4 ms·

Less than an hour after Mead’s call to Welch, at 5:14 pm, Monaghan texted Welch and apologized, saying he owed him a beer and a handshake. “I agree with your me

Less than an hour after Mead’s call to Welch, at 5:14 pm, Monaghan texted Welch and apologized, saying he owed him a beer and a handshake. “I agree with your message, if not the delivery. We good?” Monaghan said in the text. What a complete snake. Fires Mead for speaking truth to power, but then when a bigger dog tells the VP to back down, Monaghan wants to pretend that nothing went amiss? Edit: also, apologizes by text! Could not even man up enough to verbally apologize.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
nubinetwork 2y ago
I would have told them to go pound sand.
- Joel_Mckay 2y ago
  Indeed, the problem is blame always travels down the corporate ladder. Being targeted by upper power-structures means your career is unofficially over regardless of what clowns say for PR. Guy should resign while it is on his terms, and go someplace less hostile. Rule #13: "Never reach out to a drowning man", as in their desperation they can push you under as well. =3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prcJg7ZzXh4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prcJg7ZzXh4
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    Why resign? It seems more beneficial to phone it in at work and let the employer keep paying you while you find another job, or at least collect more money until they fire you again.
    - 3eb7988a1663 2y ago
      Agreed. That VP is going to be butthurt about how you made him look the fool. The opportunities there are going to disaapear, but you are safe from obvious reprisals for many months. Best to lay low and exit as quickly as possible
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      Presumably because he didn't actually want to go to the office and go through the motions. Must be nice to have so much money that you can play risky games with your future like this.
      - lotsofpulp 2y ago
        What risk? The situation being discussed is an employee who is terminated, and then rehired. At this point, the employee has 2 options: 1) quit (aka resign) - no more income from employer, and disqualifies employee from unemployment benefits. 2) do the bare minimum at work - income keeps flowing, and employee can look for another source of income I see a downside for the first option, and no downside at all for the second option.
        wakawaka28 2y ago
        The employee in question was terminated because they didn't want to go to the office. They had a third option, which was to go to the office and look for another job in the meantime, and not get fired in the first place. That's what most people would do. >do the bare minimum at work - income keeps flowing, and employee can look for another source of income This is right, but if they demand that you go to the office then you have to do it. Trying to trick them into thinking that you're going to the office when you're not is asking for trouble. If you need the money then you should just go and not make too much noise about it.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - Joel_Mckay 2y ago
        Be nice friend... as money comes and goes... if one lives a low-burn lifestyle, than one never has to worry about investment passive revenue dropping you into the red. =3 Rule #1: Quickly identify a failure to resolve critical paths to completion. Some projects are simply doomed without the right people, resources, and market conditions. See "Law of holes" corollary: "Nor would a wise man, seeing that he was in a hole, go to work and blindly dig it deeper..." ( The Washington Post dated 25 October 1911 )

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

nubinetwork 2y ago

I would have told them to go pound sand.

Joel_Mckay 2y ago
Indeed, the problem is blame always travels down the corporate ladder. Being targeted by upper power-structures means your career is unofficially over regardless of what clowns say for PR. Guy should resign while it is on his terms, and go someplace less hostile. Rule #13: "Never reach out to a drowning man", as in their desperation they can push you under as well. =3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prcJg7ZzXh4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prcJg7ZzXh4
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  Why resign? It seems more beneficial to phone it in at work and let the employer keep paying you while you find another job, or at least collect more money until they fire you again.
  - 3eb7988a1663 2y ago
    Agreed. That VP is going to be butthurt about how you made him look the fool. The opportunities there are going to disaapear, but you are safe from obvious reprisals for many months. Best to lay low and exit as quickly as possible
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    Presumably because he didn't actually want to go to the office and go through the motions. Must be nice to have so much money that you can play risky games with your future like this.
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      What risk? The situation being discussed is an employee who is terminated, and then rehired. At this point, the employee has 2 options: 1) quit (aka resign) - no more income from employer, and disqualifies employee from unemployment benefits. 2) do the bare minimum at work - income keeps flowing, and employee can look for another source of income I see a downside for the first option, and no downside at all for the second option.
      - wakawaka28 2y ago
        The employee in question was terminated because they didn't want to go to the office. They had a third option, which was to go to the office and look for another job in the meantime, and not get fired in the first place. That's what most people would do. >do the bare minimum at work - income keeps flowing, and employee can look for another source of income This is right, but if they demand that you go to the office then you have to do it. Trying to trick them into thinking that you're going to the office when you're not is asking for trouble. If you need the money then you should just go and not make too much noise about it.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - Joel_Mckay 2y ago
      Be nice friend... as money comes and goes... if one lives a low-burn lifestyle, than one never has to worry about investment passive revenue dropping you into the red. =3 Rule #1: Quickly identify a failure to resolve critical paths to completion. Some projects are simply doomed without the right people, resources, and market conditions. See "Law of holes" corollary: "Nor would a wise man, seeing that he was in a hole, go to work and blindly dig it deeper..." ( The Washington Post dated 25 October 1911 )