7 ms·

Here is the post: https://medium.com/@justin.zhen/deep-dive-into-weworks-user-base-as-hundreds-of-members-cancel-6b17d3be1d8b#.v1coy1bo9 https://medium.com/@ju

by us0r 10y ago

Here is the post: https://medium.com/@justin.zhen/deep-dive-into-weworks-user-base-as-hundreds-of-members-cancel-6b17d3be1d8b#.v1coy1bo9 https://medium.com/@justin.zhen/deep-dive-into-weworks-user-... http://archive.is/ou72L http://archive.is/ou72L Don't forget they are also suing an employee for talking to reporters: http://www.businessinsider.com/wework-is-suing-an-ex-employee-for-talking-to-reporters-2016-7 http://www.businessinsider.com/wework-is-suing-an-ex-employe... I'd say this is a pretty clear case of where there's smoke.....

jasonlotito 10y ago
Where do they provide a way to replicate their findings?
eridius 10y ago
It's not suing an employee for talking to reporters. That doesn't make sense. It's suing an employee for stealing confidential information.
- mikeryan 10y ago
  It's not suing an employee for talking to reporters. That doesn't make sense. Most company exits include an NDA clause which would prevent talking to reporters so the statement does make sense. Except you're totally right thats not what she's really being sued for.
  - falcolas 10y ago
    Such clauses only come into effect if you take the severance package. So, while you can say it's likely the employee was under a non-disparagement agreement, it's not a certainty.
    - bdcravens 10y ago
      Generally NDA refers to non-disclosure, not non-disparagement.
      - falcolas 10y ago
        Yes, but it's also generally a non-disparagement which would stop former employees from speaking negatively about their former company to the press.
kafkaesq 10y ago
They're suing an employee for (alleged) theft of proprietary documents, obtained through using the credentials of another employee. Not for "talking to reporters." This is a pretty clear case of where there's smoke... There's innuendo and hyperbole.
- wpietri 10y ago
  You're confusing motivation with legal cause of action. Yes, the suit talks about alleged document theft. But Us0r is talking about their intent in pursuing the suit. If WeWork decided to look for a reason to sue a former employee who made them look bad in the press, they would hardly be the first. But exactly none of those suits will say so, because that suit won't get far at all.
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    But Us0r is talking about their intent in pursuing the suit. Yeah, I got the part about WeWork's "intent" already and wasn't "confused" by it, as you so kindly suggest. My point is he's using manipulative language to get his point across, which I find distasteful.
    - wpietri 10y ago
      I'm not saying you misunderstood; I couldn't know that. I'm saying that in your reply you muddled them. When you say "it is A, not B", you're suggesting that one excludes the other. That's not the case; they're different things. If you don't like his language, I'd suggest you critique the language instead of contradicting him on a point of analysis.
      - kafkaesq 10y ago
        Look, it's the original commenter who used muddled (and misleading) language in the first place, not me. Whether their "analysis" or his "language" was more critique-worth is beside the point.

by us0r 10y ago

jasonlotito 10y ago

Where do they provide a way to replicate their findings?

eridius 10y ago

It's not suing an employee for talking to reporters. That doesn't make sense. It's suing an employee for stealing confidential information.

mikeryan 10y ago
It's not suing an employee for talking to reporters. That doesn't make sense. Most company exits include an NDA clause which would prevent talking to reporters so the statement does make sense. Except you're totally right thats not what she's really being sued for.
- falcolas 10y ago
  Such clauses only come into effect if you take the severance package. So, while you can say it's likely the employee was under a non-disparagement agreement, it's not a certainty.
  - bdcravens 10y ago
    Generally NDA refers to non-disclosure, not non-disparagement.
    - falcolas 10y ago
      Yes, but it's also generally a non-disparagement which would stop former employees from speaking negatively about their former company to the press.

kafkaesq 10y ago

They're suing an employee for (alleged) theft of proprietary documents, obtained through using the credentials of another employee. Not for "talking to reporters." This is a pretty clear case of where there's smoke... There's innuendo and hyperbole.

wpietri 10y ago
You're confusing motivation with legal cause of action. Yes, the suit talks about alleged document theft. But Us0r is talking about their intent in pursuing the suit. If WeWork decided to look for a reason to sue a former employee who made them look bad in the press, they would hardly be the first. But exactly none of those suits will say so, because that suit won't get far at all.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  But Us0r is talking about their intent in pursuing the suit. Yeah, I got the part about WeWork's "intent" already and wasn't "confused" by it, as you so kindly suggest. My point is he's using manipulative language to get his point across, which I find distasteful.
  - wpietri 10y ago
    I'm not saying you misunderstood; I couldn't know that. I'm saying that in your reply you muddled them. When you say "it is A, not B", you're suggesting that one excludes the other. That's not the case; they're different things. If you don't like his language, I'd suggest you critique the language instead of contradicting him on a point of analysis.
    - kafkaesq 10y ago
      Look, it's the original commenter who used muddled (and misleading) language in the first place, not me. Whether their "analysis" or his "language" was more critique-worth is beside the point.