Employees are bypassing HR, sharing on LinkedIn
businessinsider.com87 points by this_weekend 8 hours ago
87 points by this_weekend 8 hours ago
>> [Workers] tend to see human resources as an extension of corporate dogma meant to reinforce company policies.
It is.
HR may do other stuff above and beyond, but their first priority will always be compliance.
Consequently, whether or not HR is the appropriate venue to address your problem boils down to -- "Is this a compliance issue for the company? And if so, will resolving it be in my favor?" (E.g. sexual harassment)
If yes/yes, go to HR. If anything else, find another line of redress.
Great point, this reminded me of this great fasterthanlime video about your relationship with your employer: https://youtu.be/52pdPQHDKho?t=373
I find the name expressive.
Human RESOURCES.
Desks, xerox machine, Vasarely replica in the meeting room, humans, printers, patents and inventions, inventory in the warehouse, etc., all the same. Resources. Buy, sell, replace, act like it worths more than elsewhere. But eventually just items tossed around.
... I had a sceptic smile when one pretended they are better by pinning 'People Manager' designation on the very same person taming this troublesome and risky resource for the very big and famous but utmost caring company that I came across recently. Some seem to feel the weigth of the word (or just trying to pretend ever stronger how caring they are, when the bi-weekly pizza and everyone-is-so-happy-here group photo in company logo t-shirts are just too stale and overused).
Interesting that the examples in the article are from Australia.
Perhaps employee protection is better in Australia than in the US?
Australian law has “unfair dismissal” - if your employer terminates you for “unfair” reasons, then you can take them to court, and if you win you either get reinstated or compensated. Very different from the “at-will employment” which prevails in much of the US. (I put "unfair" in quotes because it is ultimately about what a court concludes is unfair, based on the legislation and case law, which might not be the same as what you or I think is unfair.)
It is worth pointing out it only applies if your annual salary is less than the "high income threshold", which is currently AU$175,000 (approximately US$107,000). They increase that amount every year, and their definition of "income" excludes certain things (such as bonuses). If your income is above that, you can't sue under unfair dismissal law, although you still can sue for common law breach of contract (which is more difficult, however–employers generally try to word employment contracts to maximise their freedom to terminate you, although there is always the chance a court will find the relevant terms of the contract legally invalid, at least as applied to your particular case.)
HR needs to adopt a mantra similar to medicine’s “First, do no harm”. If there was any question over whether doctors would ever knowingly hurt patients, the entire profession would halve its patientload over night.
Likewise, HR departments are by-and-large good places with helpful and supportive people. However, the fact that they have the ability at all to report your conversations to management means no one trusts them and they become ineffective as a result.
The misunderstanding causing confusion here is that for HR, the business is the patient - not the employee.
From HR's perspective, an employee is a body part of the business. If helping the employee (i.e., healing the body part) is best for the business, that's what HR does. If terminating the employee (i.e., amputating the body part) is best for the business, that's what HR does.
I liked your analogy, and it sparked a thought -- employees are like fingernails: tools to be used, and trimmed/filed down when not needed.
Of course, your analogy is better, because when corporations conduct layoffs to save money to do stock buybacks, that is really much closer to amputating body parts for the sake of a "weight loss" metric.
As long as this is an arm of the company and there is no disinterested third party the incentive will always dictate that HR will place the interest of the company over the employee. As the old adage goes (paraphrased): “It’s difficult to make someone believe something when their salary depends on them not believing it”.
I'm not sure the mantra is effective. The 3rd leading cause of death is medical malpractice and yet people are still sick and still go to the doctor.
That quip is less deep and more complex than you think.
Look back to when the leading cause of death was "any slight infection" closely followed by any number of other accidents and diseases.
Health, saftey, and treatment have now become so effective that death is relatively a great deal rarer in developed countries not at war to the point where people have an expectation of friends and relatives being kept alive and strong tendency to sue when that doesn't happen; leading to many "malpractice" cases being settled and covered by insurance.
