3 ms·
At very least the action is something to point to, and maintain reputation. Almost 5 years ago a hostile employer did this to me and since then most of my huge
by harlanji 6y ago
At very least the action is something to point to, and maintain reputation. Almost 5 years ago a hostile employer did this to me and since then most of my huge former network built over 15+ years have stopped associating with me and are starting to assume I’m mentally ill and hung up on it, but in truth I simply can’t work anymore due to the reference check process having been compromised and former associates lacking support.
I’m now forced to go through legal channels to clear my name. If I can get an acknowledgement of their mistake then life will get much easier to explain. Too bad about the content, non-apology, but I’d not undetestimate the act alone.
- marcinzm 6y agoExcept their apology doesn't do what you're saying as it doesn't say he was innocent or that he didn't violate the CoC. It simply says they didn't fully follow their process and that if he wants to appeal the board will hear it. As I read it he is still considered guilty unless the board accepts the appeal. edit: And since he seems too emotionally exhausted by this to deal with it further there will possibly be no appeal filed and thus he will stay guilty by default.
- harlanji 6y agoWhat I’m saying is that the statement “and they apologized” is true and very significant. It’s extremely uncommon to get that much. Picturing a job interview scenario. People are all emotion and that fragment does the job. Not picturing IRC with a bunch of invested people here, in which case yes, your point is logically valid there.
- marcinzm 6y agoIn my experience the people doing the interview are not at all emotional during a job interview. They're coldly cautious if anything. So an apology that isn't a full retraction won't matter since the person is still a potential risk in their eyes.