3 ms·
Because the entire reason for hiring someone like this is to find issues with what you're doing and stop them. The entire position is a pre-emptive move to sto
by tw04 6y ago
Because the entire reason for hiring someone like this is to find issues with what you're doing and stop them. The entire position is a pre-emptive move to stop government from stepping in to regulate the company. If you fire the person the second they talk about something they feel you're doing wrong, it kind of defeats the entire purpose (IMO).
You literally hired this person to the e-brake on your AI program and then fire them when they tell you it's time to stop.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this particular firing, but there's a very good reason for the company to employ someone who publicly disagrees with the way a particular department is being run or a decision they've made.
Candidly: this would be another example of why unions exist. Just because you publicly disagree with the company doesn't mean they should have carte blanche to fire you.
- iab 6y agoExactly - your last paragraph is the crux for me. They could have been fired for no reason, and no notice under the most common at-will agreements. The system does not favor employees at all, and I wish we were all more angry at that.
- hansvm 6y agoIs the problem that you can be let go at any time or that if that happens at an inopportune moment you can lose everything? With better social safety nets we (in the USA) wouldn't have to tie our well-being to a Lovecraftian body of law entangling employment with every other aspect of our lives, and it wouldn't be a big deal in the first place if employment ended.