In Ontario, management have fewer protections under the law than rank-and-file employees. For example, it is illegal to fire a rank-and-file employee just for e

In Ontario, management have fewer protections under the law than rank-and-file employees. For example, it is illegal to fire a rank-and-file employee just for exploring other job options. If they look for a job on their own time and equipment, that's their business and they can't be fired for this alone. Managers are entitled to no such protection. A manager is considered to be a more vital component of the company's value, and as such the act of seeking another job without negotiating this in advance with your current employer is considered a breach of your obligations to the company even if you do so on your own time. There's some fuzziness involved. Is a team lead considered a manager or a senior developer with some project management responsibilities? Is an Architecture Astronaut with no reports but crucial IP responsibility entitled to job hunt without permission? Getting back to this situation, my point is that there is a difference between the obligations of a CEO and the obligations of a rank-and-file employee. Laws erected to protect employees at the expense of the company shouldn't apply to CEOs. Obviously, California's laws are whatever they are for whatever reason. But even if Mark's actions are technically legal, I consider them wrong in every way shape and form. In fact, debating the legality of his actions is ridiculous for me. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I consider it a worthwhile pursuit to argue what a law can be interpreted to mean with flagrant disregard for the moral ideal. Morally, I find this repugnant.