Saw a variation of this during the recent bout of tech layoffs. Shortly before end of year eval time, a senior executive sent out emails questioning whether it was even possible for new hires to have made sufficient impact and suggesting they should consequently be given a poor rating as the default.
It's amazing that leaders at these companies which, for years, acted as though they had all the answers and were more successful than other industries because they worked smarter. And then, at the first sign of headwinds, they want no accountability for their decisions and can't figure out a principles as simple as being honest and treating people fairly.
I'm honestly curious how CloudFlare will handle reference checks for these people, given they are calling these performance based dismissals. Will they say they are "not eligible for rehire" (the HR way of saying they were terminated for cause)? If so, I hope they get sued, as that can tank a person's entire career trajectory.
>I'm honestly curious how CloudFlare will handle reference checks for these people, given they are calling these performance based dismissals. Will they say they are "not eligible for rehire" (the HR way of saying they were terminated for cause)? If so, I hope they get sued, as that can tank a person's entire career trajectory.
1. If you were fired for "performance" reasons, why would you want to use that as a reference?
2. IANAL, but regardless of whether "not eligible for rehire" will "tank a person's entire career trajectory", truth is a valid defense against defamation. If Cloudflare indeed is not going to rehire them, they're fairly safe from lawsuits.
This video also give us an example of a trend of recent years that is really awful:
In very short cycles, going on a hire spree and then redundancies plans without real consequences for the management or companies. Basically it costs them almost nothing to mess with people's lives.
For example, when doing unreasonable mass hiring, the market goes up, because it is a sign of growth. Then, when firing people in mass, the market value also goes up because it is supposed a sign for short term increased revenue.
In big tech, people are commodities, not human beings with lives. Its not just shown in the hire/fire cycle you mention, but also in how many companies let the most vile content thrive on their platforms, with no consideration about the harm it creates. All of this to make a buck or keep the stock prices up.
In the UK (and most other places with fairly strong employee protections I imagine) it becomes pretty difficult to get rid of employees once they've been around for a while. Often involving a lengthy "managing out" process.
Given this, it's common for a 3-6 month "probation period" when starting a new role in which you can be dismissed fairly arbitrarily. This makes sense given the commitment taking on an employee represents IMO.
As a result, it's very common for people to lose their jobs within a few months of starting. Just as I imagine a lot of relationships end after a rather short period of time or then tend to persist a bit longer. Sometimes it's clear things just aren't going to work out.
She's right in that it's a bit of a rug pull to get continuously good feedback and then suddenly get terminated. There should ideally never be any surprises. I.e. you'd always usually tell the employee what will happen if x does/doesn't happen, get them to agree and then when it pans out that way, no-one is shocked. But like I said.. she's been there what, 4 months? Just move on.
> In the UK (and most other places with fairly strong employee protections I imagine)
People keep saying this, but I'm not at all convinced anyone commenting really understands UK employment law. It's really only after 2 years of working for the same company that you get any decent employment protection.
It takes a bit more legal work, but if within the first 2 years they don't want you, they can get rid of you. If you're within your first 3 months of probation, they can just extend it to 6 months and get rid of you.
The UK is not a great country these days to go "employment laws keep you safe". There are better ones.
If you don't want these rug pulls and employment laws to keep getting watered down, instead of asking about 4 day work weeks, start voting for candidates and parties that have better employment laws at the top of their policies.
> As a result, it's very common for people to lose their jobs within a few months of starting.
The rest of your post seems to contradict this, or at least it's a bit inconsistent. You can lose your job during or at the end of the probation period, because the probation period didn't work out, but it's very uncommon to be laid off shortly after you've passed your probation period.
I guess you mean that this is the US, so this was a kind of "probation period" for her, but in that case it should have been made very clear that she was failing.
If you lay an employee off and it's a surprise to them, you've fucked up.
Unless you've worked at a UK company for at least 2 years you are effectively at-will and can be terminated for any or no reason, except a specifically illegal reason.
In the US, that does not happen. The expectation is someone only gets terminated in the first year if they are terrible. Unless it’s a tiny startup, such a stint would raise concerns.
Her ability to "just move on" may be compromised by having a very short stay on her resume, and no reference.
I hope she finds something else quickly but many companies look for any red flags as sufficient reason not to take the risk. This kind of experience has real implications for a person's future prospects, at least for several years.
> "I-it could be that she didn't actually listen to the feedback, guys. What if she had bad feedback?!" (Implying, without evidence, that the employee is at fault. The most tone-deaf part of his response.)
