6 ms·

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 m

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.

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.