5 ms·

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 b

• 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...
        • TeMPOraL 5y ago
          > Avenatti was arrested in March, about 15 minutes after tweeting that he had scheduled a press conference to “disclose a major high school/college basketball scandal perpetrated by @Nike.” That's one quick police response. Regardless of the merits of the case, I'm scared of the headline itself.
• 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).