12 ms·

I'll accept that what the author posted is the truth. Atlassian did not give him what he wanted or needed. And now this battle is public, he will never get anyt

• helloguillecl 5y ago
  And now tell us, how would the rest of us know how working for X it's like? Should we just rely on their HR marketing? By keeping it quiet, the company would be simply getting away with their unjust practices and unprofessional management. If it's clear that the company cannot see that they are doing something wrong... you'd be keeping it quiet to get exactly what from them?
  • sjtindell 5y ago
    I agree with both you and the above commenter. Perhaps it is optimal to keep quiet for yourself, but optimal for the group if none of us keep quiet. A tough problem.
    • bserge 5y ago
      Keep quiet on your real identity and use the anonymity of the Internet to share everything. Just be careful so it can't be traced back to you. That can be pretty limiting, but it's better than nothing.
    • barneygale 5y ago
      I really don't see the point of existing unless we try to make the world a better place. Props to OP for posting this.
      • throwaway675309 5y ago
        Trying to make the world better is a laudable goal but let's not pretend that there is some intrinsic "point" to existence. A point to existence almost implies that you chose to exist in the first place.
  • SkipperCat 5y ago
    His first duty is to his family, so he should have done anything within the bounds of morality to get as much time/money/aid for his wife. That's why I say take the path of privacy to get a settlement. Also, this isn't an issue of a company doing something illegal or immoral. We are not talking slave labor or dumping toxic chemicals. This is an argument over compensation levels and therefore I don't think he owes the world his story for the cost of making himself a pariah.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    • helloguillecl 5y ago
      Oh I think we read different articles. This is about deception that company used to sell themselves as better places to work than they actually are. Knowingly missrepresenting the working condition is exactly that: immoral. INAL but is see no way this would damage his legal leverage... actually the opposite.
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      • TeMPOraL 5y ago
        > INAL but is see no way this would damage his legal leverage... actually the opposite. IANAL either, but I imagine posting this gives an opening for Atlassian to sue for slander and ruin the author by taking forever to debate minutiae of every sentence in the article - whereas if the author went after Atlassian directly, the case would be only about what the company did or did not do to them personally.
        • adolph 5y ago
          “I’m not f---ing around with this, and I’m not continuing to play games,” Avenatti told Nike reps, according to court papers. “You guys know enough now to know you’ve got a serious problem. And it’s worth more in exposure to me to just blow the lid on this thing. A few million dollars doesn’t move the needle for me.” https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/michael-avenatti-guilty-all-counts-nike-extortion-case-n1137106 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/michael-avenatti-guilty...
  • fullstackwife 5y ago
    It's better to not extrapolate it on entire company (a dozen of offices, thousands of employees worldwide, different policies per continent or country).
  • errantspark 5y ago
    This person is giving advice from the PoV of an individual comfortable with playing zero sum or even negative sum games as long as they are able to continue winning. Don't be like this, don't corrode the commons for personal gain. By not speaking out you are endorsing a harmful asymmetry, make no mistake about your personal responsibility for perpetuating hostile norms.
    • outworlder 5y ago
      I would normally agree _IF_ the person didn't already have to deal with his wife's cancer. Under the US health system no less. Some other reason? Meh, it's just a job. But getting thrown into distress, financial or otherwise, warrants looking out for oneself (and family) first. Choose your battles.
      • rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
        The more the collective situation worsen, the worst all individual cases go. You're advocating a vicious cycle, or I can't see a possible equilibrium.
        • wokwokwok 5y ago
          I think that as long as in general folk do the right thing, if a few folk “unfairly” do the wrong thing because of extenuating circumstances like having cancer (or a family member having that or something else serious)… well, that’s ok. Calling for universal absolute behaviour from everyone is unkind, and, statistically not necessary for the outcomes you want. Basically; it’s easy to say “call them out!” when it’s not you and youre not taking any risks. Pretty nice and comfortable to sit in your armchair and say that… I think there are a lot of people here to want someone else to do it, but aren’t willing to do it themselves.
