Unity fires manager who tweeted the company is “out of touch”(vg247.com)
vg247.com
Unity fires manager who tweeted the company is “out of touch”
https://www.vg247.com/unity-fires-manager-after-calling-company-out-of-touch-on-twitter
50 comments
I agree with the substance but I don’t agree with airing dirty laundry on Twitter.
I’m not an exec but I’ve said things at work I regret. I’m sure many of us have. You just say a stupid thing here or there sometimes. It seems destructive to bring that all out publicly on Twitter.
I’m not an exec but I’ve said things at work I regret. I’m sure many of us have. You just say a stupid thing here or there sometimes. It seems destructive to bring that all out publicly on Twitter.
I defend the termination, based on what I read and have experienced on Twitter, today:
The fired employee named the executive, on Twitter, in the same thread before being fired.
And, Twitter, as you're all probably aware, can be a cesspool of under-moderated hate, lately.
The company and executive should reasonably expect that the executive will receive a lot of hate from randos, due to the tweet thread.
I suspect this tweet thread opens Unity Inc up to risk by funding, through keeping on the payroll, a person who, in turn, drives hatred and vitriol online to another one of its employees. So I imagine unity decided to put an end to this liability.
The fired employee named the executive, on Twitter, in the same thread before being fired.
And, Twitter, as you're all probably aware, can be a cesspool of under-moderated hate, lately.
The company and executive should reasonably expect that the executive will receive a lot of hate from randos, due to the tweet thread.
I suspect this tweet thread opens Unity Inc up to risk by funding, through keeping on the payroll, a person who, in turn, drives hatred and vitriol online to another one of its employees. So I imagine unity decided to put an end to this liability.
> I suspect this tweet thread opens Unity Inc up to risk by funding, through keeping on the payroll, a person who, in turn, drives hatred and vitriol online to another one of its employees. So I imagine unity decided to put an end to this liability.
As opposed to firing the employee and giving her good reasons to deliberately send harassment trolls after the former employer.
As opposed to firing the employee and giving her good reasons to deliberately send harassment trolls after the former employer.
* She tweeted her first name
True.
In my estimation, and having worked at Unity, Unity is not that big where a first name couldn't uniquely identify a female executive.
So the risk is real.
In my estimation, and having worked at Unity, Unity is not that big where a first name couldn't uniquely identify a female executive.
So the risk is real.
Oh heavens. An executive being held accountable for the negative externalities their incessant nudging is trying to push on other employees?
Unthinkable. That sort of accountability is only for those plebian workers.
Unthinkable. That sort of accountability is only for those plebian workers.
> accountable ... negative externalities .. incessant .. plebian
Yikes - as opposed to these hypothetical concerns, the employee neatly doxxed a coworker, and complained about an un-raised (as far as we know she did not ask for a cost-of-living-adjustment) internal grievance in a public forum. Reality is she behaved unethically, in my view.
Yikes - as opposed to these hypothetical concerns, the employee neatly doxxed a coworker, and complained about an un-raised (as far as we know she did not ask for a cost-of-living-adjustment) internal grievance in a public forum. Reality is she behaved unethically, in my view.
Reality is, management, by virtue of their possession of Director titles, are already often public information available to investors. Number 1.
Number 2: Nudge theory is absolutely a thing, and barring a technical reason for RTO, it is 100% a powerplay by management. I have been in on meetings where those types of measures are discussed.
Poor response by management types to laborers naming and shaming is generally a very good signal that someone was relying on worker discretion or control of the flow of information to get something past the radar.
Newsflash:
People can, and absolutely should talk. Half of being a leader or person in management is ensuring that you keep your nose clean enough that the people below you don't feel the need to speak out, and if they do, that you're ready for the fallout.
It ain't hard to do that if you're being ethical, and are equipped with real, valid reasons other than narcissistic upper management dictat to back up why the company is doing X.
If you don't have that, then maybe you need to reevaluate whether or not you want to be in that spot.
Number 2: Nudge theory is absolutely a thing, and barring a technical reason for RTO, it is 100% a powerplay by management. I have been in on meetings where those types of measures are discussed.
