4 ms·

Maybe, maybe not. But his main fault was pointing out the possible legal problem. As soon as he pointed to it, simple negligence and a possible Chewbacca defens

Maybe, maybe not. But his main fault was pointing out the possible legal problem. As soon as he pointed to it, simple negligence and a possible Chewbacca defense became intent. Which is a huge difference in legal interpretation and penalties.

ajb 3y ago
Yeah. You report these things verbally in person, not on written media. This has two advantages: your employer can decide to investigate or forget about it, and you can judge whether you are getting a bad response in person during your report, and act accordingly. You make a report in writing if you could personally be held liable, and you want your disagreement on the record. But doing so is a burning your bridges moment. Not quite sure how you handle this if you are remote...
- isilofi 3y ago
  > You report these things verbally in person, not on written media. I think this is dangerous. If push comes to shove, you will not have anything to defend yourself with, because of no documentation.
  - ajb 3y ago
    I'm not sure what scenario you have in mind, in which the thing they have been annoyed by would be useful as a defence.
    - isilofi 3y ago
      If you have something to report, usually you are somehow involved. The company might then try to pin responsibility on you for doing the bad thing and trying to verbally blackmail them.
      - ajb 3y ago
        Well, that's why I said you need things in writing in the case where you could be personally liable for the act. Normally this discussion arises before the bad thing has been done, or if you weren't involved and found out about it. If you in fact committed it on their behalf without telling them first, then you are actually the bad guy.
creer 3y ago
Which is why, shouldn't the right course of action be for that person to point out the potential problem (and in writing is fine), and a legal dept or exec to come back with a theory of why it's fine and we are going to continue doing it? - It's not like it's all that hard under the current legal system. Things are much more likely to go sideways if (a) there was already some background feeling that this person had to go, or (b) the person makes a nuisance of themselves after legal or higher-ups have already decided that no, this was fine. Seems to me when a manager "jumps straight to firing" someone, either they are insane or there is something missing to the story. Insane is very much not impossible (and disfunction itself obviously) but missing story is not impossible either.

ajb 3y ago

Yeah. You report these things verbally in person, not on written media. This has two advantages: your employer can decide to investigate or forget about it, and you can judge whether you are getting a bad response in person during your report, and act accordingly. You make a report in writing if you could personally be held liable, and you want your disagreement on the record. But doing so is a burning your bridges moment. Not quite sure how you handle this if you are remote...

isilofi 3y ago
> You report these things verbally in person, not on written media. I think this is dangerous. If push comes to shove, you will not have anything to defend yourself with, because of no documentation.
- ajb 3y ago
  I'm not sure what scenario you have in mind, in which the thing they have been annoyed by would be useful as a defence.
  - isilofi 3y ago
    If you have something to report, usually you are somehow involved. The company might then try to pin responsibility on you for doing the bad thing and trying to verbally blackmail them.
    - ajb 3y ago
      Well, that's why I said you need things in writing in the case where you could be personally liable for the act. Normally this discussion arises before the bad thing has been done, or if you weren't involved and found out about it. If you in fact committed it on their behalf without telling them first, then you are actually the bad guy.

creer 3y ago

Which is why, shouldn't the right course of action be for that person to point out the potential problem (and in writing is fine), and a legal dept or exec to come back with a theory of why it's fine and we are going to continue doing it? - It's not like it's all that hard under the current legal system. Things are much more likely to go sideways if (a) there was already some background feeling that this person had to go, or (b) the person makes a nuisance of themselves after legal or higher-ups have already decided that no, this was fine. Seems to me when a manager "jumps straight to firing" someone, either they are insane or there is something missing to the story. Insane is very much not impossible (and disfunction itself obviously) but missing story is not impossible either.