  • ohazi 5y ago
    You can inform the company (through your lawyer) that their options are a settlement with you in exchange for keeping quiet, or public airing of dirty laundry. The company can then decide if the settlement amount is worth the PR hit. You don't do this out of the goodness of your heart to inform other people how bad the company is, you do this purely to maximize the probability of receiving any sort of compensation from the company. Most people (?) would only consider this route if they genuinely feel that the company has egregiously wronged them, because it's a big, low-probability-of-success pain, and airing dirty laundry is easier and often more cathartic. If you have already decided that informing other people is more important to you than a settlement (or have concluded that the effort is not worth your while), then fine, you've made a different decision, and perhaps the commons are better as a result. But if you decide to air the dirty laundry, you'll usually lose the ability to change your mind later.
    • quantumBerry 5y ago
      >You inform the company (through your lawyer) that their options are a settlement with you in exchange for keeping quiet, or public airing of dirty laundry That sounds like blackmail/extortion. I'm not a lawyer, but the first amendment should protect you pretty well from merely making truthful accusations, but once you threaten money in exchange for not making them it could be construed as a very serious crime.
      • MaxBarraclough 5y ago
        Also not a lawyer, but isn't it relatively common for someone to get a payday on condition of not making something public?
        • jaywalk 5y ago
          Absolutely. But you're not getting that payday through a threat (extortion) you're getting it through a mutual agreement.
          • MaxBarraclough 5y ago
  • ISL 5y ago
    For truly egregious conduct, one can avail themselves of the state attorney-general. They have resources and tools that every company must respect. At least in Washington State, there are also mandated exceptions to all company's non-disclosure agreements for this purpose (I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice). GP's statement has a lot of merit. Going on the attack against a well-resourced opponent should only be considered after long and deliberate consultation with legal counsel. Even if you don't involve an attorney, your opponent may/will. Attorneys are expensive and proceedings may take far longer than someone who believes themselves to be in the right may expect. The system is imperfect, but it abstracts conflict to a higher and more-deliberate plane than bludgeoning one another with sticks or urging a mob to pick up torches.
  • lhorie 5y ago
    Are you just expressing cynicism or are you actually interested? If the latter, you can just talk to insiders. I had a somewhat curious personal experience at Uber. I went to interview there circa 2016/2017 and got an offer but had to wait for a visa to come out. In the meantime, the Susan Fowler scandal exploded. The hiring manager reached out to me out of his own accord to express his own outrage and how he'd absolutely not tolerate toxic behavior within his area of reach, and that many others within the company shared that feeling. Turns out he was right: the team I eventually joined was fantastic and indeed there was a very large part of the company that was deeply troubled (and often quite vocal!) about the growing accounts of harassment and injustices. Driven by pressure to get the house in order, this eventually culminated in hundreds of separate investigations, and various degrees of corrective actions (including firing several perpetrators) Since then, I've heard my share of complaints about higher ups as well (being in a role that involves quite a bit of cross-department communication), so it's not like it's all rainbows and roses, but my main point is that if you ask the average joe in a company, they're often happy to be straightforward with you.
    • helloguillecl 5y ago
      Funny that you mention Susan Fowler, because she acted the same way for the commons. I'd be probably not be speaking about toxic behaviour with a hiring manager, during a high-stake hiring process. Maybe you wouldn't have either if it wasn't for her whistleblowing.
      • lhorie 5y ago
        Yes, to be clear, I hugely respect people like Fowler and others who come forth from vulnerable positions to shed light into problems. IMHO, the cleaning house at Uber was largely thanks to her. FWIW, I'm involved with hiring and have on occasion been asked by candidates about company culture (and in one case, specifically about the Fowler case). I try to be as candid and transparent as possible with these sorts of topics, because that just seems like the natural thing to do.
  • jsf01 5y ago
    On anonymous review sites like Glassdoor. Companies care about their reputation on there yet employees who post are fairly protected by anonymity.
    • quantumBerry 5y ago
      I have done this for a company who was knowingly making materially false information to investors. The company merely asked glassdoor to remove it, and they did. It's probably not worth the liability to glassdoor to have reviews that actually show material deficiencies in a company, like lying about benefits. I've also done this on yelp when I was working as a contractor when I should have been an employee. The company informed yelp I was an employee, so my review was removed (yelp only has a policy employees cannot leave reviews, they had no such policy for independent contractors at the time I left the review). This was doubly insulting because I tried to inform yelp the entire reason I left a review was because I _should_ have been an employee and not a contractor, and yelp informed me I was actually an employee so I could not use their platform! I also disagree about it being a career ender to publicly reveal serious dishonesty in your employer. The company I work for now usually laughs when I talk about all the shit I've been through and spoken of ( I worked for two very dishonest companies, out of the dozen or so I've been with). If you work for honest people, then they have a vested interest in the dishonest being exposed (its good for their business).
