7 ms·

Regardless of the fact that he probably is a jerk, it doesn't seem like appropriate workplace behavior to be calling anyone a jerk. Just because you have free s

by briga 5mo ago

Regardless of the fact that he probably is a jerk, it doesn't seem like appropriate workplace behavior to be calling anyone a jerk. Just because you have free speech doesn't mean that your speech should have no consequences. Maybe it's unfair and a double standard, but to me it seems like a no-brainer that you shouldn't be calling people names in your workplace.

desecratedbody 5mo ago
I was going to write a similar comment, but it turns out that isn’t what she said but rather what Atlassian has said she suggested he is. https://ia.acs.org.au/article/2026/ex-atlassian-engineer-fights-dismissal-after-criticising-ceo.html https://ia.acs.org.au/article/2026/ex-atlassian-engineer-fig... > … It was an irrelevant personal attack and insult directed at a colleague, essentially calling him a ‘rich jerk’. > Unterwurzacher reportedly parodied the CEO on Slack, writing, “What’s up Outragers, just dialing in from my NBA team’s headquarters to yell at the people whose careers I’ve just pummeled.”
- pm90 5mo ago
  Wow. I mean, come on, thats like the least offensive thing ever. At the most, maybe tell the manager to tell them thats not the “spirit” of the workplace, but firing for this is a step too far. If the CEO wasn’t a jerk before he certainly is now.
  - jamesfinlayson 5mo ago
    Yeah this should have been a quiet word from HR to not say stuff like that.
    - hackable_sand 5mo ago
      Still too far
  - 9x39 5mo ago
    Making powerful people feel bad usually gets a negative response from them. Even just generally, if you make someone lose face publicly, they're prone to lash out at you since they often feel they can't back down.
- trashcan2137 5mo ago
  My sides can't handle this much freedom. This can be hardly called an ad hominem.
Freedom2 5mo ago
With the one caveat that Australia doesn't have free speech. It's the one thing that sets the US apart and ahead of others.
- YZF 5mo ago
  There's no "free speech" at work [-places] in the USA. That's not what free speech means anyways. You can and will be absolutely be fired for saying things at work that are incompatible with your employer's opinions. I can't think of a faster way to get fired anywhere than insulting the person running the company you work for, private or public company, definitely in public.
- mcv 5mo ago
  The US has less free speech than some other countries. Especially now, but this was always true at corporations. In the US you can be fired for anything, including speech.
Aeolun 5mo ago
Regardless of whether it is 'appropriate workplace behavior' to call a jerk a jerk, firing someone for it is so far outside the range of 'appropriate behavior' that it's hard to make a comparison.
- YZF 5mo ago
  Let's bring this close to home. You hire someone to mow your lawn. They come in every week and mow your lawn. And you pay them. One day you walk by and they're talking with your neighbor and you overhear them saying you're a rich a-hole and a jerk, and an idiot. I mean not appropriate workplace behavior. Are they going to still have a job or would you prefer that someone else mows your lawn? I mean they just said nasty things about you- nbd. not something that should affect their status as your "employee".
  - bmicraft 5mo ago
    Several things severely wrong with this example. The employee didn't talk to an outsider, they didn't talk to someone the CEO would be likely to have known personally, and they're so far removed from the CEO nobody thinks they'd know them on a personal level. You just can't talk about a CEO as if they're a person interacting and hiring people individually because they just don't.
    - YZF 5mo ago
      In a small company a CEO may approve all hiring. In a larger company they delegate that. But they run the company. Everyone in the company including those hiring reports directly or indirectly to them. When an employee communicates broadly inside a company, even if it's not directly to outsiders, that is essentially public. As we can see in this thread some random person chimed in with the details. But s/neighbor/your wife/ if that helps the analogy and insider vs. outsider is the issue. It's an imperfect one as they all tend to be. This is why for example quarterly results are not generally communicated to all insiders in a company before they are released, because they are going to leak. I think my analogy, though imperfect, demonstrates that when you have some sort of employment or other relationship, "bad mouthing" the other party, either in public or in private, is expected to be damaging to this relationship. The CEO of your company is the closest thing to the single person employing you. He runs the entity that employs you.

