[Valkhyr]

Sure, but at the very best it means he did not object to somebody getting fired over it.

Legality of wage fixing aside for the moment, I don't think this should have been a fireable offense at all (reprimanding the recruiter to ensure it does not happen again would have been all that's needed to satisfy their little gentlemen's agreement).

[gfksje44]

Object to what end? That was Google’s call to terminate the recruiter. What should he have said: oh, that sucks, I didn’t want you to fire one of your people over it? The only outcome there is disagreement and why waste the energy, even if he believed that? That’s also a mixed signal contextually.

Even setting aside how Steve fired more than one person on the spot — I’m personally aware of him firing half a room in MobileMe, for example — and everything we know about him, and how the firing of that recruiter was probably the outcome he was telegraphing via the email, there’s absolutely nothing to gain in this situation challenging or objecting to Google’s move as an executive at another company, particularly on moral grounds. He’d have looked like an (exploitable) idiot, to be quite frank, given how business works at this level.

How do you think that conversation would have gone? “Oh, you’re right, we shouldn’t have done that, our bad?”

[Valkhyr]

Did I say he should have objected, or to get the recruiter reinstated? I find it inappropriate to respond with a smilie when you hear somebody was just fired. Something more neutral like "I appreciate the issue has been handled" would have sat better with me (disregarding the larger context of how f*cked up the entire agreement was, of course).