A Twitter engineer who created cartoons poking fun at his own company was fired(businessinsider.com)
businessinsider.com
A Twitter engineer who created cartoons poking fun at his own company was fired
https://www.businessinsider.com/cartoon-drawing-troublemaker-twitter-engineer-manu-says-hes-been-fired-2022-11
50 comments
> I’m surprised folks say that we can’t be critical of own employer. Our employers are not lords or kings.
No one is saying you can't be critical of your own employer. They are saying there are repercussions to being critical and loss of employment is a common one which should be expected.
> We choose to work for them and can replace them.
They choose to employ us and can replace us.
No one is saying you can't be critical of your own employer. They are saying there are repercussions to being critical and loss of employment is a common one which should be expected.
> We choose to work for them and can replace them.
They choose to employ us and can replace us.
> No one is saying you can't be critical of your own employer. They are saying there are repercussions to being critical and loss of employment is a common one which should be expected.
Why do you feel that the expected outcome of being critical is being punished instead of addressing the root causes of these issues? I mean how do you expect problems to be pointed out and addressed?
Why do you feel that the expected outcome of being critical is being punished instead of addressing the root causes of these issues? I mean how do you expect problems to be pointed out and addressed?
>I mean how do you expect problems to be pointed out and addressed?
Apparently, at Twitter, you don't.
Apparently, at Twitter, you don't.
> Apparently, at Twitter, you don't.
Twitter is itching to shed people any way they can, so the problem lies elsewhere.
Twitter is itching to shed people any way they can, so the problem lies elsewhere.
Most companies I have worked for have a means to point out problems in an internal non-public manner. Once you bypass those to go public you generally lose the trust of your employer. Why would you employ someone you can no longer trust?
Is the status quo today akin to the story of The Emperor's New Clothes?
I think it was clear the person you're replying to is saying that the repercussions for being critical toward your employer is what makes it effectively 'not allowed'.
> They choose to employ us and can replace us.
It's really a mutual agreement, innit? The relative power in the situation is merely a supply / demand equation, for talent / jobs.
It's really a mutual agreement, innit? The relative power in the situation is merely a supply / demand equation, for talent / jobs.
Why is this dead?
Because some people can't accept there are consequences to actions.
>He wrote that after he tweeted a cartoon last year, Twitter HR asked him to take it down, along with one he had posted internally.
I do not understand the perceived right some people think they have to publicly harm the entity that is paying them. A private company is paying you to make them money and you accepted the role because you thought it was the most money you could make. If they decide that you have gone out of their way to create PR/money problems for them then of course they will/should let you go.
I do not understand the perceived right some people think they have to publicly harm the entity that is paying them. A private company is paying you to make them money and you accepted the role because you thought it was the most money you could make. If they decide that you have gone out of their way to create PR/money problems for them then of course they will/should let you go.
I worked at IBM years back. If there's one thing that binds current and former employees together it was the shared stitch & bitch about the company's way of doing things.
That would frequently happen in large public slack channels and to my knowledge (first and second hand) nobody was ever punished for that kind of talk. However, that was internal, between employees. Often it was about frustrations with how the company was run, sometimes using satire.
If that sort of thing happened in front of a client (which I never saw personally), I firmly believe that person would rightly be shown the door. It's one thing to complain about your company's problems internally, it's another to publish them.
That would frequently happen in large public slack channels and to my knowledge (first and second hand) nobody was ever punished for that kind of talk. However, that was internal, between employees. Often it was about frustrations with how the company was run, sometimes using satire.
If that sort of thing happened in front of a client (which I never saw personally), I firmly believe that person would rightly be shown the door. It's one thing to complain about your company's problems internally, it's another to publish them.
My first job was at IBM in 1991 when the "Akers memo" came out. I was amazed by the internal discussion that ensued online and how open people were with complaints about the company.