by briga 5mo ago

desecratedbody 5mo ago

I was going to write a similar comment, but it turns out that isn’t what she said but rather what Atlassian has said she suggested he is. https://ia.acs.org.au/article/2026/ex-atlassian-engineer-fights-dismissal-after-criticising-ceo.html https://ia.acs.org.au/article/2026/ex-atlassian-engineer-fig... > … It was an irrelevant personal attack and insult directed at a colleague, essentially calling him a ‘rich jerk’. > Unterwurzacher reportedly parodied the CEO on Slack, writing, “What’s up Outragers, just dialing in from my NBA team’s headquarters to yell at the people whose careers I’ve just pummeled.”

pm90 5mo ago
Wow. I mean, come on, thats like the least offensive thing ever. At the most, maybe tell the manager to tell them thats not the “spirit” of the workplace, but firing for this is a step too far. If the CEO wasn’t a jerk before he certainly is now.
- jamesfinlayson 5mo ago
  Yeah this should have been a quiet word from HR to not say stuff like that.
  - hackable_sand 5mo ago
    Still too far
- 9x39 5mo ago
  Making powerful people feel bad usually gets a negative response from them. Even just generally, if you make someone lose face publicly, they're prone to lash out at you since they often feel they can't back down.
trashcan2137 5mo ago
My sides can't handle this much freedom. This can be hardly called an ad hominem.

Freedom2 5mo ago

With the one caveat that Australia doesn't have free speech. It's the one thing that sets the US apart and ahead of others.

YZF 5mo ago
There's no "free speech" at work [-places] in the USA. That's not what free speech means anyways. You can and will be absolutely be fired for saying things at work that are incompatible with your employer's opinions. I can't think of a faster way to get fired anywhere than insulting the person running the company you work for, private or public company, definitely in public.
mcv 5mo ago
The US has less free speech than some other countries. Especially now, but this was always true at corporations. In the US you can be fired for anything, including speech.

Aeolun 5mo ago

Regardless of whether it is 'appropriate workplace behavior' to call a jerk a jerk, firing someone for it is so far outside the range of 'appropriate behavior' that it's hard to make a comparison.

YZF 5mo ago
Let's bring this close to home. You hire someone to mow your lawn. They come in every week and mow your lawn. And you pay them. One day you walk by and they're talking with your neighbor and you overhear them saying you're a rich a-hole and a jerk, and an idiot. I mean not appropriate workplace behavior. Are they going to still have a job or would you prefer that someone else mows your lawn? I mean they just said nasty things about you- nbd. not something that should affect their status as your "employee".
- bmicraft 5mo ago
  Several things severely wrong with this example. The employee didn't talk to an outsider, they didn't talk to someone the CEO would be likely to have known personally, and they're so far removed from the CEO nobody thinks they'd know them on a personal level. You just can't talk about a CEO as if they're a person interacting and hiring people individually because they just don't.
  - YZF 5mo ago
    In a small company a CEO may approve all hiring. In a larger company they delegate that. But they run the company. Everyone in the company including those hiring reports directly or indirectly to them. When an employee communicates broadly inside a company, even if it's not directly to outsiders, that is essentially public. As we can see in this thread some random person chimed in with the details. But s/neighbor/your wife/ if that helps the analogy and insider vs. outsider is the issue. It's an imperfect one as they all tend to be. This is why for example quarterly results are not generally communicated to all insiders in a company before they are released, because they are going to leak. I think my analogy, though imperfect, demonstrates that when you have some sort of employment or other relationship, "bad mouthing" the other party, either in public or in private, is expected to be damaging to this relationship. The CEO of your company is the closest thing to the single person employing you. He runs the entity that employs you.