7 ms·
That's a funny way to say "they fired staff that vandalized company property, broke into the CEO's office, and used an internal company website to publish and p
by sugarpimpdorsey 1y ago
That's a funny way to say "they fired staff that vandalized company property, broke into the CEO's office, and used an internal company website to publish and promote anti-company propaganda".
That will get you fired from bussing tables or washing dishes, let alone a six-figure job at MS.
Edit: Source on the last one; the first two were widely reported on in media:
https://lunduke.substack.com/p/fired-microsoft-employee-encouraged https://lunduke.substack.com/p/fired-microsoft-employee-enco...
- nashashmi 1y agoOne protestor was fired after interrupting a CEO's speech.
- keanb 1y agoAnd?
- t1amat 1y agoYou might have 1A rights as an American but it seems to me the manner in which this person protested would be grounds for termination in many jurisdictions.
- thewebguyd 1y ago1A doesn't apply to private entities anyway. 1A protects against government prosecution for your speech, and the government may make no laws "abridging the freedom of speech." But your employer? They can put whatever rules and restrictions they want on your speech, and with at-will employment, can fire you for any reason anyway, at anytime. You can say whatever you want, but you aren't free from the consequences of that speech.
- throwaway74628 1y agoThis comment sums up well how the spirit of the law is not being upheld, given that the biggest players in government, finance, and the corporate world are working together hand in glove. >”Corporations cannot exist without government intervention” >”Some privates companies and financiers are too big to fail/of strategic national importance” >”1A does not apply to private entities (including the above)” >”We have a free, competitive market” I find it very difficult to resolve these seemingly contradictory statements.
- platevoltage 1y agoLiterally nothing to do with 1A
- BrenBarn 1y agoThat's because 1A only has to do with a limited subset of the actual concept of freedom of speech.
- duxup 1y agoI feel like interrupting a CEO's speech at a big conference is pretty well understood to be a social indicator of a high level of insubordination. I suspect the protestor knew that too. The consequences were appropriate, even if I might share some of the protestor's concerns.
- snickerdoodle14 1y ago> insubordination Are we talking about the military or some company?
- duxup 1y agoI think that term can be / is used for individuals at companies.
- snickerdoodle14 1y ago[dead]
- gmueckl 1y agoUS corporate culture has a stronger sense of hierarchy than many other countries. It is an environment where one can get fired quickly and suddenly and that instills a lot of obedience and discipline (if not outright fear) in employees.
- duxup 1y agoI don't even think you need a strong sense of hierarchy. The meaning of the word would apply anywhere.
- fluoridation 1y agoLOL. The military isn't the only organization with a hierarchy.
- rkachowski 1y agoYou feel that being fired is an appropriate consequence to interrupting a CEO?
- kayodelycaon 1y agoHalf the jobs I’ve worked, I’d be immediately fired if I interrupted a CEO’s speech. The other half, I’d be in serious trouble and I’d be first on any layoff.
- cm2187 1y agoI know a story of a guy who got fired for just talking to the CEO of his large company!
- snickerdoodle14 1y agoamerica sounds like such a hell-hole that would be a nice compensation package in any first world country
- mikestew 1y agoYou’re going to base an opinion on a third-hand story? That might not even be true just to illustrate a point? I know a guy that passed BillG in a hallway and said, “hey, Bill, how’s it hangin’?” (Saw him do it; I was mortified.) Just a bottom-tier IC at the time. 20 years later, he still works there. Still an IC, though, so make of it what you will. :-) So there, now you have another folksy anecdote to balance things out.
- cm2187 1y agoWell, not quite third-hand, the guy was working in my team. But not a US company, not in the US either though.
- snickerdoodle14 1y ago[dead]
- rolph 1y agofailure to use acceptable method of interdepartmental communication ?
- mikestew 1y agoIf I interrupt the CEOs speech at a public conference, yeah, I fully expect to get canned. It’s not like this was an internal all-hands or summat.
- ecshafer 1y agoIf I did what the protestor did at an internal all-hands or summit I would expect to get canned as well. You can't go up yelling and interrupting the CEO. In an internal all-hands/summit situation you need to maintain decorum, if you have a point you wait until a QA session, then express your displeasure.
- tormeh 1y agoOh, it was an event with custoners invited? Yeah, that's grounds for dismissal anywhere, I'd think. Even in countries with strong labor laws you could just show the court the video recording of an employee doing willfull sabotage.
