5 ms·

CEO rightly advised I don't think it's right at all. What gives him that right? Why is it morally wrong to do otherwise? What kind of right are you talking abo

by barrkel 10y ago

CEO rightly advised I don't think it's right at all. What gives him that right? Why is it morally wrong to do otherwise? What kind of right are you talking about?

exclusiv 10y ago
It was a fair request to have a key member link to GitLab. Employees can be told what to do. You don't have to comply, but when you get a fair request and you make a big deal of it - you have to be prepared for the consequences. Contractors - no you can't do that stuff; you can't tell them when or how to work... they have a lot of protections. The CEO request to change the link wasn't unreasonable. Why would a CEO want employees that aren't going to be champions of their own company they work for? However, I do think the author made fair requests to the CEO (like hiring Community Managers) and he might have been booted for not "falling in line". That's messed up. At the same time - he should probably disconnect himself from the emotions regarding the stock options and ask himself if it's a good deal financially. Seems like it to me.
- will_hughes 10y ago
  > It was a fair request to have a key member link to GitLab. This leads to situations like what Microsoft used to be (and perhaps still is) - that Everything Had To Be IE And Bing. There could be no acknowledgement of the other brand by name. > Employees can be told what to do. On company time, certainly. When representing the company, for sure. Even perhaps if it's sufficiently controversial where you're bringing the company into disrepute by association. But when none of that applies, then no.
  - exclusiv 10y ago
    It was a fair request. If you're CEO you try to rally your people. It wasn't a demand. The author had no reason to be stubborn about it. There were obviously other areas to be concerned about as I sided with the author on, but this wasn't one of them and it derails from the other arguments.
- barrkel 10y ago
  I think this is a cultural misunderstanding. An employer might tell me what to do while I'm at work, working on something that creates value for the company. Communicating with third parties out of work, when I'm not speaking for the company - I don't agree, unless it's actually illegal or harassing etc.
- pcvarmint 10y ago
  OP said he was a contractor, not an employee.
onli 10y ago
Especially if that is his private account, as he claimed. The CEO just has no business messing with that.
cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
If I was the CEO of Pepsi and saw my employee tweet how he likes Coke I would be pissed. Morality is subjective so nobody can say what's truly "right" or "wrong", but it is true that what this guy did was not a cool thing to do. And I can imagine just reading through his post what other things he probably may have done to result in him getting fired.
- syshum 10y ago
  Ahh so if you work for Dodge you can only buy a dodge?
  - cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
    no
  - FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
    My father worked for Chrysler and has only bought Chrysler cars. The lot at the HQ was filled with over 95%+ Chrysler cars. It's not a requirement, but it hints at not believing in the company you work for. Imagine the drama if Uber's CEO preferred to use Lyft. If you don't have confidence in the product, it implies that you are just there to collect a paycheck. The optics from an outsider is that you have no confidence in Gitlab and the work that you do. It looks especially bad considering Github is your direct competitor. Its like a member of the LA Lakers wearing a Boston Celtics jersey to warmups
    - zem 10y ago
      i've worked on lots of things where the internals presented interesting technical challenges, but where the product itself was nothing i would personally use. there's nothing wrong with that. sports teams are not a fair analogy; they're about loyalty and tribal affiliation, whereas work is about getting stuff done.
      - FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
whazor 10y ago
There is nothing illegal about giving a comment on someone's public tweet.

by barrkel 10y ago

CEO rightly advised I don't think it's right at all. What gives him that right? Why is it morally wrong to do otherwise? What kind of right are you talking about?

exclusiv 10y ago

It was a fair request to have a key member link to GitLab. Employees can be told what to do. You don't have to comply, but when you get a fair request and you make a big deal of it - you have to be prepared for the consequences. Contractors - no you can't do that stuff; you can't tell them when or how to work... they have a lot of protections. The CEO request to change the link wasn't unreasonable. Why would a CEO want employees that aren't going to be champions of their own company they work for? However, I do think the author made fair requests to the CEO (like hiring Community Managers) and he might have been booted for not "falling in line". That's messed up. At the same time - he should probably disconnect himself from the emotions regarding the stock options and ask himself if it's a good deal financially. Seems like it to me.

will_hughes 10y ago
> It was a fair request to have a key member link to GitLab. This leads to situations like what Microsoft used to be (and perhaps still is) - that Everything Had To Be IE And Bing. There could be no acknowledgement of the other brand by name. > Employees can be told what to do. On company time, certainly. When representing the company, for sure. Even perhaps if it's sufficiently controversial where you're bringing the company into disrepute by association. But when none of that applies, then no.
- exclusiv 10y ago
  It was a fair request. If you're CEO you try to rally your people. It wasn't a demand. The author had no reason to be stubborn about it. There were obviously other areas to be concerned about as I sided with the author on, but this wasn't one of them and it derails from the other arguments.
barrkel 10y ago
I think this is a cultural misunderstanding. An employer might tell me what to do while I'm at work, working on something that creates value for the company. Communicating with third parties out of work, when I'm not speaking for the company - I don't agree, unless it's actually illegal or harassing etc.
pcvarmint 10y ago
OP said he was a contractor, not an employee.

onli 10y ago

Especially if that is his private account, as he claimed. The CEO just has no business messing with that.

cocktailpeanuts 10y ago

If I was the CEO of Pepsi and saw my employee tweet how he likes Coke I would be pissed. Morality is subjective so nobody can say what's truly "right" or "wrong", but it is true that what this guy did was not a cool thing to do. And I can imagine just reading through his post what other things he probably may have done to result in him getting fired.

syshum 10y ago
Ahh so if you work for Dodge you can only buy a dodge?
- cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
  no
- FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
  My father worked for Chrysler and has only bought Chrysler cars. The lot at the HQ was filled with over 95%+ Chrysler cars. It's not a requirement, but it hints at not believing in the company you work for. Imagine the drama if Uber's CEO preferred to use Lyft. If you don't have confidence in the product, it implies that you are just there to collect a paycheck. The optics from an outsider is that you have no confidence in Gitlab and the work that you do. It looks especially bad considering Github is your direct competitor. Its like a member of the LA Lakers wearing a Boston Celtics jersey to warmups
  - zem 10y ago
    i've worked on lots of things where the internals presented interesting technical challenges, but where the product itself was nothing i would personally use. there's nothing wrong with that. sports teams are not a fair analogy; they're about loyalty and tribal affiliation, whereas work is about getting stuff done.
    - FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago

whazor 10y ago

There is nothing illegal about giving a comment on someone's public tweet.