4 ms·

How is that unlikely? Unless Github has a very, very atypical employment contract, all employees are at-will[1]. Sure, it might damage Tom or Github's reputatio

How is that unlikely? Unless Github has a very, very atypical employment contract, all employees are at-will[1]. Sure, it might damage Tom or Github's reputation if he just randomly fired people[2], but he could. Saying that it would also bring down the rest of the company doesn't really help. [1] Of course, you still have to give two weeks notice if you want to exercise that at-willness for yourself! [2] I mean, unless he "randomly" fires all the people of race X, or something like that

bronbron 12y ago
It's very, very unlikely that he would fire someone on a whim. He has the ability, but it's very unlikely that he would exercise that ability.
bradhe 12y ago
> Of course, you still have to give two weeks notice if you want to exercise that at-willness for yourself! No, you don't.
swombat 12y ago
I explained how it's unlikely, but here we go again. Tom has spent considerable time (as I have, in my own company) getting people to a point where they think for themselves, make decisions as a group, and generally behave as independent adults rather than the kind of infantile employees who just do what they're told by their boss. Since the latter is the way most businesses operate, it's no mean feat to get this done with a company of a dozen, let alone with one of hundreds. If Tom decides to arbitrarily fire someone, even just one person, without going through the group-oriented processes he's spent all this time building up, he immediately undermines all that, potentially fatally. Since he clearly cares about the company's culture (enough to make it his priority for the last half-decade), it's very unlikely he would risk that to get rid of one person. And finally, again, there's the evidence: if he really did want to get rid of this woman, and he could, why didn't he?
- zimpenfish 12y ago
  > And finally, again, there's the evidence: if he really did want to get rid of this woman, and he could, why didn't he? That's more speculation than evidence, surely?
TheCoelacanth 12y ago
> Of course, you still have to give two weeks notice if you want to exercise that at-willness for yourself! That's a professional courtesy; it's almost never legally required.

bronbron 12y ago

It's very, very unlikely that he would fire someone on a whim. He has the ability, but it's very unlikely that he would exercise that ability.

bradhe 12y ago

> Of course, you still have to give two weeks notice if you want to exercise that at-willness for yourself! No, you don't.

swombat 12y ago

I explained how it's unlikely, but here we go again. Tom has spent considerable time (as I have, in my own company) getting people to a point where they think for themselves, make decisions as a group, and generally behave as independent adults rather than the kind of infantile employees who just do what they're told by their boss. Since the latter is the way most businesses operate, it's no mean feat to get this done with a company of a dozen, let alone with one of hundreds. If Tom decides to arbitrarily fire someone, even just one person, without going through the group-oriented processes he's spent all this time building up, he immediately undermines all that, potentially fatally. Since he clearly cares about the company's culture (enough to make it his priority for the last half-decade), it's very unlikely he would risk that to get rid of one person. And finally, again, there's the evidence: if he really did want to get rid of this woman, and he could, why didn't he?

zimpenfish 12y ago
> And finally, again, there's the evidence: if he really did want to get rid of this woman, and he could, why didn't he? That's more speculation than evidence, surely?

TheCoelacanth 12y ago

> Of course, you still have to give two weeks notice if you want to exercise that at-willness for yourself! That's a professional courtesy; it's almost never legally required.