This discussion is curious to me. I've heard the sentiment “fire your employee when they show attitude”, and no doubt that an attitude coupled with mental insta

This discussion is curious to me. I've heard the sentiment “fire your employee when they show attitude”, and no doubt that an attitude coupled with mental instability (hinted at by another commenter) would make an employee troublesome in the eyes of the employer. However, I can't see how at all this is relevant and why it's taken into account in evaluating michaelochurch's comment. For example, one of his statements is: > The Valley is fucking terrified of unions. So terrified that if you even seem like you might be leaning that way, executive-level people in major companies will go out of their way to fuck up your career. A lot of the back-channel reference checking that goes on in the Valley is to avoid taking on a potential unionist. No one cares if you were a mediocre performer 3 jobs ago. We surely could question the anecdotal nature of OP's experience and call for more evidence, yet commenters start implying that the person is writing this out of mental instability or evil agenda. > you appear to have an anti-Google agenda in your comments IMHO it seems natural that pro-Google comments from other employees of the company, which you mention as answering to OP elsewhere, too might likely have an agenda of their own.