4 ms·
I'm starting a new policy of not reading posts like this unless they say who the offending company is.
by Domenic_S 13y ago
I'm starting a new policy of not reading posts like this unless they say who the offending company is.
- redthrowaway 13y agoHow would you enforce said policy without reading the article?
- joelgrus 13y agoBy reading the comments? ;)
- l0gicpath 13y agoWalk a mile in their shoes, sometimes it's illogical that the offending party would not be disclosed. However, most of the time it'd make perfect sense for OP.
- kafkaesque 13y agoI once created a throwaway account here to post about a company's bad practices. I named the company, as well. It was immediately removed from this site. I'm actually from Vancouver, so I would love to know the name of the company. The OP's old employer: 1. Has one (big) claim to fame 2. Located in Vancouver 3. Has a product "dealing with large amounts of money from customers’ bank accounts" But (3) might not be part of a product already released. There are a lot of game developers in Van--with, of course, a thriving beer/overtime culture, but who really knows, to be honest.
- mcantelon 13y agoYeah, I'm from Vancouver and curious as well.
- jayhuang 13y agoI'm very hesitant to post the name of the company because most of my experience has to do with the PM, and not the company as a whole. Although I do have some issues with how this company is run in particular, I do not want to misguide people into thinking that working at this company will be an absolute nightmare. I have seen different dynamics on other teams within the company, but it's also not the complete picture as I am not part of those teams. Either way, (3) is a new product, essentially a startup on it's own. There are many other such projects within the company. It is also not a game development company.
- potatolicious 13y ago> "Either way, (3) is a new product, essentially a startup on it's own." Hehehe, the good old "it's a startup inside a big company!" thing. Here's my advice for when someone pitches that thought to you: run away. Here's the thing about "startup inside a big company!" - it's never true.
- jacques_chester 13y agoIf you agree to indemnify them against defamation claims, I'm sure lots of people would be happy to name names.
- Domenic_S 13y agoI don't think that's an issue. What's the company going to do, prove what a great place to work they are by suing a former employee? I just think that if you're so moved by your experience that you need to write a blog post about it, you should say who you're writing about so others may try and avoid your fate.
- jacques_chester 13y ago> I don't think that's an issue. What's the company going to do, prove what a great place to work they are by suing a former employee? Yes. Because if they win, the person making the claims has to retract them publicly and the original statements are usually destroyed. The threshold of defamation varies from place to place -- in some jurisdictions truth is only a partial defence. And, if they genuinely are pricks, they will sue because they are. In the meantime, the respondent has to rack up hairy legal bills. > I just think that if you're so moved by your experience that you need to write a blog post about it, you should say who you're writing about so others may try and avoid your fate. You're asking them to externalise the benefit and internalise the risk. Most ordinary people don't have the financial position to sustain it. Defamation is serious business. It can really smash your finances, even if you win. A spiteful company, of the sort people write about, is the sort that sues at the drop of a hat.
- jayhuang 13y agoThat's fine, but I'd much rather not have to deal with defamation claims and burn too many bridges. After all, Vancouver isn't so big, and neither is the tech industry in general.