• mc32 5y ago
  Agreed. Employers want to keep things as quiet as possible and will settle and stay out of court even if your chances are very slim because a one time payout is cheaper than gathering evidence, assembling lawyers, sapping admin time, etc. Unless you go big and then they will take you to court and most likely you’ll lose because you don’t have lawyers on retainer nor the bank. Then, even if you win, now you’re persona non grata for most HR departments because typically only particular personalities will take on a company and the chances of you being unpredictable are calculated to have gone up. So make sure it’s a retirement payout as your chances for employment went down. So, unless it’s something egregious and utterly wrong, take your losses and walk away with a quiet settlement.
  • babycake 5y ago
    And that's why tech needs a union. You'll always lose as an employee, on your own.
• reginold 5y ago
  Playing the zero sum game, yes. Upvoting because I think it's important to talk about this, not because I agree. Appreciate everyone else's responses around this being a dark pattern where "bad publicity" gets paid off. How do we incentivize companies to hire people like this? How do as I founder say "I want people like this so that our company is strong, not weak like Shitlassian?" Is there a role for more anonymity on the internet?
  • kelnos 5y ago
    I think smaller companies might value this sort of thing, but once a company gets large enough to have a big HR department where recruiting reports to HR, people like this get automatically filtered out before anyone with more principles might see them.
    • P_I_Staker 5y ago
      That’s not necessarily true. I just got hired by <Megacorp>. I don’t have any reason to think I was pre-screened at all. The whole thing seemed very responsible. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a secret thing, but IDK, some things just work like they say. I can’t see it coming up in a background check, since I get the results and a chance to defend myself, but who knows? If / when I got “filtered”, it would probably be later in the process. At some point, we did talk about past employers and why you left… really seem to remember nothing until an offer was extended. I was actually quite surprised by how responsible they were (at a surface level at least).
• walrus01 5y ago
  > Find out all your options and strike a quiet deal with your employer. That is the best you'll ever get. All I see here is "cower and whimper like a kicked dog, roll over on your back and present your belly".
  • usui 5y ago
    This is a little harsh. I think it's very situational and depends mostly on whether you feel better about blowing the whistle and helping others or getting some beneficial concession from the company whether monetary or not. In this case, the aforementioned author's wife has cancer and seems to feel some kind of moral obligation to disclose this to others.
  • reginold 5y ago
    I like this summary. Bend over for your overlords, and sell out the commons.
  • RHSeeger 5y ago
    Alternatively, you can see it as - (Quiet, Lawyer) Watch your target carefully and, when the opportunity presents itself, go for the throat vs - (Publicly Yell) Bark loudly at your target with your teeth shown, so that everyone sees you, and the have no choice but to treat you like a rabid dog and put you down.
    • SkipperCat 5y ago
      Sun Tsu would agree with you.
    • seaknoll 5y ago
      > (Quiet, Lawyer) Watch your target carefully and, when the opportunity presents itself, go for the throat The problem is that people tell themselves this is what they're going to do and never follow through. It's the perfect way to do absolutely nothing and convince yourself it's the right thing to do.
  • threatofrain 5y ago
    Reserving your firepower for negotiation is the opposite of folding your hand.
• cowpig 5y ago
  Imploring others to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else is a strange pattern I see a lot on these forums. It's clearly not in your (or any of our) interests to do this, as the obfuscation perpetuates these problems. So what is the motivation behind this kind of post?
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • rad_gruchalski 5y ago
    It’s lashing out. Sour grapes. Procrastination. The perception of doing something to address a problem but the problem is: the action isn’t the correct one, these words are not directed at the right people. This should have been a letter from his lawyer to his ex-employer, probably HR.
  • seaknoll 5y ago
    I interpret it as a pre-defensiveness. Whereas some people admit they wouldn't have the guts but respect people that do, others are trying to convince themselves that the choice they'd make would be the right one.
