The central issue (or so they claimed) was that people might misconstrue my comment as representing the company I was at.
So yeah, I don’t understand why people are making fun of this. It’s serious.
On the other hand, they were so uptight that I’m not sure “opinions are my own” would have prevented it. But it would have been at least some defense.
In my experience it didn't matter at all, they considered "you work for us, its known you work for us, therefore your opinions reflect on us".
Absolute nonsense, they don't pay me for 24 hours of the day. I told them where they can stick it (politely) and got a new job.
Also a relief to hear that other people had to deal with this nonsense. I was afraid the reaction would be “there’s no way that happened,” since at the time I could hardly believe it either.
Bold and silly of you to even reveal where you work tbh.
Their employer? They may work at related company, and are required to say this.
But I think you’re right
it's like people are LARPing a Fortune company CEO when they're giving their hot takes on social media
reminds me of Trump ending his wild takes on social media with "thank you for your attention to this matter" - so out of place, it makes it really funny
*typo
At least in large tech companies, they have mandatory social media training where they explicitly tell employees to use phrases like "my views are my own" to keep it clear whether they're speaking on behalf of their employer or not.
Disclaimers aren’t there for folks who are thinking and acting rationally.
They are there for people who are thinking irrationally and/or manipulatively.
There are (relatively speaking) a lot of these people. They can chew up a lot of time and resources over what amounts to nothing.
Disclaimers like this can give a legal department the upper hand in cases like this
A few simple examples:
- There is a person I know who didn’t renew the contract of one of their reports. Pretty straightforward thing. The person whose contract was not renewed has been contesting this legally for over 10 years. The outcome is guaranteed to go against the person complaining, but they have time and money, so they tax the legal team of their former employer.
- There is a mid-sized organization that had a small legal team that had its plate full with regular business stuff. Despite settlements having NDAs, word got out that fairly light claims of sexual harassment and/or EEO complaints would yield relatively easy five-figure payments. Those complaints exploded, and some of the complaints were comical. For example, one manager represented a stance for the department to the C-suite that was 180 degrees opposite of what the group of three managers had agreed to prior. Lots of political capital and lots of time had to be used to clean up that mess. That person’s manager was accused of sex discrimination and age discrimination simply for asking the person why they did that (in a professional way, I might add). That person got a settlement, moved to a different department, and was effectively protected from administrative actions due to it being considered retaliation.
> Sounds like the company in the latter example really screwed up
Interesting. I think they made an unfortunate but sound decision based on their circumstances.
> but how does that connect to disclaimers?
It doesn’t directly.
> Is it just an example of malicious behavior?
Yes. It’s an example of how absolutely bat-shit crazy people can behave in ways that can tax a company’s legal team. Having folks use a disclaimer will almost certainly lighten some of this load in terms of defending against folks who weaponize online comments made by employees.
This is the exact line of inquiry that I took.
I asked why they didn’t just offer the toxic person a buy out or just fire the person and take the hit.
And…
1. They did offer a buy out. The person refused. The person was towards the end of their working career, and backdoor comms revealed that the person felt like they had quite a few years left of earning potential.
2. Then why not fire and pay the price? This turned back into the issue of the legal team not having the capacity to handle a case like the one they would have. The person would basically be retired and bitter and would make harassing the company legally their full time job — one that would probably yield decent dividends. Remember, the person was not looking for an equitable outcome — it was an identity issue.
Ultimately, they decided to put the person in a differ department, don’t give them any power, but give them something to do that was at least marginally productive. The person was placed under a super chill person and coasted to retirement.
It’s hard to tell if the path taken was financially optimal, but it was certainly close. That said, the path they took led to far fewer strains on the legal and executive staffs. I’m guessing that was actually worth a lot.
when i give my hot takes pseudonymously on social media these phrases would be nothing but a LARP
i don't put my real name here nor do i put my professional commitments in my profile, and neither does this guy
That is a bold claim!
"There is no free will." - Dr. Robert Sapolsky
Why does this need to be stated? Who else's would they be?
edit: he puts this on so many comments lol c'mon this is absurd.
Just add it to your profile once, no one assumes individuals speak for their employers here that would be stupid. The need to add disclaimer would be for the uncommon case that you were speaking for them. It's an anonymous message board we're all just taking here it's not that serious.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...