> "Maybe she'd be a star on another team!" (Pointless sports analogy. Another tone-deaf moment.)
The language really gets me. Maybe (happily) I've been out of corporate America for too long to get it...
"...part ways with you..." --> "We've decided to fire you."
"...Rosie might be better to explain the process of who's giving this information..." --> "Rosie can talk about why it's us vs. your manager."
"...this is a collective calibration for Cloudflare..." --> what the fuck?
"...if you can respect that. We can totally respect that..." --> at a loss
"...meet the expectations that you're communicating to us..." --> "...tell you what you want to know..."
"...give you the data that was calibrated..." --> ...how do you calibrate data? FFS.
"...extremely traumatizing for people..." --> ha ha ha...goddamn snowflake. You're getting fired, it's not fun, but it's not like watching your buddies get blown up in front of you and waking up in bed screaming for the next forty years.
"...I cannot speak to what your manager has communicated to you directly..." --> "I don't know what your manager said"
"...I hear you and what you're saying..." --> "I understand"
"...from a process perspective, your questions are valid but this isn't going to be the forum and situation where..." --> "We aren't going to have that conversation with you now"
"...I don't think there's anything we can say in this moment and today..." --> "Sorry"
In particular, what's up with the duplication? "this moment & today", etc.? I hear it from people with a low bureaucratic position a lot. Think firefighter making an announcement, HR drone, etc.
truly rolled over laughing at "collective calibration". kudos to you for going over their BS speak line by line and laying it bare. At the risk of generalization, HR at most companies in the US are truly tone deaf these days.
Here's a related question: will this video ultimately help or hinder her career? I've always feared that other companies will look at this sort of thing, regardless of who is "in the right", and want to distance themselves from a potential rabble rouser who might bring some future emergent attention to them as well.
I'm not going to be that extreme. But I needed an instance today and I definitely didn't set up anything on Cloudflare for this project. Maybe in time I'll migrate everything. I used to think they were pretty cool but when they pull stunts like this I think they aren't a great place.
I'm glad people are finally outing companies that do this. People need to take these actions into consideration when deciding to join companies like Cloudflare.
Very strange. If it's a layoff, just say it's a layoff and follow the standard procedure. It's bad but nothing fundamentally wrong if it has to happen. If it's about performance, like the article says, the employee should be warned with metrics and other evidence. That's why companies like Amazon have procedures like pip to "ensure" a performance related firing has its basis (even though pip is often abused there, whatever, at least in theory that's something). I don't think this will go well
1) the saleswoman did not make any sales during her trial period, so she is justifiable fired.
2) what she did, recording the meeting without the other part knowladgement is borderline (if not totally) illegal.
3) Her actitude was condescending and snobby. Thing that probably justify her situation.
4) Uploading this to TikTok is completely unappropriated, and probable professional suicide.
5) The way the company assigned a random person to fire her over zoom is definitely not nice, her manager should have done that. Also it looks like the way this company works and she know that during the period she also remotely worked for them.
In her own words, and seems like its the way the company works, she had a 3 month ramp - which I presume is along the lines of training, mentoring, pairing, learning the ropes by example etc - and then let lose to get stuck in, which as she says has been only one month that overlaped a holiday period.
It sure seems like Cloudflare are just culling staff to me, or her manager has no managerial abilities and doesn't know how to give genuinely useful feedback.
If it was her performance that was in question, there would be a trail, maybe even a car crash worth of evidence to back up that claim.
I don't think she will have issues finding work, unless having high standards, conducting yourself in a professional manner, and fighting for yourself and for your peers are considered a bad things.
I think Richard Branson (Virgin) once said, "Treat your staff how you would like them to treat your best customer." - unfortunatrly that doesn't appear to be the mantra at Cloudflare.
I would hire her in a second. She saw something unethical and made it public at risk of personal cost. Hiring her is like sending the message "we aren't afraid of this happening because we don't do that." I would view hiring her as a positive sign for a potential employer.
Not only that, she comes off as authentic and sold her side of the story very well with that video. She speaks clearly and cogently, even while emotions are clearly bubbling. I think that video shows her skills as a salesperson in action.
Good leaders hire people who keep them in check. Poor leaders hire people they can walk over.
She is making them pay a much greater cost than her severance in PR and that benefits me because I am more likely to be in her position than I am to be in the CEO's position.
