6 ms·
> publicly accusing your employer's client of war crimes What other factual statements should you not be allowed to make about your employer's clients?
by morelisp 3y ago
> publicly accusing your employer's client of war crimes
What other factual statements should you not be allowed to make about your employer's clients?
- clnq 3y agoIt’s very clear that in the interest of business, those statements should not be made by an employee. They are free to make these claims in a way that doesn’t damage the business. Like a second personal Twitter account.
- michaelt 3y ago> They are free to make these claims in a way that doesn’t damage the business. Like a second personal Twitter account. Are they, though? I mean, presumably they were posting from a personal account to begin with. Just how separate would a second account have to be - Is it enough to just say all opinions are their own, and only post on their own time? Could they use their own name? What about an online handle they'd used before, if a highly motivated doxxer could possibly identify their employer?
- parineum 3y agoIf you read the rest of my comment, I don't actually have a problem with accusing people of war crimes. I think it's assinine to think one could do so and hope to continue to be paid by those people though. I would think that someone so ready to stand on this moral high ground wouldn't want that money but I guess when it actually comes to backing up her morals, she'll take the money instead.
- fake-name 3y agoIt's not an accusation.
- morelisp 3y agoYour critique only makes sense if she's working for the DoD, or negotiating those contracts for VMWare, or VMWare's business is significantly DoD contracts, none of which are true.
- parineum 3y agoWhy does it have to be a significant part of VMWare's business? DoD money is flowing into her pockets and she's fighting to keep it that way.
- Apocryphon 3y agoThe DoD also performs public services that ostensibly protect her life and liberty at some level, and doubtless she doesn't disagree with those functions. The amount one benefits from an entity one disagrees with can be variable, and debatable.
- grimgoldgo 3y agoSo, free speech doesn't extend to criticism of the government? People should lose their jobs because they said mean words on Twitter?
- pewpew2020 3y agoThis is not about free speech, this is about company policy.
- coldtea 3y agoOn his private twitter? While NOT posting about the company at all? It was a customer of the company that got offended. Should he know every customer of the company? If the company has 1000s of customers, are they all off limits? Are you supposed to know who they are? If you work for AT&T and an AT&T customer (of the millions it has) is a jerk or you have some political disagreement with their views, do you get to tweet about it on your personal twitter account? Should they be able to complain and get you fired?
- wiseowise 3y agoYou’re free to say funny words on twitter, they’re free to fire you for it. Everyone wins. Or you think you can be obnoxious clown without repercussions?
- grimgoldgo 3y ago> Or you think you can be obnoxious clown without repercussions? Seems to be working for Elon, tbh.
- subsistence234 3y agoIf you're the owner of your company, the company won't fire you. You can still harm your company (and thereby yourself) by attacking your biggest customers on social media.
- coldtea 3y ago
- King-Aaron 3y agoI feel that it's kind of odd that you question this. Acting with professionalism isn't all that hard.
- morelisp 3y agoNeither is not bombing civilians, yet here we are.
- King-Aaron 3y agoChrist, don't cut yourself with that edge.
- wiseowise 3y agoCareful with leaps like that.
- weeeeelp 3y agoNot throwing a tantrum on Twitter is much easier than conducting any kind of military operation.
- Apocryphon 3y agoSomeone oughta tell that to Prigozhin!
- morelisp 3y agoI don't know about that, the smartest man in the world can't seem to stop posting while multiple distinct sets of complete idiots have managed to take over Afghanistan in the past two decades.
- constantly 3y agoSetting aside the gigantic leap and cognitive dissonance required to imply that a short-serving Chief Software Office is somehow a war criminal and answering your actual question: Avoiding factual statements that have to do with race, religion, politics, sexual orientation, and gender is a good start.
- coldtea 3y agoSo, if say you're black and your employer pulls some racist shit on you, or a woman and they pull some sexist shit, you shouldn't post any factual statements about it, right?
- rewmie 3y ago> What other factual statements should you not be allowed to make about your employer's clients? The author seemed perfectly fine with getting paid by their employer, but somehow felt morally justified to openly criticize the way they got their paycheck. It sounds like a very selective self-righteous position.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]