Poor response by management types to laborers naming and shaming is generally a very good signal that someone was relying on worker discretion or control of the flow of information to get something past the radar.
Newsflash:
People can, and absolutely should talk. Half of being a leader or person in management is ensuring that you keep your nose clean enough that the people below you don't feel the need to speak out, and if they do, that you're ready for the fallout.
It ain't hard to do that if you're being ethical, and are equipped with real, valid reasons other than narcissistic upper management dictat to back up why the company is doing X.
If you don't have that, then maybe you need to reevaluate whether or not you want to be in that spot.
Fantastic reply, @salawat. Thank you for taking the time to continue the conversation.
I think I am getting where you are coming from and have a better sense of the value of talking-back, and of unethical management being in competition with non-management.
I tend to work around others' faults (instead of challenging) - and I may be projecting that attitude in my position.
Here I still feel bad for the singled-out exec - though that could simply be me denying the intentionality and tactics of a person in a "powerful" position.
So while I may want to defer to the dominant paradigm, to work within the bounds, I see the value of changing it - of ensuring all workers have safe avenues for communicating dissent.
I think I am getting where you are coming from and have a better sense of the value of talking-back, and of unethical management being in competition with non-management.
I tend to work around others' faults (instead of challenging) - and I may be projecting that attitude in my position.
Here I still feel bad for the singled-out exec - though that could simply be me denying the intentionality and tactics of a person in a "powerful" position.
So while I may want to defer to the dominant paradigm, to work within the bounds, I see the value of changing it - of ensuring all workers have safe avenues for communicating dissent.
If you google search that first name and Unity together it will be very clear exactly who she was talking about.
If everyone stayed externally silent on internal issues the world would be a much worse place.
That oversimplifies this situation because an employer, regardless of it having outrageous work environment characteristics, has a responsibility to its employees. Like, in court.
One employee is now terminated for having reasonably driven vitriol from random internet Twitter users to another, by name.
One employee is now terminated for having reasonably driven vitriol from random internet Twitter users to another, by name.
Totally fair - life has nuance and its not clear cut moral high-ground to air all grievances on Twitter.
> That oversimplifies this situation because an employer, regardless of it having outrageous work environment characteristics, has a responsibility to its employees. Like, in court.
Butttttt I gotta say companies routinely violate said legal obligations and intentionally commit resources to continued abuse of said obligations - knowing individuals lack the resources to fight back or institute meaningful change through legal recourse without great cost.
> That oversimplifies this situation because an employer, regardless of it having outrageous work environment characteristics, has a responsibility to its employees. Like, in court.
Butttttt I gotta say companies routinely violate said legal obligations and intentionally commit resources to continued abuse of said obligations - knowing individuals lack the resources to fight back or institute meaningful change through legal recourse without great cost.
> Butttttt I gotta say ...
An I whole-heartedly agree with you. It's horrific when companies violate legal obligations, hoping to skate by undetected, making power-plays against their own employees. It's unethical.
Here, to repeat, it seems the issue is simply the employee revealed personal information about a coworker.
I feel critical, because the employee could have raised her "can't afford to live here" with someone in the company - requesting a pay raise, and then hypothetically gotten some REAL WHISTLEBLOWER DIRT if they responded with something like, "tough luck, poor-ie employ-ee lolzzz." But she did not, and the company did not, and she shamed her coworker (and being an exec should not mean you get publicly shamed IMO).
An I whole-heartedly agree with you. It's horrific when companies violate legal obligations, hoping to skate by undetected, making power-plays against their own employees. It's unethical.
Here, to repeat, it seems the issue is simply the employee revealed personal information about a coworker.
I feel critical, because the employee could have raised her "can't afford to live here" with someone in the company - requesting a pay raise, and then hypothetically gotten some REAL WHISTLEBLOWER DIRT if they responded with something like, "tough luck, poor-ie employ-ee lolzzz." But she did not, and the company did not, and she shamed her coworker (and being an exec should not mean you get publicly shamed IMO).
