5 ms·

> And she was under the impression that her company would value her so much that, not only they wouldn't take the first "clean" opportunity to let her go, but t

> And she was under the impression that her company would value her so much that, not only they wouldn't take the first "clean" opportunity to let her go, but that they'd want her to stay so much that she could leverage it? In a realpolitik sense you are probably right. But right now I'm going through standard onboarding training and they are VERY explicit that it's not supposed to work this way, and that you are not supposed to retaliate or exclude someone because they make complaints or take actions based on the defense of a protected group (including themselves).

woko 6y ago
You are right, but off-topic in this specific context. Indeed, it was neither retaliation, nor exclusion. She offered her employer a "clean" opportunity to let her go, and they accepted it. It will be difficult for her lawyers to prove that she was let go as a retaliation, which it is not. The only thing which is apparent is that her employer did not value her work as much as she thought, so that her demands and her threat to resign (and the tarnishment of the Google brand because of the Twitter threads which she would write about it) would actually turn into a "clean" opportunity to let her go. That is what happens when you are supposed to negotiate, and go the confrontational way. You have to estimate your leverage accurately before the full-blown war, otherwise it is a blitzkrieg.
- ianbicking 6y ago
  There is "legally liable for retaliation" and "morally liable". I think you are right, they aren't legally liable. I personally try not to be morally liable for an injustice, even if my actions are legally defensible, and I expect the same from the people I work with. I think many people at Google feel similarly, which is why the question of legal liability will not settle the matter internally. But yeah, another lesson from this: never offer to quit.

woko 6y ago

You are right, but off-topic in this specific context. Indeed, it was neither retaliation, nor exclusion. She offered her employer a "clean" opportunity to let her go, and they accepted it. It will be difficult for her lawyers to prove that she was let go as a retaliation, which it is not. The only thing which is apparent is that her employer did not value her work as much as she thought, so that her demands and her threat to resign (and the tarnishment of the Google brand because of the Twitter threads which she would write about it) would actually turn into a "clean" opportunity to let her go. That is what happens when you are supposed to negotiate, and go the confrontational way. You have to estimate your leverage accurately before the full-blown war, otherwise it is a blitzkrieg.

ianbicking 6y ago
There is "legally liable for retaliation" and "morally liable". I think you are right, they aren't legally liable. I personally try not to be morally liable for an injustice, even if my actions are legally defensible, and I expect the same from the people I work with. I think many people at Google feel similarly, which is why the question of legal liability will not settle the matter internally. But yeah, another lesson from this: never offer to quit.