2 ms·

> I don't see this as a negative thing having witnessed someone terminated before in part due to misalignment with values. It can be a very useful tool for gett

by cyphar 10y ago

> I don't see this as a negative thing having witnessed someone terminated before in part due to misalignment with values. It can be a very useful tool for getting rid of someone who is quite obviously causing damage but might be hard to get rid of for other causes. That's just the Al Capone argument. Should we have insane tax laws that everyone has broken at some point just so that the state can send the "right person" to jail? Should we allow planting of contraband on the "right suspect" because if they didn't have anything on them today you're making up for when they'll have something on them tomorrow? Holding a 5 tonne weight over everyone's head is no way to foster a good culture. You're just forcing people to live in fear of unjust reprimands.

shostack 10y ago
That's a bit of an extreme comparison, no? FWIW, the values were pretty clear on this point, and it was pretty apparent to all (not just management) that the change needed to happen. And again, it was just in part due to this. There were other reasons. There was no real sense from anyone I knew that the values were being unreasonably held over people's heads or that they were asking too much.
- cyphar 10y ago
  I can accept that it probably worked out in your case. It also worked out in the Al Capone case. The problem is that it's the wrong way of solving the issue, and could cause unjust carrying out of the rules. Because if everyone has broken the rules, then you have lost your effective ability to do anything in fear of reprimand. It's very reminiscent of thoughtcrime. Which is why I have a problem with it.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
r_smart 10y ago
There's a huge distinction here you overlook: Private enterprises vs the government. Honestly, I think it should be fairly easy for companies to let people go, and ideally we worry more about making sure they do a good job of offering severance rather then forcing them to continue to employee people that are damaging the business. Then businesses don't need to just this kind of indirect foolishness, they can just let people go. Absolutely the government shouldn't be doing the things you describe.

by cyphar 10y ago

shostack 10y ago

That's a bit of an extreme comparison, no? FWIW, the values were pretty clear on this point, and it was pretty apparent to all (not just management) that the change needed to happen. And again, it was just in part due to this. There were other reasons. There was no real sense from anyone I knew that the values were being unreasonably held over people's heads or that they were asking too much.

cyphar 10y ago
I can accept that it probably worked out in your case. It also worked out in the Al Capone case. The problem is that it's the wrong way of solving the issue, and could cause unjust carrying out of the rules. Because if everyone has broken the rules, then you have lost your effective ability to do anything in fear of reprimand. It's very reminiscent of thoughtcrime. Which is why I have a problem with it.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

r_smart 10y ago

There's a huge distinction here you overlook: Private enterprises vs the government. Honestly, I think it should be fairly easy for companies to let people go, and ideally we worry more about making sure they do a good job of offering severance rather then forcing them to continue to employee people that are damaging the business. Then businesses don't need to just this kind of indirect foolishness, they can just let people go. Absolutely the government shouldn't be doing the things you describe.