I straight up won't work for CloudFlare now after seeing this and the CEOs feeble response. CloudFlare is now in the category of "corporate" in my head.
I would rather live in a country made of people like her than a country made of people who don't fight back when they feel wronged.
Corporate America is able to be a steaming pile of garbage because most people think like you and not her, so there are no consequences for HR assholes being HR assholes, and since there are no consequences, the dehumanizing behavior keeps on going. She provided consequences. Now those HR workers are going to have to sit in meetings and develop more empathetic policies or come up with a sales pitch on why that video is wrong themselves. The CEO is probably going to have to talk to shareholders about it.
Next time they might look at the potential set of consequences (or another company might) and say it's not worth it.
This is an archaic take on sales. They're not selling fungible widgets, their service is not something to offload on clients who don't want it as then they'll obviously just stop the subscription, with all that's happened being to undermine Cloudflare's reputation and chance at future business.
She comes across well, thinks on her feet and is assertive without being even remotely unreasonable.
She hasn't closed one deal in the one month she's been with the company after training, does that sound like a reasonable evaluation period to you? Why did she not receive any feedback on that from her manager? If your layoff is a surprise to the employee, you fucked up.
> Brittney P. should be worried about her future job prospects. This video is now viral. I would think twice about hiring her.
If you would avoid hiring a person because they might expose your shitty practices, that says more about your practices than about the person.
> Brittney P. should be worried about her future job prospects. This video is now viral. I would think twice about hiring her.
This video reminds me of the cop who was suspended for continually posting TikTok videos of herself dancing while in uniform even after being warned multiple times to stop[0]. Her reaction was to keep doing it.
Regardless of who is right in this situation (neither side in my mind) this "blew up" and as you say there isn't a manager or org that isn't paying close attention to this. She's going to have serious challenges in getting her next role. Whether fair or not she's radioactive at this point. If nothing else if Britney P is in a two/all party recording consent state this is technically illegal. Not saying that's right but it is the law...
I'd go as far as to say I'd never hire her. Work is challenging enough without knowing a person you're working with could be manipulating/trapping you for their social media account(s) and actually has in the past. Right/wrong is often grey and a matter of perspective. One person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist.
To the people who are saying you would hire her and view this as admirable - fair enough but situations can be very subtle and you wouldn't feel the same way if she caught you on a bad/off day and setup a situation where you could very easily be portrayed as the "bad guy" and "put you on blast".
It's just not worth the risk.
Explanations for this in my mind:
1) Social media addiction is a real thing. According to the American Society of Addiction Medicine the definition of addiction is "People with addiction use substances or engage in behaviors that become compulsive and often continue despite harmful consequences."
2) Looking for any situation to serve as a springboard for a new "career" as a social media "personality".
3) Doing ANYTHING for fame or attention.
4) The only good explanation - wanting to bring attention to an unjust situation. My cynical and dim view of social media, "influencers", etc makes me think this is the most remote explanation. Even if this is the case situations where only one party knows they're on a stage gives them a massive advantage in these kinds of interactions and if you watch the video it's obvious from the start this was a trap. The Cloudflare employee on the other end of the line is completely incompetent and ironically should be fired for their performance for how they did overall but also for not recognizing this is clearly the case. As the linked article says right up front:
"This is a prime example of why you should always assume your employees are recording your conversations."
Great, what a wonderful environment we've created for ourselves.
It's one thing to record, it's another thing entirely to record and post to social media. If Britney P was solely collecting evidence/documentation she could have recorded the video and kept it to herself but no, straight to TikTok.
Slight tangent - also see the situation where a "prank" social media person was shot during one of their pranks[2]. The whole social media prank thing is completely disgusting to me and the fact a jury acquitted the shooter leads me to believe that taking advantage of ordinary people with these parasitic, dangerous, and obnoxious "pranks" (harassment) is disgusting to most people who aren't desperate social media addicts.
The social media person's response to this situation was unbelievable, with them saying "We’re gonna continue the videos. It is what it is". I believe they're also on record saying how great the entire thing was because it only lead to more attention and views... See 1-3 - you very well could have died and you might next time yet you lean in harder. Yeah, I'd say that meets the definition of addiction. It's no different than OD'ing on fentanyl and continuing to use.
What people will do for the clicks/followers/likes is incredible.
She might be an underperforming employee who made a bad decision in posting the recording to the web, but that does not take away from the fact that how the employer handled the call was truly disastrous and unprofessional.
