3 ms·

Well, the article doesn't try to hide that it's trying to instigate an emotional response. In the big scheme of the moral calamity that this whole thing is, th

Well, the article doesn't try to hide that it's trying to instigate an emotional response. In the big scheme of the moral calamity that this whole thing is, this particular exchange feels oddly trivial to get its own article. But I think it's just the sort of thing that people can and will latch on to easily.

yardie 13y ago
The reason for the firing was trivial the firing was not. And people can latch onto being fired because almost everyone has experienced it at least once. That moment, of "what do I do now?", is probably one of the worst feelings in the world. And the glee these assholes have in actually doing it (remember no one is supposed to enjoy firing anyone, MBA101) is even more enraging since it confirms everything the 99%ers have been protesting about. These guys are fucking with other peoples' livelyhoods and making a joke of it.
- iQuercus 13y ago
  Setting aside what the policy meant in the context of keeping salaries down, the company's policy on its own was not illegal. The employee in question was presumably trained on the policy upon starting work and presumably informed of the costs of violating the policy. The employee violated that policy, damaging company relations in the process, and was fired. That's a separate issue from the whole salary debacle. That Steve Jobs replied with a smiley face is immaterial to the broader problem at hand. Steve Jobs would in all likelihood reply to the end of the world with :-O. Who cares? That Google terminated an employee in violation of what they indicate was a clear policy, is again, irrelevant to the discussion. It serves as nothing more than an attempt to get emotional response using something only tangentially related to the core issue. If the said employee felt the policy was unethical and possibly illegal, violating it is not the answer. There is no indication that the employee was making a moral stand. More than likely, he couldn't follow directions. And he got fired.
  - yardie 13y ago
    > the company's policy on its own was not illegal. This logic would not fly in any other industry. I don't see why SV thinks it is exempt. You never see a "policy" like this being defended in banking or whiteshoe law firms. Also stop calling it a policy. Policies are written down, recorded, and published. One manager having an informal meeting about an unofficial policy doesn't make it policy. The reason this lawsuit is making waves now is because the policy was never put to ink. It was never put to ink because these companies wanted as little evidence as possible. Does that sound like a good policy?
- seestheday 13y ago
  As an aside, I really dislike the term 99%. By a lot of metrics, I'm in the 1%, as I imagine a lot of engineers are. I think it's really the 99.9%. Being in the 1% top income in the country kind of rings hollow if you still can't afford a house.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    The real division is labor vs. capital, but for historical reasons its impossible to use that distinction in those terms in public discourse in the US, so you get 99% vs. 1%, Main Street vs. Wall Street, and all kinds of other terms that talk around the real issue.
    - seestheday 13y ago
      Interesting. So you're saying that it boils down to being branded as a communist because of the history of the US. I'm Canadian, so the irrational fear of communism/socialism is much lower here. Not that I'm advocating for communism of course. Any system that honestly believes that a dictatorship[1] needs to be established first and that it will simply "whither away"[2] has been proven by history to be wrong. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withering_away_of_the_state http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withering_away_of_the_state
- snowwrestler 13y ago
  Ok but if you demonize the entire concept of firing, you will place a huge drag on innovation and economic growth. See: France. Yes, it sucks to get fired, but firing is a necessary part if running almost any company.

yardie 13y ago

The reason for the firing was trivial the firing was not. And people can latch onto being fired because almost everyone has experienced it at least once. That moment, of "what do I do now?", is probably one of the worst feelings in the world. And the glee these assholes have in actually doing it (remember no one is supposed to enjoy firing anyone, MBA101) is even more enraging since it confirms everything the 99%ers have been protesting about. These guys are fucking with other peoples' livelyhoods and making a joke of it.

iQuercus 13y ago
Setting aside what the policy meant in the context of keeping salaries down, the company's policy on its own was not illegal. The employee in question was presumably trained on the policy upon starting work and presumably informed of the costs of violating the policy. The employee violated that policy, damaging company relations in the process, and was fired. That's a separate issue from the whole salary debacle. That Steve Jobs replied with a smiley face is immaterial to the broader problem at hand. Steve Jobs would in all likelihood reply to the end of the world with :-O. Who cares? That Google terminated an employee in violation of what they indicate was a clear policy, is again, irrelevant to the discussion. It serves as nothing more than an attempt to get emotional response using something only tangentially related to the core issue. If the said employee felt the policy was unethical and possibly illegal, violating it is not the answer. There is no indication that the employee was making a moral stand. More than likely, he couldn't follow directions. And he got fired.
- yardie 13y ago
  > the company's policy on its own was not illegal. This logic would not fly in any other industry. I don't see why SV thinks it is exempt. You never see a "policy" like this being defended in banking or whiteshoe law firms. Also stop calling it a policy. Policies are written down, recorded, and published. One manager having an informal meeting about an unofficial policy doesn't make it policy. The reason this lawsuit is making waves now is because the policy was never put to ink. It was never put to ink because these companies wanted as little evidence as possible. Does that sound like a good policy?
seestheday 13y ago
As an aside, I really dislike the term 99%. By a lot of metrics, I'm in the 1%, as I imagine a lot of engineers are. I think it's really the 99.9%. Being in the 1% top income in the country kind of rings hollow if you still can't afford a house.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  The real division is labor vs. capital, but for historical reasons its impossible to use that distinction in those terms in public discourse in the US, so you get 99% vs. 1%, Main Street vs. Wall Street, and all kinds of other terms that talk around the real issue.
  - seestheday 13y ago
    Interesting. So you're saying that it boils down to being branded as a communist because of the history of the US. I'm Canadian, so the irrational fear of communism/socialism is much lower here. Not that I'm advocating for communism of course. Any system that honestly believes that a dictatorship[1] needs to be established first and that it will simply "whither away"[2] has been proven by history to be wrong. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withering_away_of_the_state http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withering_away_of_the_state
snowwrestler 13y ago
Ok but if you demonize the entire concept of firing, you will place a huge drag on innovation and economic growth. See: France. Yes, it sucks to get fired, but firing is a necessary part if running almost any company.