- progbits 1y agoOh no, is the CEO ok?
- n1b0m 1y agoSource?
- natebc 1y agohttps://apnews.com/article/microsoft-azure-gaza-israel-protests-49a0dd5905a1cf16eb3e19a98ca17d50 https://apnews.com/article/microsoft-azure-gaza-israel-prote... There's a couple of sub links off of that one. Not sure if that's what GP was referring too but there is mention in there of employees being terminated related to protests
- belorn 1y agoI would also like to read the source for the last claim of that statement. The break-in is well established in multiple sources, and also documented on Wikipedia (citing one of those sources). CNBC also add that they planted microphones (using phones) as listening devices. "In the aftermath of the protests, Smith claimed that the protestors had blocked people out of the office, planted listening devices in the form of phones, and refused to leave until they were removed by police. " (https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/28/microsoft-fires-two-employees-over-breaking-into-protests-at-its-presidents-office.html https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/28/microsoft-fires-two-employee...) Protestors (in associated with the firing) also projected "Microsoft powers genocide" on the office wall (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft).
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- nashadelic 1y agoThey've been raising the alarm for months. If this extreme action is what it took Microsoft to look into genocide and then terminate the contract, it was absolutely the right call
- Waterluvian 1y agoNot that you're implying this, but making an "absolutely the right call" does not in any way shield one from consequences. Heck, it's usually because one will be punished that doing the right thing is in any manner noble. Otherwise it's just meeting minimum expectations as a human.
- MomsAVoxell 1y agoAfter all, why would anyone want to work for a company which actively supports genocide.
- lo_zamoyski 1y agoSome people seem to think rioting and vandalism are acceptable behaviors. It's important that people engaging in such activity are dealt with swiftly and justly. Such behavior further encourages violence and destruction as acceptable behaviors in society, which they are not.
- blitzar 1y agoPardons all round then
- mossTechnician 1y agoThe United States has a history of rioting, vandalism, and violence. The Boston Tea Party comes to mind. The more important question is the contexts in which it is unacceptable, and who should be given the authority to swiftly deal with it - an authority that will itself require the ability to commit violence.
- thewebguyd 1y agoRioting and vandalism are unacceptable...until they aren't and are instead necessary. Is everyone so quick to forget that the rights we have today in the US were won through violence after all other methods failed? The 40 hour work week we enjoy today was also won through blood. Now, in this case between employees and Microsoft I'd agree, no, vandalism wasn't necessary at all. But when it comes to defending our rights and freedoms, there will come a day when its absolutely necessary, and it's just as valid of a tool as peaceful protest is in enforcing the constitution.
- dmix 1y agoThere’s been a couple studies showing that disruptive protests (blocking roads, yelling at people entering buildings, etc) cause public support for their cause to decrease or even increase opposition. If the ideas are good then support will build through effectively communicating those ideas. Being noisy is fine but there’s an obvious line that selfish activists cross. The sort of people who want their toys now and don’t want to patiently do the hard work of organically building up a critical mass. So they immediately start getting aggressive and violent in small groups. Which is counter productive.
- Forgeties79 1y agoEvery protest we praise in history broke the law at some point. “Promote company-hating propaganda” is an interesting way to describe what happened.
- kayodelycaon 1y agoI think laws enforced by the government are a difference in kind from social standards or company rules. Laws are backed by legal, physical violence.
- sugarpimpdorsey 1y agoBuilding a website on internal Microsoft infra that ledes with a picture of "Azure Kills Kids" is beyond the pale.
- Forgeties79 1y agoThat’s a pretty low bar for “beyond the pale.” Company PR isn’t some sacred thing and these people paid a hefty price for their protest. They should be praised for their bravery even if you disagree with their message.
- sugarpimpdorsey 1y agoI make no comment on their message but you cannot use company resources to do it and not expect consequences. Sorry if that is unclear. This is a fireable offense in nearly every company handbook in existence.
- Forgeties79 1y agoWhen did I say they shouldn’t expect consequences or that it wasn’t a fireable offense? The whole point of this discussion is that cries for people to “protest properly” are ridiculous and designed to make protests ineffective. Clearly I get that their jobs and more were at risk, hence why I said they were brave. The only thing unclear is where you got the impression I thought otherwise.