Sometimes you're willing to take a risk to help effect change. If everyone keeps their heads down and never fights back then things don't improve.
yeah… I can’t agree less… Twitter is basically “built on bitching” at this point… viewpoint A bitches about viewpoint B” (pick your own A and B) … customers bitch about companies… Stan’s bitch about people not getting the things they Stan for… and generally everyone is bitching about Twitter itself, doubly so since Elon first offered to buy it, triply so since he bought it, quadruply so now he’s actually running it as an active CEO.
That Twitter is built on people yelling at each other is not a good counterpoint against a claim that such yelling is destructive.
Timing is a thing and there are a huge number of complaints about Unity this week due to the layoffs. Her twitter feed is probably full of them and what she said is fairly tame in comparison to what is out there at the moment.
An exec at the company Unity competes with said the same thing.
As someone who doesn't use social media this behavior is just baffling to me. Does this woman not have real life friends who she can bitch about work with? Why are people self sabotaging like this?
On one hand people definitely will shoot themselves in the foot by oversharing on social media.
Another trend I've been seeing (speaking a general sense, I know no knowledge of this particular case) is that people who have been laid off will pull a stunt like this to try to 'go viral' and get a job. I have no idea if it works or the wisdom of it, but I've seen about a half dozen people in my network who I know were laid off in a general and impersonal layoff post sob stories about being fired by an unreasonable and mean boss.
We also fired a guy who posted about being laid off from our company, despite our company not going layoffs. Legal had to send him a little reminder about the terms he signed when we offered severance and that falsely the company feels claiming the company is doing layoffs is damaging to the company.
Overall I feel like I have become aware of more people trying to position their termination in ways that aren't truthful but they feel are more advantageous for generating interest from future employers.
Another trend I've been seeing (speaking a general sense, I know no knowledge of this particular case) is that people who have been laid off will pull a stunt like this to try to 'go viral' and get a job. I have no idea if it works or the wisdom of it, but I've seen about a half dozen people in my network who I know were laid off in a general and impersonal layoff post sob stories about being fired by an unreasonable and mean boss.
We also fired a guy who posted about being laid off from our company, despite our company not going layoffs. Legal had to send him a little reminder about the terms he signed when we offered severance and that falsely the company feels claiming the company is doing layoffs is damaging to the company.
Overall I feel like I have become aware of more people trying to position their termination in ways that aren't truthful but they feel are more advantageous for generating interest from future employers.
> they feel are more advantageous for generating interest from future employers
I'd love to see data on this. Old advice guides against hiring such people, since they're liable to return the favor on you. But maybe the cost-benefit has changed.
I'd love to see data on this. Old advice guides against hiring such people, since they're liable to return the favor on you. But maybe the cost-benefit has changed.
Think about the positive public sentiment gained from turning a bad situation into a good one by coming to someone's aid in their time of need.
>gag
>gag
This is making me feel so out of touch as someone not actively using social media. Is this person actually right that doing this can _help_ their job search? I would absolutely refuse to hire anyone like this but I'm also out of touch so not sure if that's widespread opinion
If you make it extremely convenient for people to accidentally hang themselves, a non-zero fraction of the population will do so.
You’ll be surprised what an addiction to attention can do to some people..
Unity is built on capturing attention to slip in mobile ads.
also not just any employee. apparently a "senior partner relations manager" who really should have shown more restraint and social awareness
She named the person that made the comment in the replies. Dragging a specific coworker through the mud publicly on Twitter is probably not the best move.
Where by "coworker" you mean "exec". Not really a vulnerable person (as evidenced by their leaked comment).
Not vulnerable, sure. But even accounting for title inflation a "senior partner relations manager" doesn't sound like a random line employee. It's very hard to run a company with leadership publicly sniping at each other.
That role is a random line employee. "Partner Relations Manager" is a role that interfaces with customers of Unity with Enterprise licenses. They don't have direct reports. The "Carol" in question is Unity's CMO.
Ugh, they have to know that's a confusing title. This story does concern me a bit more then.