>Wait...the theater major who hasn't closed anything six months into her job (LinkedIn) and was oddly made up with stage makeup for her termination conversation was just "totally surprised" by this?
Ya the guy who posted that is an obvious sales shill. I wouldn't be surprised if he has or wants a relationship with CloudFlare or some higher up in it. He goes out of his way to point out she put on makeup for the call? I mean he's in sales, women have to look good in that profession. What exactly is stage makeup vs regular makeup? What exactly is the point of denegrating her degree? I'm sure he doesn't degrade his own female employees for wearing makeup on any professional interaction. He didn't even get the employment timespans right.
I mean terminations happen, no reason to be scummy about it, Peter. It makes you look really unprofessional too.
Anyway, good luck lady. I hope you find a better company for you.
[+] [-] JustLurking2022|2 years ago|reply
It's amazing that leaders at these companies which, for years, acted as though they had all the answers and were more successful than other industries because they worked smarter. And then, at the first sign of headwinds, they want no accountability for their decisions and can't figure out a principles as simple as being honest and treating people fairly.
I'm honestly curious how CloudFlare will handle reference checks for these people, given they are calling these performance based dismissals. Will they say they are "not eligible for rehire" (the HR way of saying they were terminated for cause)? If so, I hope they get sued, as that can tank a person's entire career trajectory.
[+] [-] barbazoo|2 years ago|reply
Plus the act of career suicide by publishing company meeting recordings on social media.
[+] [-] j4yav|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pandaman|2 years ago|reply
Just like every other company: confirm the start date, the end date, and the job title. Nobody in their sane mind will give anything else.
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gruez|2 years ago|reply
1. If you were fired for "performance" reasons, why would you want to use that as a reference?
2. IANAL, but regardless of whether "not eligible for rehire" will "tank a person's entire career trajectory", truth is a valid defense against defamation. If Cloudflare indeed is not going to rehire them, they're fairly safe from lawsuits.
[+] [-] greatgib|2 years ago|reply
In very short cycles, going on a hire spree and then redundancies plans without real consequences for the management or companies. Basically it costs them almost nothing to mess with people's lives.
For example, when doing unreasonable mass hiring, the market goes up, because it is a sign of growth. Then, when firing people in mass, the market value also goes up because it is supposed a sign for short term increased revenue.
[+] [-] SkipperCat|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ceuk|2 years ago|reply
Given this, it's common for a 3-6 month "probation period" when starting a new role in which you can be dismissed fairly arbitrarily. This makes sense given the commitment taking on an employee represents IMO.
As a result, it's very common for people to lose their jobs within a few months of starting. Just as I imagine a lot of relationships end after a rather short period of time or then tend to persist a bit longer. Sometimes it's clear things just aren't going to work out.
She's right in that it's a bit of a rug pull to get continuously good feedback and then suddenly get terminated. There should ideally never be any surprises. I.e. you'd always usually tell the employee what will happen if x does/doesn't happen, get them to agree and then when it pans out that way, no-one is shocked. But like I said.. she's been there what, 4 months? Just move on.
[+] [-] JazCE|2 years ago|reply
People keep saying this, but I'm not at all convinced anyone commenting really understands UK employment law. It's really only after 2 years of working for the same company that you get any decent employment protection.
It takes a bit more legal work, but if within the first 2 years they don't want you, they can get rid of you. If you're within your first 3 months of probation, they can just extend it to 6 months and get rid of you.
The UK is not a great country these days to go "employment laws keep you safe". There are better ones.
If you don't want these rug pulls and employment laws to keep getting watered down, instead of asking about 4 day work weeks, start voting for candidates and parties that have better employment laws at the top of their policies.
[+] [-] stavros|2 years ago|reply
The rest of your post seems to contradict this, or at least it's a bit inconsistent. You can lose your job during or at the end of the probation period, because the probation period didn't work out, but it's very uncommon to be laid off shortly after you've passed your probation period.
I guess you mean that this is the US, so this was a kind of "probation period" for her, but in that case it should have been made very clear that she was failing.
If you lay an employee off and it's a surprise to them, you've fucked up.
[+] [-] intunderflow|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fvrghl|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tatpacc|2 years ago|reply
as someone who is unaware of related laws in UK/US, can you elaborate more? or if possible cite some examples? Thank you.
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] JustLurking2022|2 years ago|reply
I hope she finds something else quickly but many companies look for any red flags as sufficient reason not to take the risk. This kind of experience has real implications for a person's future prospects, at least for several years.