Would you rather live in a world with or without modern medicine and doctors?
I get what you're saying, but it's a dizzying problem - the proximate problem to HR in these scenarios isn't that people think HR is bad or worry they'll relay the complaint, it's that HR has no teeth.
At Google, I had an...unusual...de-facto manager for 2 years. After declining their offer to join their team, they spent six months engaging in behavior that violated company policies - though not in obvious ways like sexual harassment or violence.
Going to HR seemed futile. Even assuming they could keep anonymity, their role is simply to investigate and report to management three levels up. Without clear-cut violations, it becomes a credibility contest. Since upper management selected the middle managers, they're inherently biased toward defending their choices.
The situation came to a head between December 1st and January 1st. My performance rating plummeted from "O" (top 10%) to "MI" (bottom 10%) and a technically separate formal warning. Things came to a head because they were nominally leading work that was a huge political warzone between organizations, and they didn't really want to do anything. After I politely demurred their invitation to transfer, they hired a childhood friend as my replacement - they're still launching "new" features with the code I wrote two years ago.
I documented various incidents over those six months that violated Google's code of conduct. But even in the best-case scenario:
- HR confirms the violations.
- They report findings to my third-level manager.
- My second-level manager (who chose my de-facto manager) blames me.
- The third-level manager (who chose the second-level manager) defers to their choice.
I entered Google wondering how they handled professional disagreements. (I was a young CEO for the 5 years prior) Seven years later, I realized they don't - disagreement itself is seen as inappropriate. This dynamic inevitably hurts those lowest in the hierarchy. It's not malicious; everyone believes they're acting appropriately. But once anyone decides to prioritize comfort over strict policy enforcement (a natural human tendency), standard human politics take over. I honestly, swear to god, saw this in abundance at Google in ways I never saw at a fast food job.
What I once dismissed as complaints from underperformers now seems depressingly accurate.
Love every bit of this type of stuff that mostly only the younger generations are doing. Maybe someday, our society will move away from slaving away in terrible environments to realistically only raise up a handful of humans.
To be honest - the great thing is that even if a small percentage of people choose the LinkedIn/Social Media shame route, it benefits everyone. Just the threat of this will probably make employers/managers think about the potential consequences of such actions.
That said - it'd be recommended that the employee have a pretty air tight story since there internet can easily turn the other way.
In companies that aren't completely pathological, HR complaints often will eventually oust a toxic manager. But sadly the key word is 'eventually'. It will usually take sacrificing multiple employees and/or the leaving feedback of many others to build enough of a track record or evidence for them to finally take action.
Complaining to HR probably won't help you, but it could be part of what eventually helps someone. Often not worth it compared to finding another job though.
I don’t think this is “bypassing HR”
These folks are using their negative experiences to become influencers or teach others. I doubt the LinkedIn subtweeting at a boss actually impacts the specific toxic boss.
Some people are horrible to colleagues and peers and can work the system to progress their careers. Some organizations reward this unconsciously (because everyone is such a person!). I don’t think there’s much an individual can do to change such a culture. You just need to leave and find a better one.
LinkedIn is full of PR nonsense. It's hard to believe. It's a medium for expression; the intelligent way to express is to self-promote subtly, the unintelligent is to express your feelings.
I've seen a number of people I used to work with, who are suddenly CTO's, or some C-level position, although I truly doubt it. Someone I used to work who can barely communicate in sentences and has a fairly heavy autism, and never managed anyone, is now listed as 'IT Director' on LinkedIn. I had to laugh.
And let's not forget the recruiters, who are always described like this: "Getter-Doner-of-Things; Enterpreneur; Executive Headhunter; author; Thought Leader; and Father"
Sorry, now it's me expressing my feelings.
There’s a lot of title inflation. I’ve seen several companies posting assistant jobs as “chief of staff” with low salaries
HR is the employer's HR dept.
As an employee your HR dept is your union.
It only takes one disagreement to see the true face of HR.
