3 ms·
Yep, that's what I'm worried about here. If the guy were accused of inappropriate conduct at Uber, his current employer, then it's entirely appropriate for the
by Arizhel 10y ago
Yep, that's what I'm worried about here. If the guy were accused of inappropriate conduct at Uber, his current employer, then it's entirely appropriate for the HR department to investigate and decide to fire him.
But firing someone for allegations of something that happened at a previous employer, where there is no possible way the current employer's HR department can investigate it, seems entirely wrong. This means that someone can be wrongfully accused of something by some vengeful former employer/boss, and never get a job again because they'll be blacklisted. It is not unusual for employers to badmouth their former employees.
- msabalau 10y agoAccording to the article he left for failing to disclose the circumstances of his departure from Google. The article further documents that he acknowledges that he left under this cloud. As the article notes "having Singhal at the head of an organization under siege over sexual harassment issues when he was not candid with Uber over his departure from Google was considered untenable." It is hard to see that this is generalizable to the circumstances of typical employees.
- anigbrowl 10y agoIf he was falsely accused by Google then he could have filed a lawsuit against them to clear his reputation. It is fact very unusual for prior employers to badmouth an ex-employee, which is why firms usually limit their communications to confirming the fact of someone's prior employment between certain dates but not making any other public statements.