• syshum 5y ago
  >>You'll rarely win in the court of public opinion I think this is wrong... Likely you could win in public opinion. It will not matter much though because >>you'll probably never get hired anywhere again. This is likely true. Winning in Public Opinion will not amount to much when you are homeless and hungry >>I implore you to get legal counsel ASAP, and keep it quiet. Find out all your options Which will likely amount of little to nothing... Even if you sue likely the legal fees will eat up much of the award. As with most legal battles the only people that win is the lawyers.
  • jrumbut 5y ago
    Regarding getting hired again, I went through something very similar to what he did (except my employer was highly supportive, so I had nothing complain about online) and I can't blame him for writing this. He may have disqualified himself from employers looking for single 20-somethings with a complete devotion to work, but there are managers in the world who are going to understand what he and his wife have gone through. Especially after this last year, we're going to have to understand that some of our coworkers have publicly expressed their pain before. Perhaps a future employer will include a non-disparagement clause but I'd be surprised if he didn't find a new role that was better suited to his new life circumstances.
• babycake 5y ago
  Employers have deep pockets. They'll win over your legal counsel by dragging it out for years, making you bankrupt. At least by exposing it publicly, the company is now forced to address the issue in front of... well everyone. And, other people can see if they've been screwed over as well. After decades and decades of employees trying to resolve matters internally and quietly, and just getting retribution, does anyone actually think being quiet is still the way to go? I mean, that's how #metoo got started, by going public and getting people together to push back on corporate BS. Same applies here, and for all corporate issues.
  • jdavis703 5y ago
    I’ve never sued an employer, but I have commenced legal action against my deep-pocketed landlord (they were a developer and didn’t feel like following the eviction & compensation laws for doing a rental apartment to condo conversion). I won, without even needing a lawyer.
  • SkipperCat 5y ago
    You can talk to a lawyer or a HR professional and not make it a battle with your employer (or even known by them). You'll just get perspective and learn if your position is valid or not. Better to know the law and your options before you negotiate. Had the writer know what was legally owed to him, he may have taken a more productive path.
    • reginold 5y ago
      Doesn't #metoo prove the system is pretty badly broken? Maybe for people of privilege this plan works. But it's at the expense of others without.
      • SkipperCat 5y ago
        Good point. I think #meetoo showed that internal corporate oversight failed miserably for women. A lot of women were done wrong by many companies and I'm glad their struggle became known and I'm glad things have changed (but still more change is needed). This situation is a dispute over compensation (PTO), not an accusation of abuse. I stand by my premise that the best way to help his wife would be to further negotiate with Atlassian for unpaid time off w/med benefits or something similar.
• buffington 5y ago
  I've been in a similar situation as that described by the author, and went shopping for lawyers. The four lawyers who would even talk to me basically said this: Even if you have documentation, there's nothing stopping a company from producing an "HR file" that shows they tried to correct an employee's course, and the employee failed to meet expectations. There are laws in some states where, if you ask, a company is required to send you all documentation they have about your employment. So I did, and was shocked at how out of sync their records were with reality. What their records showed was a belligerent, reluctant, and untalented employee, one who was given many many warnings. Which is not what my actual experience. I was routinely praised by my manager for exceeding expectations, had great relationships with everyone I worked with, could prove that my contributions made the company 3x more than they paid me, etc, etc. But when struck with pancreatitis, they let me go. While I was in the hospital. Their reason: I didn't request the time off. As if that's a thing you do when you nearly die and are saved by emergency surgery. TL;DR - it's easy to say "lawyer up", but in reality, much harder to fight than you think, even when you lawyer up. The good news is I work for a company that doesn't just encourage people to use unlimited PTO, they will frequently pay for vacations for people who go above and beyond. Like, 5 star resort, airfare included for 10 days for up to 4 people. When my dad was diagnosed with cancer, they said "do what you need to do", as I was his only caregiver. Feeling a bit cautious given past experiences I went on FMLA so that, should things go bad, at least I'd taken the correct legal steps. After being away for two months, when I got back they said "we have unlimited PTO, so we let you use 5 days of FMLA just so it's official, but paid the rest. Welcome back." So, in a way, the first company described did me a favor, since I wouldn't be at my current company had they not fired me.
  • buffington 5y ago
    I forgot to mention: the company that fired me did offer a severance package, though if I'd accepted it, I would have needed to agree to never talk about the circumstances of my leaving the company. It was worth every penny I didn't get by telling them I wouldn't sign the severance agreement.
    • _moof 5y ago
• georgiecasey 5y ago
  > You'll rarely win in the court of public opinion and you'll probably never get hired anywhere again I thoroughly disagree with both these points.
