago

Going by the way the rules were applied in the (somewhat mysterious original post) there's no reason to believe the rules are applied in this way.

empressplay 11y ago
The perspective of the post is from the person who was let go though. And I don't think that from their perspective they're lying or obfuscating, but perspective is a curious thing: it's different from person to person, and by necessity it favours the person who has it.
ebola1717 11y ago
Firing employees for minor things is bad for morale & causes high turnover. Especially in software, a company wouldn't want to fire engineers arbitrarily, since it's hard to train new ones & transfer an engineer's knowledge of the codebase. That makes me really doubt his claim that this was "like jaywalking."
- empressplay 11y ago
  Especially if they're shown the door immediately and thus aren't available to train up their replacement. You lose domain knowledge and have to rely on a co-worker or manager to train up a new employee which isn't ideal.

metaphorm 11y ago

did you read the linked Quora post? it pretty explicitly details that Facebook has a whole list of zero-tolerance "violations" that they will fire you for doing even once, without warning.

empressplay 11y ago
Legally they need to be "zero-tolerance" policies in order to restrict people's ability to contest firings. But in practice it's expensive to hire people, so while zero-tolerance policies are used to terminate people, it's typically not their first offence (unless another employee has an actionable case related to the employee's behaviour.)
- SeanDav 11y ago
  In the Quora article, there is a reply by an existing Facebook senior manager, who confirms the zero tolerance policy, even stating that people get fired at Facebook for accidentally breaking a policy they were either not aware of, or had forgotten about. Facebook really do apply the policy that ignorance of the law (rules) is not an excuse.
ceejayoz 11y ago
It claims Facebook has a bunch of zero-tolerance violations, but in the same sentence it states that commenting on clothes might be reported (which is very different from a zero-tolerance policy, and quite possibly intended to indicate that "loving the slutty tank top" still counts as sexual harassment even if it doesn't involve touching). Meanwhile, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11224057 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11224057 claims they have only one zero-tolerance policy, accessing user data. It seems at least as credible as an anonymous Quora post.
kelukelugames 11y ago
I suggest understanding Geller Mann amnesia effect. It's very true of Internet comments, especially about tech companies. “Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.” ― Michael Crichton

forgottenpass 11y ago

Generally when there's a termination it's because there's a pattern, not a one-off thing. Every system will contain components that can be reductivly described to sound on-the-face silly (like complimenting someone's clothing getting reported as harassment). The soundness of such a system relies on how closely tied the correction for that silliness is the expression of the silliness. For example, there was a post on reddit recently about a proposed anti-bestiality law that would outlaw animal husbandry. Of course the easy hand-wave acceptance of this is that cops and prosecutors would exercise their discretion in such a way that this wouldn't be a problem for farmers. But that's still a broken system. And should be mitigated if not fixed as closely to the source of the problem as possible. It's hard to see how the animial husbandry example could backfire, but imagine it's the CFAA which is more murky and politically charged. Or there were a zero-tolerance policy in place. Additionally, having clothing compliments in the class of things reported raises suspicion on an otherwise innocuous action. Basically EVERYTHING that happens at an office can be done in a way to harass someone, but treating one subset with more scrutiny like this raises the baseline apprehension around that activity.