3 ms·
My guess is that if they viewed him as important they can try to establish that they should have known he was doing what he was doing, instead of going behind G
by SOLAR_FIELDS 9y ago
My guess is that if they viewed him as important they can try to establish that they should have known he was doing what he was doing, instead of going behind Google's back and doing this without their knowledge. If he was that important to the company (by virtue of his pay), then it's easier to try to establish that Google was somewhat negligently not paying attention to a "top employee"
- unityByFreedom 9y agoor show that the employee was more prized than any stolen documents, thus downplaying the significance of the documents
- Qwertious 9y agoAn obvious response to that is "we also gave him lots of autonomy, because not having to deal with bureaucracy is a perk".