4 ms·
the reverse is also true: companies that work in bad faith don't deserve employees. They exist to employ people so that they can sell product. If the company's
by chadlavi 7y ago
the reverse is also true: companies that work in bad faith don't deserve employees. They exist to employ people so that they can sell product. If the company's not going to be a team player, then there are billions of other tech companies its employees might choose to go work for.
See Deadspin for an example of the inverse of what you're calling for: people sticking to their guns and letting a company go for conflicts like this.
TLDR: it's really unwise for a company to fire people for disagreeing with its controversial choices. It's a great way to accidentally damage your brand and lose a lot of staff to competitors.
- whalesalad 7y ago> See Deadspin for an example of the inverse The Deadspin situation is in complete alignment with my original comment. One person was let go and a ton of other people left becuase they weren't going to put up with the same BS any more. Deadspin is better off, they can continue to do whatever it is they are doing and it is either going to work or they'll fizzle out and die. Employees are better off because they can go seek a different environment where they are happy.
- chadlavi 7y agothe "Deadspin is better off" part is what I disagree with.