3 ms·

> In a previous statement, a spokesperson said [BNSF] “does not retaliate against employees.” Oh! Well then, case closed

gruez 3y ago
I get you're being sarcastic, but what are they expected to say? "Yep, we're guilty?". Nobody seriously thinks that they should be acquitted on the basis of their denial.
- metadat 3y ago
  Perps always think and feel they "should" be acquitted on the basis of denial. Nobody else does, though. (Sorry for being pedantic, I strongly agree with what seems to be your core assertion) Edit: @mcpackieh: Good point.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    > Perps always think and feel they "should" be acquitted on the basis of denial. Isn't that tautological? Innocent people, not being perpetrators, think and feel they "should" be acquitted on the basis of their innocence, not on the basis of denial. It's only on the basis of denial if they actually did the thing.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      you swapped in "innocent people" for "people", but it's worth noting that guilty people and companies often feel the same way so no, the original, un-word-swapped quote isn't tautological
      - mcpackieh 3y ago
        metadat said perps, as in perpetrators. Between perpetrators and innocent people that covers all people. What am I missing? Maybe you read perps as peeps?
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        I think I did, my bad! Good eye ;)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- callalex 3y ago
  This is a happy case where the morally correct thing to do and the legally advisable thing to do align. If you don’t have anything truthful to say, just shut up. “No comment” is a valid and complete sentence. Lying is, if nothing else, extremely disrespectful.
- OrsonSmelles 3y ago
  I mean, yes, I would love to see a gravely sick institution volunteer, "we are flawed, we are obliged to change, and here are some well-coiffed heads on spikes as a down payment". It's an extremely unlikely scenario in the current landscape, but I don't think it's absurd to think that would be a better society.
babyshake 3y ago
I think what these companies mean to say is they try to avoid retaliating against employees in ways that expose them to civil and criminal liability.
StressedDev 3y ago
My guess is what they meant was there is a policy prohibiting retaliation and the legal department never condones retaliation and it tries to prevent it. Unfortunately, employees outside of the legal department may retaliate anyway because they did not get their way (i.e. they are angry someone reported a problem they wanted to cover up).
- Buttons840 3y ago
  Another comment mentioned a QA tester who uncovered endless bugs until they were fired. The company didn't retaliate, but people start to get annoyed and then start to see the QA tester (who is actually doing their job quite well) as "just not a good team player" and eventually they leave or get fired. There was no outright retaliation, but the person who does the right thing eventually suffers for it.

gruez 3y ago

I get you're being sarcastic, but what are they expected to say? "Yep, we're guilty?". Nobody seriously thinks that they should be acquitted on the basis of their denial.

metadat 3y ago
Perps always think and feel they "should" be acquitted on the basis of denial. Nobody else does, though. (Sorry for being pedantic, I strongly agree with what seems to be your core assertion) Edit: @mcpackieh: Good point.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  > Perps always think and feel they "should" be acquitted on the basis of denial. Isn't that tautological? Innocent people, not being perpetrators, think and feel they "should" be acquitted on the basis of their innocence, not on the basis of denial. It's only on the basis of denial if they actually did the thing.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    you swapped in "innocent people" for "people", but it's worth noting that guilty people and companies often feel the same way so no, the original, un-word-swapped quote isn't tautological
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      metadat said perps, as in perpetrators. Between perpetrators and innocent people that covers all people. What am I missing? Maybe you read perps as peeps?
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        I think I did, my bad! Good eye ;)
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
callalex 3y ago
This is a happy case where the morally correct thing to do and the legally advisable thing to do align. If you don’t have anything truthful to say, just shut up. “No comment” is a valid and complete sentence. Lying is, if nothing else, extremely disrespectful.
OrsonSmelles 3y ago
I mean, yes, I would love to see a gravely sick institution volunteer, "we are flawed, we are obliged to change, and here are some well-coiffed heads on spikes as a down payment". It's an extremely unlikely scenario in the current landscape, but I don't think it's absurd to think that would be a better society.

babyshake 3y ago

I think what these companies mean to say is they try to avoid retaliating against employees in ways that expose them to civil and criminal liability.

StressedDev 3y ago

My guess is what they meant was there is a policy prohibiting retaliation and the legal department never condones retaliation and it tries to prevent it. Unfortunately, employees outside of the legal department may retaliate anyway because they did not get their way (i.e. they are angry someone reported a problem they wanted to cover up).

Buttons840 3y ago
Another comment mentioned a QA tester who uncovered endless bugs until they were fired. The company didn't retaliate, but people start to get annoyed and then start to see the QA tester (who is actually doing their job quite well) as "just not a good team player" and eventually they leave or get fired. There was no outright retaliation, but the person who does the right thing eventually suffers for it.