[+] [-] flumpcakes|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JazCE|2 years ago|reply
Edit: Also discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38969065
[+] [-] A_D_E_P_T|2 years ago|reply
> "I-it could be that she didn't actually listen to the feedback, guys. What if she had bad feedback?!" (Implying, without evidence, that the employee is at fault. The most tone-deaf part of his response.)
> "Maybe she'd be a star on another team!" (Pointless sports analogy. Another tone-deaf moment.)
> "W-we'll do better next time."
An embarrassing display.
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] NoImmatureAdHom|2 years ago|reply
"...part ways with you..." --> "We've decided to fire you."
"...Rosie might be better to explain the process of who's giving this information..." --> "Rosie can talk about why it's us vs. your manager."
"...this is a collective calibration for Cloudflare..." --> what the fuck?
"...if you can respect that. We can totally respect that..." --> at a loss
"...meet the expectations that you're communicating to us..." --> "...tell you what you want to know..."
"...give you the data that was calibrated..." --> ...how do you calibrate data? FFS.
"...extremely traumatizing for people..." --> ha ha ha...goddamn snowflake. You're getting fired, it's not fun, but it's not like watching your buddies get blown up in front of you and waking up in bed screaming for the next forty years.
"...I cannot speak to what your manager has communicated to you directly..." --> "I don't know what your manager said"
"...I hear you and what you're saying..." --> "I understand"
"...from a process perspective, your questions are valid but this isn't going to be the forum and situation where..." --> "We aren't going to have that conversation with you now"
"...I don't think there's anything we can say in this moment and today..." --> "Sorry"
In particular, what's up with the duplication? "this moment & today", etc.? I hear it from people with a low bureaucratic position a lot. Think firefighter making an announcement, HR drone, etc.
[+] [-] SpicyLemonZest|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] atomicone|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Solvency|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] junon|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xhkkffbf|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jmull|2 years ago|reply
Makes me wonder if he hadn’t been let go too?
[+] [-] Clubber|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] d3w4s9|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eweise|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Loucra|2 years ago|reply
2) what she did, recording the meeting without the other part knowladgement is borderline (if not totally) illegal.
3) Her actitude was condescending and snobby. Thing that probably justify her situation.
4) Uploading this to TikTok is completely unappropriated, and probable professional suicide.
5) The way the company assigned a random person to fire her over zoom is definitely not nice, her manager should have done that. Also it looks like the way this company works and she know that during the period she also remotely worked for them.
[+] [-] thinkingemote|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bitcharmer|2 years ago|reply
This is a duplicate of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38977794
[+] [-] 1vuio0pswjnm7|2 years ago|reply
Alternatively:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240113220120if_/https://www.in...
[+] [-] billy99k|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dp-hackernews|2 years ago|reply
It sure seems like Cloudflare are just culling staff to me, or her manager has no managerial abilities and doesn't know how to give genuinely useful feedback.
If it was her performance that was in question, there would be a trail, maybe even a car crash worth of evidence to back up that claim.
I don't think she will have issues finding work, unless having high standards, conducting yourself in a professional manner, and fighting for yourself and for your peers are considered a bad things.
I think Richard Branson (Virgin) once said, "Treat your staff how you would like them to treat your best customer." - unfortunatrly that doesn't appear to be the mantra at Cloudflare.
[+] [-] hayst4ck|2 years ago|reply
Not only that, she comes off as authentic and sold her side of the story very well with that video. She speaks clearly and cogently, even while emotions are clearly bubbling. I think that video shows her skills as a salesperson in action.
Good leaders hire people who keep them in check. Poor leaders hire people they can walk over.
She is making them pay a much greater cost than her severance in PR and that benefits me because I am more likely to be in her position than I am to be in the CEO's position.
I straight up won't work for CloudFlare now after seeing this and the CEOs feeble response. CloudFlare is now in the category of "corporate" in my head.
I would rather live in a country made of people like her than a country made of people who don't fight back when they feel wronged.
Corporate America is able to be a steaming pile of garbage because most people think like you and not her, so there are no consequences for HR assholes being HR assholes, and since there are no consequences, the dehumanizing behavior keeps on going. She provided consequences. Now those HR workers are going to have to sit in meetings and develop more empathetic policies or come up with a sales pitch on why that video is wrong themselves. The CEO is probably going to have to talk to shareholders about it.
Next time they might look at the potential set of consequences (or another company might) and say it's not worth it.
