5 ms·

>At the time, Vandermeyden said she was hopeful her lawsuit and public comments would not end her career at the company. How could she honestly expect to keep

>At the time, Vandermeyden said she was hopeful her lawsuit and public comments would not end her career at the company. How could she honestly expect to keep her job with an employer she is sueing and smearing in the media? Why would she even want to continue working there?

randomguy23 9y ago
because maybe it was a ploy to get a better raise? who knows. you're right, though - if the allegations were true, why continue to work there?
- matt4077 9y ago
  > if the allegations were true, why continue to work there? That question is probably easier to answer for Tesla than for any other company: It's the place to be if you're any engineer with an interest in renewable energy. It'd be a tragedy to tell people they have to chose between freedom from sexual harassment and fulfilling their professional aspirations.
- softawre 9y ago
  Heh, quite the ploy to get a raise. Takes the whole "get another offer" plan and turns it up to 11.
matt4077 9y ago
Her employer is a company. Companies don't have the emotions people have. In large organisations, the effect of employee lawsuits may even be beneficial, because it allows for a mechanism to escalate serious issues before they become even worse, while the high barriers in terms of cost, emotional burden etc. serve to discourage frivolous complaints.
- tertius 9y ago
  > Companies don't have the emotions people have. You forget, companies solely consist of people and are solely owned by people. It's a legal vehicle. People, of which companies consist, have feelings and emotions.
- saiya-jin 9y ago
  Have you ever actually worked anywhere? Any place I've seen, from 3 man job to 100,000+ multinational megacorps, many people take some things personally, be it regular workers or managers. It's actually more rare to see cold hard logical-only approach, even in IT. The other part of your comment - again, nice on paper, but never seen this in real life, at least not in big companies.
- shard972 9y ago
  I'm no fan of Telsa but I feel like any large company with a decent PR team would be a little anxious with an employee suing you and talking publicly about it. It's their job to make the company look good so it would seem logical they would want to try and get this water under the bridge. If they thought it was valid, it seems the PR team would push for settlement without admitting wrongdoing but if they really do believe she is out on a limb, firing her does seems like the go to option and let it go to court to try and clear the charge.
amelius 9y ago
Perhaps if the people responsible for the problems were fired instead?
- rando444 9y ago
  You don't even know that they did anything wrong.
  - amelius 9y ago
    I was speaking from the perspective of the female engineer.
    - greenokapi 9y ago
      But we should these things based on evidence, not just accusations. Its very hard from a legal perspective to establish "beyond reasonable doubt" (or even "preponderance of evidence") with just the word of one person. You would probably need something else too.
- btian 9y ago
  She talked to the press when her allegations were found to be unmerited. Who's responsible for the problems again?
  - NotSammyHagar 9y ago
    Some companies lie about discrimination, so we can't know as outsiders whether she was lying, or tesla was lying. Either is possible.
  - kafkaesq 9y ago
    She talked to the press when her allegations were found to be unmerited. When the company "said" they were unmerited, that is.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> How could she honestly expect to keep her job with an employer she is sueing and smearing in the media? Well, she might think that the company would be loath to compound it's legal issue by illegally retaliating against her for the harassment claims. (And it's illegal to retaliate for such a claim made in good faith even if the complained-about conduct does not actually create liability for harassment, so Tesla could potentially be liable for retaliation even if not liable for harassment.)
kafkaesq 9y ago
Why would she even want to continue working there? Because she's not independently wealthy. And she's perfectly aware of the negative impact on prospective employers' willingness to hire here -- until and unless she's fully vindicated, at the end.

randomguy23 9y ago

because maybe it was a ploy to get a better raise? who knows. you're right, though - if the allegations were true, why continue to work there?

matt4077 9y ago
> if the allegations were true, why continue to work there? That question is probably easier to answer for Tesla than for any other company: It's the place to be if you're any engineer with an interest in renewable energy. It'd be a tragedy to tell people they have to chose between freedom from sexual harassment and fulfilling their professional aspirations.
softawre 9y ago
Heh, quite the ploy to get a raise. Takes the whole "get another offer" plan and turns it up to 11.

matt4077 9y ago

Her employer is a company. Companies don't have the emotions people have. In large organisations, the effect of employee lawsuits may even be beneficial, because it allows for a mechanism to escalate serious issues before they become even worse, while the high barriers in terms of cost, emotional burden etc. serve to discourage frivolous complaints.

tertius 9y ago
> Companies don't have the emotions people have. You forget, companies solely consist of people and are solely owned by people. It's a legal vehicle. People, of which companies consist, have feelings and emotions.
saiya-jin 9y ago
Have you ever actually worked anywhere? Any place I've seen, from 3 man job to 100,000+ multinational megacorps, many people take some things personally, be it regular workers or managers. It's actually more rare to see cold hard logical-only approach, even in IT. The other part of your comment - again, nice on paper, but never seen this in real life, at least not in big companies.
shard972 9y ago
I'm no fan of Telsa but I feel like any large company with a decent PR team would be a little anxious with an employee suing you and talking publicly about it. It's their job to make the company look good so it would seem logical they would want to try and get this water under the bridge. If they thought it was valid, it seems the PR team would push for settlement without admitting wrongdoing but if they really do believe she is out on a limb, firing her does seems like the go to option and let it go to court to try and clear the charge.

amelius 9y ago

Perhaps if the people responsible for the problems were fired instead?

rando444 9y ago
You don't even know that they did anything wrong.
- amelius 9y ago
  I was speaking from the perspective of the female engineer.
  - greenokapi 9y ago
    But we should these things based on evidence, not just accusations. Its very hard from a legal perspective to establish "beyond reasonable doubt" (or even "preponderance of evidence") with just the word of one person. You would probably need something else too.
btian 9y ago
She talked to the press when her allegations were found to be unmerited. Who's responsible for the problems again?
- NotSammyHagar 9y ago
  Some companies lie about discrimination, so we can't know as outsiders whether she was lying, or tesla was lying. Either is possible.
- kafkaesq 9y ago
  She talked to the press when her allegations were found to be unmerited. When the company "said" they were unmerited, that is.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> How could she honestly expect to keep her job with an employer she is sueing and smearing in the media? Well, she might think that the company would be loath to compound it's legal issue by illegally retaliating against her for the harassment claims. (And it's illegal to retaliate for such a claim made in good faith even if the complained-about conduct does not actually create liability for harassment, so Tesla could potentially be liable for retaliation even if not liable for harassment.)

kafkaesq 9y ago

Why would she even want to continue working there? Because she's not independently wealthy. And she's perfectly aware of the negative impact on prospective employers' willingness to hire here -- until and unless she's fully vindicated, at the end.