It totally sounds like a random line employee. Partner Relations Manager just means they interface with external customers. Senior just means they probably aren’t a new grad. It’s a regular old line position.
Why not just come out and call the exec an "unperson"
/s
/s
Why do you think a woman executive is not vulnerable?
By first name
They're out of touch for thinking that tweeting this out wouldn't have consequences. Regardless of the validity of the criticism, publicly attacking your own employer is a stupid move if you want to stay there. I cannot sympathize
To me there are two aspects:
People should freely be able to have opinions on Twitter, Youtube, TikTok, CBS News, etc. and those opinions should not get them fired from their jobs just because some exec or some vocal group disagrees... as long as they're not representing the company. "I work for Pepsi and think the President is "..." for example.
On the other hand, unless it's whistleblowing, badmouthing your company to a broadcast audience when you don't have the imprimatur to do it, will most likely have consequences. Broadcast communications are the purview of The PR dept. This is for the PR dept to handle. You can opine it with your friends, family, etc. but not to a broad audience like that, unless you are considering the consequences.
People should freely be able to have opinions on Twitter, Youtube, TikTok, CBS News, etc. and those opinions should not get them fired from their jobs just because some exec or some vocal group disagrees... as long as they're not representing the company. "I work for Pepsi and think the President is "..." for example.
On the other hand, unless it's whistleblowing, badmouthing your company to a broadcast audience when you don't have the imprimatur to do it, will most likely have consequences. Broadcast communications are the purview of The PR dept. This is for the PR dept to handle. You can opine it with your friends, family, etc. but not to a broad audience like that, unless you are considering the consequences.
I think your political views shouldn't, but producing bad pr for your company has clear, verifiable, and obvious damage to your company is grounds for dismissal. Many emplyment contracts already stipulate such things as that, and additionally, could be possibly construed as unauthorized communication in the name of the business. While I would not likely personally fire someone for posting such things, I would for the attitude that begat them. Self sabatouging people are a net burden on any enterprise.
I agree with your points. There is an intersection between free speech and contracts with a company --sometimes it's murky and it's best to avoid a conflict of interest --unless that's what you're looking for.
>...People should freely be able to have opinions on Twitter, Youtube, TikTok, CBS News, etc. and those opinions should not get them fired from their jobs just because some exec or some vocal group disagrees... as long as they're not representing the company.
That is an unrealistic take. Especially when the opinion is critical of the company. Much less when it's something as simple as the company not wanting to be associated with such viewpoints.
That is an unrealistic take. Especially when the opinion is critical of the company. Much less when it's something as simple as the company not wanting to be associated with such viewpoints.
As a private person, you should be able to have viewpoints that differ from the company position. I'm free to think that drinking in excess is bad for society, even if I work for Pabst. I am free to believe that workers are free to seek unionization even if the company does not have nor wants unions. I probably won't be tolerated for agitating for unionization though. But I can opine on how I think unionization is good/(or bad if I work for pubic education)
What They are normally not tolerated for is for maligning the company, institution or organization. That one should keep to friends, family, trusted people, but not something you voice in a megaphone of a public forum.
What They are normally not tolerated for is for maligning the company, institution or organization. That one should keep to friends, family, trusted people, but not something you voice in a megaphone of a public forum.
You get an upvote for teaching me a new word today, "imprimatur". It looked like a typo.
Interesting that this thread doesn't show up on the front page?
Currently it's 38 points with 18 comments, while "Chaos Communication Camp 2023 – Call for Participation" have 3 pt, zero comments but is on the front page.
Odd algorithm...
Currently it's 38 points with 18 comments, while "Chaos Communication Camp 2023 – Call for Participation" have 3 pt, zero comments but is on the front page.
Odd algorithm...
I'm just wondering if she wanted to quit but did this on purpose to get fired instead? i.e. severance pay?
"We and our partners process data to provide:
Use precise geolocation data."
Flag this website.
Use precise geolocation data."
Flag this website.
Renting an apt in SF would cost me over half my gross mothly salary :( Probably 3/4 of my takehome at least”
I agree with her