3 ms·

"When an employee is dismissed from employment at a company, the policy of almost every company (including reddit) is not to comment, either publicly or interna

by gatsby 12y ago

"When an employee is dismissed from employment at a company, the policy of almost every company (including reddit) is not to comment, either publicly or internally. This is because companies have no desire to ruin someone's future employment prospects by broadcasting to the world that they were fired. In return, the polite expectation is that the employee will not go shooting their mouth off about the company especially (as in your case) through irresponsibly unfounded speculation. Signing a non-disparagement indicates that you have no intention to do this, so the company can then say "Ok, if anyone comes asking for a reference on this guy, we needn't say he was fired, just give a mildly positive reference." Even if you don't sign the non-disparagement, the company will give you the benefit of the doubt and not disparage you or make any negative statements first. Unfortunately, you have just forfeited this arrangement." -Yishan to former employee

demachina 12y ago
If nothing else the Streisand effect insures Reddit is going to get about a million times more bad exposure, now that its going viral, than they would have when it was just a thread from a disgruntled ex employee. People were starting to question whether Reddit had a good CEO and corprate culture already, now its certain to gain momentum.
- mwfunk 12y ago
  I came away from this with more respect for Reddit and it's CEO than I had before, so painting this as bad publicity for them isn't just something that can be assumed here. What the CEO said didn't seem inflammatory or over the top at all, it was just the facts with little or no vindictiveness. I'm not sure where anyone's sympathy for the former employee is coming from, or how anyone reading what the CEO wrote could parse it as the childish, unprofessional flame that it's being described as. A lot of people have a natural tendency to always side with the underdog regardless of the facts of the situation, especially when it's one guy vs. any sort of institution (a company, school, whatever). That probably says something nice about humanity, but it doesn't make it any truthier.
  - demachina 12y ago
    You seem to have a natural tendency to side with the authority figure which is just as bad if not worse :) How did you jump to the conclusion the CEO's version "was just the facts"? You seem to be saying because he is the boss that he is being factual and the employee inherently was not. The CEO's spin might be the facts but it would be impossible for anyone who wasn't there to know. That's why an employer wouldn't normally air stuff like this in public, its one person's word against another, and the liability risks are steep. I'm not basing my comments on which one of the two parties was being truthful, they might both think they are. You would have to do an indepth analysis of the employees performance, and the circumstances of his termination to know for sure. I'm saying it was really poor judgement for a powerful employer to unload on a relateively powerless former employee, and air what should have been confidential HR information in public like that. If I were applying for a job with the guy I would think twice about working for someone willing to savage an employee in public like that. If I was on his board I'd sure think twice about whether he is the right person for a CEO job.

by gatsby 12y ago

demachina 12y ago

If nothing else the Streisand effect insures Reddit is going to get about a million times more bad exposure, now that its going viral, than they would have when it was just a thread from a disgruntled ex employee. People were starting to question whether Reddit had a good CEO and corprate culture already, now its certain to gain momentum.

mwfunk 12y ago
I came away from this with more respect for Reddit and it's CEO than I had before, so painting this as bad publicity for them isn't just something that can be assumed here. What the CEO said didn't seem inflammatory or over the top at all, it was just the facts with little or no vindictiveness. I'm not sure where anyone's sympathy for the former employee is coming from, or how anyone reading what the CEO wrote could parse it as the childish, unprofessional flame that it's being described as. A lot of people have a natural tendency to always side with the underdog regardless of the facts of the situation, especially when it's one guy vs. any sort of institution (a company, school, whatever). That probably says something nice about humanity, but it doesn't make it any truthier.
- demachina 12y ago
  You seem to have a natural tendency to side with the authority figure which is just as bad if not worse :) How did you jump to the conclusion the CEO's version "was just the facts"? You seem to be saying because he is the boss that he is being factual and the employee inherently was not. The CEO's spin might be the facts but it would be impossible for anyone who wasn't there to know. That's why an employer wouldn't normally air stuff like this in public, its one person's word against another, and the liability risks are steep. I'm not basing my comments on which one of the two parties was being truthful, they might both think they are. You would have to do an indepth analysis of the employees performance, and the circumstances of his termination to know for sure. I'm saying it was really poor judgement for a powerful employer to unload on a relateively powerless former employee, and air what should have been confidential HR information in public like that. If I were applying for a job with the guy I would think twice about working for someone willing to savage an employee in public like that. If I was on his board I'd sure think twice about whether he is the right person for a CEO job.