7 ms·

Not defending the employee, who has clearly made a mistake, but to fire someone who may potentially be productive for a mistake they didn't directly make is a b

by osrec 9y ago

Not defending the employee, who has clearly made a mistake, but to fire someone who may potentially be productive for a mistake they didn't directly make is a bit harsh. I would never fire someone for a faux pas - that's the sort of action that makes all your employees fearful, anxious and eventually, unproductive.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
clintonb 9y ago
He wasn’t fired because the video ended up online. He was fired because he let her film the video. That was a direct action. As an outsider, I agree that this level of secrecy seems over the top. However, that is what the employees accept when they join, so it’s their obligation to hold up their end of the bargain.
- LeoPanthera 9y ago
  He did more than let her, he participated in the video, demonstrating animojis.
- AlphaSite 9y ago
  wasn't it at apple HQ as well?
- osrec 9y ago
  I get that, but in that case you could lay the blame with apple's security policy. Why did they allow a non employee in with a smartphone and tempt fate?!
  - dpark 9y ago
    > allow a non employee in with a smartphone I don't think Apple engaging in TSA-type security and patting down everyone to make sure they aren't carrying a cell phone is a good alternative. And if you're going to say that they wouldn't enforce the ban, just have a policy, then I'll ask why that policy would work when the existing one didn't.
fullshark 9y ago
The calculus is worth it in their estimation, if it prevents a similar (or worse) leak in the future.
SamReidHughes 9y ago
It's the sort of action that keeps other employees from being lackadaisical about security. This sort of move is actually good for morale.
- mquander 9y ago
  Indeed, if you expect intelligent people to follow stupid rules, you need to be sure to give them a lot of "morale".
  - scarface74 9y ago
    What's stupid about a rule saying "don't publicize unreleased products and trade secrets"?

by osrec 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

clintonb 9y ago

He wasn’t fired because the video ended up online. He was fired because he let her film the video. That was a direct action. As an outsider, I agree that this level of secrecy seems over the top. However, that is what the employees accept when they join, so it’s their obligation to hold up their end of the bargain.

LeoPanthera 9y ago
He did more than let her, he participated in the video, demonstrating animojis.
AlphaSite 9y ago
wasn't it at apple HQ as well?
osrec 9y ago
I get that, but in that case you could lay the blame with apple's security policy. Why did they allow a non employee in with a smartphone and tempt fate?!
- dpark 9y ago
  > allow a non employee in with a smartphone I don't think Apple engaging in TSA-type security and patting down everyone to make sure they aren't carrying a cell phone is a good alternative. And if you're going to say that they wouldn't enforce the ban, just have a policy, then I'll ask why that policy would work when the existing one didn't.

fullshark 9y ago

The calculus is worth it in their estimation, if it prevents a similar (or worse) leak in the future.

SamReidHughes 9y ago

It's the sort of action that keeps other employees from being lackadaisical about security. This sort of move is actually good for morale.

mquander 9y ago
Indeed, if you expect intelligent people to follow stupid rules, you need to be sure to give them a lot of "morale".
- scarface74 9y ago
  What's stupid about a rule saying "don't publicize unreleased products and trade secrets"?