3 ms·
I'm not sure that a simple "months on the job" threshold is sufficient to decide wrongdoing here. From what the article says, it seems like Seagate misrepresent
by quanticle 15y ago
I'm not sure that a simple "months on the job" threshold is sufficient to decide wrongdoing here. From what the article says, it seems like Seagate misrepresented the position to the engineer. Given that, I think a better standard would be to look at the job listing and the communication that Seagate had with Mr. Vaidyanathan, then compare that with what he was asked to do.
- tptacek 15y agoI don't read him as arguing that there should be a simple "months on the job" test, but rather observing that if he had been employed for, say, 24 months before termination, he probably wouldn't have made his case; a reasonable group of people being likely to conclude that 24 months constitutes a bona fide employment relationship and not a parlor trick.
- jroseattle 15y agoYes, it does seem like timeframe is a key consideration here.
- jroseattle 15y agoDidn't mean to imply that timeframe for the position was the only consideration. But the article didn't imply that the job description was different from what Seagate offered, but rather than his employment was simply terminated. Unless I'm reading that incorrectly.