4 ms·
Reading the discussion, it appears this policy was due to a customer request, and not some legal requirement. I wonder how the HN crowd feels about that? There
by iiertiosas 7y ago
Reading the discussion, it appears this policy was due to a customer request, and not some legal requirement.
I wonder how the HN crowd feels about that? There was a lot of talk recently about how companies should not sacrifice their values and kowtow to the demands of large clients.
As a company that values freedom of movement and is remote first, this prevents their employees from moving to where they want. Does this also mean they can’t vacation there either?
- larkeith 7y ago> Does this also mean they can’t vacation there either? No, the post is fairly explicit about what the proposed block is. While I agree with the position that companies should avoid trading ethics for short-term profit, this is a move I hesitate to condemn - the cost is fairly minimal (their remote-first position is still quite generous), and there is much to be said for the increase in privacy and security this provides their customers.
- slackfan 7y agoCompletely dumb that it even came up to this level of discussion. Fire that contract & opportunity into the sun and move on with your life.