Where did you read this?
But most people are extremely hypocritical, and will gladly ignore their “ideals” in the name of the holy fat paycheque.
Also, I cannot really explain really well, but it seems like there is a big difference saying “he” about just mythical person, and referring to a real person (whose gender you don’t know).
Not hard, but incorrect.
Regardless of how the vicissitudes of politics go, the current NLRB has made its decision, so the author is acting in accordance with the law. Their legal counsel agreed. Perhaps you find this dishonorable or morally disagreeable because of the particulars of this case, but given this is about an individual employee vs. megacorp, it seems no different in principle from the adage of "don't feel bad for quitting, your company would lay you off without a moment's thought." That VMWare vice president is not losing any sleep over the $40k.
Like what world do you live in that people don't complain about their old jobs such that you think it's that unacceptable?
Funnily enough, it would seem that VMWare historically has bigger things to worry about when it comes to the government, protests, and broken contracts:
> The Defence Information Security Agency (DISA) reversed a decision to award VMware Inc. with a $1.6 billion contract, following a protest by number of tech companies last February.
> The Pentagon’s decision to cancel its joint enterprise licensing agreement with VMware means the Government Accountability Office (GAO) was able to dismiss protests against the award made by Amazon Web Services (AWS), Citrix Systems Inc., Nutanix and Minburn Technology Group, LLC, as per the statement at this link.
https://siliconangle.com/2015/03/17/u-s-military-drops-1-6b-...
In any case, regardless of the intentions of the author, VMWare doesn’t look particularly worse off for having this story publicized. It feels like they were caught between a rock and hard place.
I disagree. If leadership of a company makes an ethically questionable decision and everyone who disagrees with that decision quits, that leaves an even more ethically questionable organization behind. I think all good people have an obligation to voice an ethical objection to their company's behavior whenever relevant. Don't just quit and let the amoral/immoral people win.
The author's problem was not that they decided to object instead of quit. Their mistake was doing the objection in both a public and intentionally inflammatory way.
If the opposite is stay and actually make efforts for change then yes. If it is staying and keeping your mouth shut then it's just keeping the status quo. And that may be fine and understandable but don't be offended when called out on that.
Posting a cynical tweet does not reflect a moral high ground, specially if the person doing the tweeting doesn't express any similar concern on any other occasion regarding their line of work and how they contribute directly and indirectly to that moral hazard, and apparently gets disappointed when their employer fires them.
Frankly, it all looks like puerile attention-seeking fuelled by Twitter echo chambers.
Do you go all out on your ideals? Does your employee not do anything that violates them?
this is complete bs. it's not 'VMWare or unemployment' (or any $bigtech or unemployment). there are a ton of employers ready to pay competent people a decent salary.
What other factual statements should you not be allowed to make about your employer's clients?
Or you think you can be obnoxious clown without repercussions?
Seems to be working for Elon, tbh.
It was a customer of the company that got offended. Should he know every customer of the company? If the company has 1000s of customers, are they all off limits? Are you supposed to know who they are?
If you work for AT&T and an AT&T customer (of the millions it has) is a jerk or you have some political disagreement with their views, do you get to tweet about it on your personal twitter account? Should they be able to complain and get you fired?
If I was a big tech company especially one trying to find people interested in working lower down the stack, I wouldn't go around pissing off leftist furries.
They are free to make these claims in a way that doesn’t damage the business. Like a second personal Twitter account.
Are they, though?
I mean, presumably they were posting from a personal account to begin with. Just how separate would a second account have to be - Is it enough to just say all opinions are their own, and only post on their own time? Could they use their own name? What about an online handle they'd used before, if a highly motivated doxxer could possibly identify their employer?
The author seemed perfectly fine with getting paid by their employer, but somehow felt morally justified to openly criticize the way they got their paycheck. It sounds like a very selective self-righteous position.