3 ms·
In the sense that they are ultimately responsible for the business/brand, legal repercussions, etc. It's their baby - Jason's run it for 20+ years. Seems like t
by prawn 6y ago
In the sense that they are ultimately responsible for the business/brand, legal repercussions, etc. It's their baby - Jason's run it for 20+ years. Seems like they're effectively saying, by all means push your opinions on your private channels, and we'll do the same. Obviously if someone feels it's handled poorly, they bail (as some have), but I'm guessing the severance and political polarisation could be factors there?
If I'd founded something 20+ years ago (well, I have), and at some point a third of the business was putting work time into deciding HR policy that was alienating other staff, I'd be looking at resolving it too. I've worked for myself for 20+ years so can't be sure, but I haven't heard of anything like that equality-council from any friends working here in Australia. This situation might be more unique to current USA?
- ryanbrunner 6y agoI think 20+ people leaving demostrates that it's not solely theirs. When trust and confidence in a company's leaders erodes far enough, the business can not function effectively. They're also within their rights to say all employees will only make minimum wage, and that their products will now be marked up 1000%, but that doesn't mean employees or customers have to accept that.