I wasn’t even alive in 1991, but reading that memo sounds very familiar given the recent statements companies like Meta[1] have made in anticipation of recession. I wonder if Meta has internal discussion in the same way.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/01/technology/meta-facebook-...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/01/technology/meta-facebook-...
maybe he was emulating the chief twit, who continues to denigrate the company even after he bought it
or are we already ad the mad king stage where everyone is forced to laugh when Elon posts a bad meme about twitter but if one of the peasants makes the same joke you get fed to the dragons?
or are we already ad the mad king stage where everyone is forced to laugh when Elon posts a bad meme about twitter but if one of the peasants makes the same joke you get fed to the dragons?
> you thought it was the most money you could make.
Maximum income is not my goal. Livable income, much free time, and minimal taxes is closer to where I would be if I was looking to work at all.
Maximum income is not my goal. Livable income, much free time, and minimal taxes is closer to where I would be if I was looking to work at all.
> Livable income, much free time, and minimal taxes
This and "most money you can make" are synonymous. The most disposable income you can have per hour worked. That's it. That's what "maximum income" means.
This and "most money you can make" are synonymous. The most disposable income you can have per hour worked. That's it. That's what "maximum income" means.
According to your definition, my money number is zero.
Also, many hourly workers refuse overtime due to the ramp on taxation after 40 hours.
There's no ramp on taxation after 40 hours in any jurisdiction I'm aware of-- just a ramp on income tax based on amount earned.
If you're making $800/week ($20/hour) and seeing withholding at 10%, the marginal withholding might be 20% on a step up to $950; on the other hand, you're getting time-and-a-half, so you still go from taking home $18/hour to $24/hour.
(And, of course, for occasional overtime work, you're going to get a lot of the additional tax withholding back, since your uneven income causes you to be overwithheld).
If you're making $800/week ($20/hour) and seeing withholding at 10%, the marginal withholding might be 20% on a step up to $950; on the other hand, you're getting time-and-a-half, so you still go from taking home $18/hour to $24/hour.
(And, of course, for occasional overtime work, you're going to get a lot of the additional tax withholding back, since your uneven income causes you to be overwithheld).
No. "Maximum income" is different from "maximum income per hour".
One implies income at the cost of free time. The other maximizes free time spent while having sufficient money.
One implies income at the cost of free time. The other maximizes free time spent while having sufficient money.
Do what you want, and your employer can do what they want.
In some ideal dream world the management would just grin and move on. In another ideal dream world the employee would be part of the solution instead of taking potshots at management.
In real life this person could be considered a toxic employee that sucks the life out of everyone. Fire them fast. If they don't like their environment they can find another one.
In some ideal dream world the management would just grin and move on. In another ideal dream world the employee would be part of the solution instead of taking potshots at management.
In real life this person could be considered a toxic employee that sucks the life out of everyone. Fire them fast. If they don't like their environment they can find another one.
> As Musk visited Twitter's San Francisco headquarters last week, Cornet handed him a cartoon with a note that read: "I hope you don't mind a 'court jester' at Twitter or you'll have to get me fired," signed with an emoji sticking his tongue out.
Well, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to say he basically fired himself.
Well, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to say he basically fired himself.
Twitter will be gone within a few years, or a shell of its former self.
Only if it gets rid of bots
I doubt it will take even that long. Gone by autumn 2023, and good riddance
I will put some money on a wager that they increase revenue and profits and take it public again in a few years.
That might be the greatest gift Elon could give to the world.
We can only hope it triggers the collapse of social media as we know it.
We can only hope it triggers the collapse of social media as we know it.
I wish Elon could somehow buy TikTok and then fly that straight into the ground.
Yes, please.
[deleted]
This is to be expected. Elon wants to say whatever he wants. He wants his friends and associates to be able to say what they want. The rest of you all... No, do as you're told. Note that he bought Twitter, not you.
As an employer I expect, at the very least, that employees act in the interest of the company - 100% - while they are employed and at work. (Provided that they are healthy and take care of their own fundamental needs first)
If they act in a way that is not in the company’s best interest repeatedly, then that is not a foundation for continuing the relationship.
Would you stay in a relationship where your partner keeps doing things that irk you repeatedly at a fundamental level, just out of goodwill for your partner? No, you would separate because it is your choice to make.