• 41209 5y ago
  Sometimes standing up for what is right is more important. Considering this company directly interfered with his ability to care for his wife, it makes sense for him to write this. It’s worth remembering humans are not entirely rational. The most rational thing would be for him to of simply quit when they weren’t treating him right. I’ve done that a few times. And it’s worked very well for me.
• pasabagi 5y ago
  > strike a quiet deal with your employer. I guess the question is, is it the worst your employer will ever get? Sometimes, if you want to win, the opponent just has to lose more. It might not be a good strategy for improving your own life, but it might be a good strategy for doing as much damage as possible to the organization that has wronged you. Personally, I generally feel that life is too short. But I think the more belligerent approach is probably better for society in general. If everybody went full Michael Kohlhaas when wronged, the world would be a much better place, and people that do so should be commended.
  • kelnos 5y ago
    Based on what the author has written, I'm just not feeling particularly strongly here. He has a bunch of unsubstantiated claims, plus some screenshots from Blind (which I don't consider representative or reliable). If I take what is written at face value, and assume it's true, I think it's pretty bad, but unfortunately not that remarkable or unusual. Unless he's holding back some damning evidence of actual law-breaking, I don't really see how Atlassian will be all that hurt by this. I already wouldn't want to work for Atlassian because I think Jira and Confluence are the some of the worst products I have to use, and working on those would probably drive me to drink. Reading an unsubstantiated, biased account of their employment practices (practices which may not be "practices" but more an unfortunate one-off edge case) doesn't really move the needle much for me.
• reginold 5y ago
  Upvoting because I think it's important to talk about this, not because I agree. Appreciate everyone else's responses around this being a dark pattern where "pad publicity" gets paid off. Is there a role for more anonymity on the internet?
• paxys 5y ago
  You are assuming he actually has a case. None of the accusations make sense if you read into it for more than a second. Atlassian discriminates against parents – by not promoting someone right after they get back from a long parental leave. Atlassian discriminates in hiring – because a candidate the author liked didn't get picked one time. Atlassian discriminates on PTO – because the author was denied vacation time right after he got back from medical leave. If you go to a lawyer they will ask for one solid, verifiable claim, not a dozen vague accusations or angry childish rants.
  • TeMPOraL 5y ago
    My exact impression too. The article set off some alarm bells in me - it feels tad too lightweight on actual evidence of misconduct, and too rich repetitively making the same emotional points. Could be explained entirely by the author writing it in justifiable anger. Or it could be because they're trying to blow a few situations out of proportion. I've seen plenty of posts like this landing on HN over the years, and it's not always a given the accused party is in the wrong. While my first instinct is obviously to believe the author, I'm withholding judgement until more details are clear. EDIT: I keep in mind an old HN drama about AirBnB, I'll try to look up details and edit them in - but what I remember to this day is, there was an angry post vilifying AirBnB, the commenters believed it fully and became very angry. As I recall, pg himself jumped in to defend AirBnB, only to be booed out. I also recall being convinced the company is strongly in the wrong. Then it turned out the situation was entirely opposite, AirBnB was in the right. I felt really stupid for jumping the gun, not waiting for full story to come out. (And then, of course, AirBnB turned out to be a socially destructive company, so I don't like them anyway - but for different, and better thought out reasons.) EDIT2: The AirBnB story I refer to happened in 2011, when a blogger described an extremely bad experience with AirBnB, causing one hell of a shitstorm in general startup sphere (with plenty of big names and news outlets getting involved). There was way too much written about this on HN for me to find what was the resolution now - skimming quickly I'm no longer sure which side was proven to be guilty of what. But I do recall the feeling of first being so sure in outrage, and then ashamed after discovering the story is way more complicated than what it seemed at first.
  • ununoctium87 5y ago
• reginold 5y ago
  Playing the zero sum game, yes. Upvoting because I think it's important to talk about this, not because I agree. Appreciate everyone else's responses around this being a dark pattern where "pad publicity" gets paid off. Is there a role for more anonymity on the internet?
• otikik 5y ago
  That is probably what I would do. But only because I avoid confrontation, sometimes to my disadvantage. I admire what this guy is doing.