The least we owe her is solidarity.
[+] [-] nmstoker|2 years ago|reply
She comes across well, thinks on her feet and is assertive without being even remotely unreasonable.
[+] [-] gjfxdfyu|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dp-hackernews|2 years ago|reply
https://www.entrepreneur.com/growing-a-business/what-to-do-w...
[+] [-] nunez|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stavros|2 years ago|reply
> Brittney P. should be worried about her future job prospects. This video is now viral. I would think twice about hiring her.
If you would avoid hiring a person because they might expose your shitty practices, that says more about your practices than about the person.
[+] [-] justanorherhack|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] superhumanuser|2 years ago|reply
She seems passionate and strong. I like her fight and pushback.
[+] [-] kkielhofner|2 years ago|reply
This video reminds me of the cop who was suspended for continually posting TikTok videos of herself dancing while in uniform even after being warned multiple times to stop[0]. Her reaction was to keep doing it.
Regardless of who is right in this situation (neither side in my mind) this "blew up" and as you say there isn't a manager or org that isn't paying close attention to this. She's going to have serious challenges in getting her next role. Whether fair or not she's radioactive at this point. If nothing else if Britney P is in a two/all party recording consent state this is technically illegal. Not saying that's right but it is the law...
I'd go as far as to say I'd never hire her. Work is challenging enough without knowing a person you're working with could be manipulating/trapping you for their social media account(s) and actually has in the past. Right/wrong is often grey and a matter of perspective. One person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist.
To the people who are saying you would hire her and view this as admirable - fair enough but situations can be very subtle and you wouldn't feel the same way if she caught you on a bad/off day and setup a situation where you could very easily be portrayed as the "bad guy" and "put you on blast".
It's just not worth the risk.
Explanations for this in my mind:
1) Social media addiction is a real thing. According to the American Society of Addiction Medicine the definition of addiction is "People with addiction use substances or engage in behaviors that become compulsive and often continue despite harmful consequences."
2) Looking for any situation to serve as a springboard for a new "career" as a social media "personality".
3) Doing ANYTHING for fame or attention.
4) The only good explanation - wanting to bring attention to an unjust situation. My cynical and dim view of social media, "influencers", etc makes me think this is the most remote explanation. Even if this is the case situations where only one party knows they're on a stage gives them a massive advantage in these kinds of interactions and if you watch the video it's obvious from the start this was a trap. The Cloudflare employee on the other end of the line is completely incompetent and ironically should be fired for their performance for how they did overall but also for not recognizing this is clearly the case. As the linked article says right up front:
"This is a prime example of why you should always assume your employees are recording your conversations."
Great, what a wonderful environment we've created for ourselves.
It's one thing to record, it's another thing entirely to record and post to social media. If Britney P was solely collecting evidence/documentation she could have recorded the video and kept it to herself but no, straight to TikTok.
Slight tangent - also see the situation where a "prank" social media person was shot during one of their pranks[2]. The whole social media prank thing is completely disgusting to me and the fact a jury acquitted the shooter leads me to believe that taking advantage of ordinary people with these parasitic, dangerous, and obnoxious "pranks" (harassment) is disgusting to most people who aren't desperate social media addicts.
The social media person's response to this situation was unbelievable, with them saying "We’re gonna continue the videos. It is what it is". I believe they're also on record saying how great the entire thing was because it only lead to more attention and views... See 1-3 - you very well could have died and you might next time yet you lean in harder. Yeah, I'd say that meets the definition of addiction. It's no different than OD'ing on fentanyl and continuing to use.
What people will do for the clicks/followers/likes is incredible.
[0] - https://www.clickorlando.com/news/investigators/2021/05/31/o...
[1] - https://www.asam.org/quality-care/definition-of-addiction
[2] - https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/jury-divided-over-w...
[+] [-] flappyeagle|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Kurd|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Clubber|2 years ago|reply
Ya the guy who posted that is an obvious sales shill. I wouldn't be surprised if he has or wants a relationship with CloudFlare or some higher up in it. He goes out of his way to point out she put on makeup for the call? I mean he's in sales, women have to look good in that profession. What exactly is stage makeup vs regular makeup? What exactly is the point of denegrating her degree? I'm sure he doesn't degrade his own female employees for wearing makeup on any professional interaction. He didn't even get the employment timespans right.
I mean terminations happen, no reason to be scummy about it, Peter. It makes you look really unprofessional too.
Anyway, good luck lady. I hope you find a better company for you.