3 ms·

This is a really inconsiderate comment. You do not know this guy at all, yet you assume that he's not a good employee because of a mental issue he has. Do you t

This is a really inconsiderate comment. You do not know this guy at all, yet you assume that he's not a good employee because of a mental issue he has. Do you think he chooses to have panic attacks? Can you see how him asking to not have a party makes a lot of sense because he knew he may have a panic attack? If anything, him knowing about the party that he requested not happen makes it worse, because instead of just a party, it's a party full of people who don't respect him enough to listen to his wishes. On his own birthday! Imagine if a company forced a recovering alcoholic to go to a bar and then firing him when he got drunk. edit: the comment above is not the one I originally replied to; it has been edited. It did not originally say "textbook disgruntled," it said "not someone you'd want to have keys to your kingdom," which I assumed to mean they were right to fire him.

HelixEndeavor 5y ago
> Imagine if a company forced a recovering alcoholic to go to a bar and then firing him when he got drunk. More accurately, if the employee got upset they dragged him to a bar and left, and then they fired him over that. Even more absurd, and yet closer to what happened here...
rblatz 5y ago
I think he was saying that the management showed bad decision making in the original situation, so it's no shocker that they continue to exhibit poor decision making while defending their original poor choices. Edit: after OPs ninja edit, I'm not so sure anymore
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> did not originally say "textbook disgruntled," it said "not someone you'd want to have keys to your kingdom," which I assumed to mean they were right to fire him Edited to clarify. "Not someone you want to have keys to your kingdom" as in temporarily removing access credentials. Not firing. > Imagine if a company forced a recovering alcoholic to go to a bar and then firing him when he got drunk This would be ludicrous. Temporarily revoking his access to prod would not be.

HelixEndeavor 5y ago

> Imagine if a company forced a recovering alcoholic to go to a bar and then firing him when he got drunk. More accurately, if the employee got upset they dragged him to a bar and left, and then they fired him over that. Even more absurd, and yet closer to what happened here...

rblatz 5y ago

I think he was saying that the management showed bad decision making in the original situation, so it's no shocker that they continue to exhibit poor decision making while defending their original poor choices. Edit: after OPs ninja edit, I'm not so sure anymore

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> did not originally say "textbook disgruntled," it said "not someone you'd want to have keys to your kingdom," which I assumed to mean they were right to fire him Edited to clarify. "Not someone you want to have keys to your kingdom" as in temporarily removing access credentials. Not firing. > Imagine if a company forced a recovering alcoholic to go to a bar and then firing him when he got drunk This would be ludicrous. Temporarily revoking his access to prod would not be.