• User23 5y ago
  > I implore you to get legal counsel ASAP, and keep it quiet If you’re a white male the lawyer will politely tell you no thanks because you’ll never get punitive damages. Why does that matter you ask? Well ordinarily wrongful termination is only subject to actual damages. So if you get another job in a month you can get at most one month’s pay in damages. But wait it gets better! If you can’t find another job because you’re not able to perform those job duties, say because you’re caring for a sick loved one, then the court will deem that your actual damages are zero. Obviously no lawyer wants even a great shot at winning 30% of nothing on contingency. The only exception would be if you’re in a jurisdiction with juries that are exceptionally sympathetic to the plights of white men and will vote for punitive damages large enough to make it worth a lawyer’s time. In any event the consult is free so by all means talk to a lawyer, but realistically you’ll get better results by just asking nicely for a separation package.
• kelnos 5y ago
  Agreed. There will be plenty of time to rant after legal options have been explored and allowed to take their course, assuming you're not forced to sign a non-disparagement agreement in order to get what you want. It's not right, but that's just how things are.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • seaknoll 5y ago
    This is one of the saddest comments I've read on this matter. What progress was ever made from taking the stance that "that's just how things are"?
• twirlock 5y ago
  >i am a giant pussy
• P_I_Staker 5y ago
  So basically, it sounds like you want people to shut up, take what the bosses give, and you want the entire industry to blacklist people for speaking out against abuse.
  • SkipperCat 5y ago
    No. I do not want people to "shut up and take what bosses give". I want people to negotiate in the best possible manner to get the best personal outcome. We do this all the time with salary negotiation. IMHO, the actions taken by the author, while possibly noble, did nothing to further the benefit of his wife while potentially risking his future employment opportunities. I genuinely want he and his wife to have the best outcome and I just don't see how his actions achieve this goal - in both the short term and the long. I would have asked for unpaid time off and for Atlassian to continue to pay my medical insurance. That would be a deal which I think could have been reached.
    • user5994461 5y ago
      >>> I would have asked for unpaid time off and for Atlassian to continue to pay my medical insurance. That would be a deal which I think could have been reached. The author was fired if you believe the title of the post, so it's way past asking for time off or insurance coverage.
      • lmm 5y ago
        Companies can absolutely rescind a firing (with back pay) when you give them the right incentives to.
    • ipaddr 5y ago
      They reached a deal where the employee got unlimited unpaided time off. He was fired. The risk of you becoming so popular that hr will remember your name and blacklist you everywhere is lower then you think. Speaking out is freeing and healing. That may be part.
    • P_I_Staker 5y ago
• TomSwirly 5y ago
  So let 'em cover it up? Fuck that noise. They're already well-known as a crappy company.
• softveda 5y ago
  In Australia where Atlassian is headquartered there is a govt body names Fair Work Australia where you can complain if you believe your workplace rights are violated. They will try to work with the company and can take them to a quasi judicial body called Fair Work Commission. Next step up is Federal Courts.
• kypro 5y ago
  I was routinely physically bullied as a kid and I learnt the hard way that sometimes you just had to fight back even when you were outnumbered and unlikely to come out on top. Why? Because if you can land just one or two punches next time they’ll think twice about whether it’s worth their time. Even if it’s ill advised, and even if it’s likely to harm OP more financially, only a response as strong as this will make a them think twice about their policies. What Rosa Parks did wasn’t advisable, but it was the right thing to do. The same can be said of many human rights activists. Not that this is comparable to those struggles, but we all have our part to play in creating a better world.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• animal531 5y ago
  > "you'll probably never get hired anywhere again." No, you'll never get hired anywhere again with companies that employ the same tactics. Ideally you've just developed an uber-filter to get rid of all the terrible companies in one go.
• KuhlMensch 5y ago
  "Roll over to corporate" is one take.
• blantonl 5y ago
  Truth. Once you burn that bridge, you better hope the fire keeps your family warm and safe for the next few years. This approach always makes you feel better the second you press "publish" in the post, but regret will seep in every day thereafter.
• dbancajas 5y ago
  Why can't he sue them? Just because he made a post does not prevent him from suing Atlassian?
• ma2rten 5y ago
  you'll probably never get hired anywhere again How is that? I would hire them. Maybe the people who won't hire someone who spoke out against an employer are not the ones worth working for.
• davidjytang 5y ago
  In my country, for better or worse, the judges almost always rule in favor of the employee. How about US?