The employer-employee relationship is slightly different though in an important way: The employer has to set the direction and priorities for the company, not the employee.
If they act in a way that is not in the company’s best interest repeatedly, then that is not a foundation for continuing the relationship.
Would you stay in a relationship where your partner keeps doing things that irk you repeatedly at a fundamental level, just out of goodwill for your partner? No, you would separate because it is your choice to make.
The employer-employee relationship is slightly different though in an important way: The employer has to set the direction and priorities for the company, not the employee.
If your partner is repeatedly doing something annoying, you'd tell them to stop, not immediately break up.
Most companies seem to solicit feedback or suggestions from employees. Ignoring employees means ignoring everyone that actually knows what's going on.
Most companies seem to solicit feedback or suggestions from employees. Ignoring employees means ignoring everyone that actually knows what's going on.
So business as usual at Twitter then? I still recall the chorus of the "private platform" folks, you can even go into my comments, I warned them this would be the outcome.
"Don't bite the hand which feeds you"
It's not rocket science.
It's not rocket science.
That's stupid. A blind lack of dissent can easily run a company willingly and enthusiastically off a cliff.
I think that the work of this employee was to bite this hand. A company can have good reasons to allow it internally as a social control measure.
Kings used jesters as a way out to break tense moments and fights between their subjects; also to read the social undercurrents and detect hits against them.
The jester was also uniquely allowed a free card pass to transgress and jump over the rules. The fool jumping over the rules and providing comical relief reduces the desire to the rest of employees to break the same rules. They can fantasize about doing it, without actually doing it or suffering consequences. They can be also educated about the consequences as a moral of the history.
The cons of the job is that if the king is demoted, the king's personal buffon became useless, and first candidate to exemplary beheading or, in this case, being fired.
Kings used jesters as a way out to break tense moments and fights between their subjects; also to read the social undercurrents and detect hits against them.
The jester was also uniquely allowed a free card pass to transgress and jump over the rules. The fool jumping over the rules and providing comical relief reduces the desire to the rest of employees to break the same rules. They can fantasize about doing it, without actually doing it or suffering consequences. They can be also educated about the consequences as a moral of the history.
The cons of the job is that if the king is demoted, the king's personal buffon became useless, and first candidate to exemplary beheading or, in this case, being fired.
Memegen ftw
hoono(2)
Publicly insulting the company you work for will lead to immediate termination almost anywhere.
Not sure what the news is here.
Not sure what the news is here.
Self test for whether you’re full of it or not: if you think this was unjust, do you feel the same way about Google firing Damore? If not, why?
Damore was (with a lot of benefit of the doubt) totally clueless. Sure, he'll talk about how he thinks that discrimination is bad, and how he doesn't approve of sexism. He turns around and says that women are just neurotic and "more people focused", based on suspect evidence.
Of course you will point out that he was juts talking about the population, and reducing people top that is very bad mkay. He is totally not talking about the fine gals at Google! I could believe that he believes this, but the end result is that the 20% of Blind that is just misogynist assholes get more brazen.
Manu (lightly!) criticized his company with lighthearted cartoons. Demore in practice called 30% of his coworkers neurotic weaklings.
Of course you will point out that he was juts talking about the population, and reducing people top that is very bad mkay. He is totally not talking about the fine gals at Google! I could believe that he believes this, but the end result is that the 20% of Blind that is just misogynist assholes get more brazen.
Manu (lightly!) criticized his company with lighthearted cartoons. Demore in practice called 30% of his coworkers neurotic weaklings.
> are just neurotic
His claim was that women on average score higher in neuroticism of the Big Five personality traits. Very different from "just neurotic".
> suspect evidence
The psychometric stuff seems pretty solid to me. Are you a science denier?
His claim was that women on average score higher in neuroticism of the Big Five personality traits. Very different from "just neurotic".
> suspect evidence
The psychometric stuff seems pretty solid to me. Are you a science denier?
There’s no reasoning with these people. They’re buck broken to the core.
I’m surprised folks say that we can’t be critical of own employer. Our employers are not lords or kings. We choose to work for them and can replace them.