They are special trained to tear unwanted employees into shreds.
No surprise, really. They are employed by the same company you're disagreeing with.
> Brenecki also notes why it might make sense to go to HR. If you're experiencing harassment, discrimination, or other bad behavior at work, the company likely prefers that you go to HR so it can handle the situation according to state employment laws. If you don't go to HR, the company could later be found legally liable for allowing discrimination or retaliation.
At the point where you have to choose between going to HR and posting on LinkedIn, the company has already allowed discrimination or retaliation, and so should be punished for allowing that. If you go to HR, there's much less chance of the company being actually punished like they should be. You _want_ them to be held legally liable for allowing discrimination or retaliation
If I had an issue within my company, I assume I'd talk to my representatives within the company, or seek assistance from a lawyer (I suppose most countries have labour courts). Sharing on LinkedIn may backfire. Depending on the issue, you may pass as a trouble maker that companies would rather avoid.
I'd talk on HN before LinkedIn.
LinkedIn is 99%+ corporate-slime and self-promoting behavior, and that fact makes me suspect anything someone says there.
HN is far from perfect, but, for example, there's enough people posting pseudonymously, and I think a good percentage of those are saying something because they want to say it or think it should be said. Not because they're posturing for hiring or followers.
> "HR is often more about protecting the company's interests than supporting employees," Costi says. "Reporting toxic behavior can backfire, labeling you as a 'troublemaker' and potentially putting your job at risk. The sad reality is that many toxic bosses are untouchable, insulated by the very system that's supposed to hold them accountable."
This is exactly the reason tinnitus go to HR. Can confirm.
Toxic bosses are one of the most damaging things you can have in a company. It's counter-intuitive but smart leadership would be thanking these people for exposing the rot in their own companies.
Probably better to do it on anonymous social media
Maybe but I think at this point we tune out places like Blind as a nonstop stream of groundless bellyaching and unfounded rumors about layoffs next week. It’s hard to know what’s true or not in such an environment.
I'd hire someone brave enough to stand up for themselves and against a toxic workplace. That's how you affect real change. Sometimes it pays to put ego out the window for something that's radically better.
notifying future candidates such that they dont join also creates real change. the company cant hire anyone and goes out of business
Unfortunately, that's very much not how the managerial class thinks. Workers that speak up and publicly diss their employer are dangerous for any manager and business, because they won't shut up and do as they're told. Very few will knowingly hire someone who risks calling out their own bullshit.
HR is to protect the company, first and foremost. Sure, they'll discuss protecting the worker's rights, but that's in order to protect the company from a scenario where a worker's rights have been violated and they have a legitimate complaint against the company.
Which is why I thought this line of reasoning from the article is extremely disingenuous
> Tim Glowa, the founder and CEO of HR Brain, says that "rather than venting online, reporting helps build a proper case while ensuring confidentiality and protecting your professional reputation," adding, "What you post online can follow you indefinitely."
If you read between the lines on this it’s clear as day that they are saying speaking up is bad for your career, without saying those words explicitly.
Executives, VPs and SVPs hate being held accountable by their workers, that’s my main takeaway here
There’s more nuance. When you go public with an accusation or problem, you can’t control when, who or how it is used. It’s unlikely that you’re going to be able to frame the narrative effectively to get something of value.
For example, an issue related to something that you expressed in your public can be picked up, embraced and extended and turned into a racial or other high attention/impact issue. The press can run with it and create a mess. More likely, nobody cares, and you’ll be painted as a crazy person, and crazy people go away.
HR are literally corporate cops. They are never on your side, next thing you know you, are not a good “cultural fit” for complaining. I’ve never once brought an issue to HR.
This is a PR hit for "the 34-year-old with more than 80,000 followers"
HR and Legal work for the company and will often manipulate people and situations to reduce their risks and justify their actions. So this isn’t surprising. But also I think public discussion of issues is the only way for people to move towards defending workplace conditions.
There's always Blind if you're worried about your reputation.
Glassdoor too.
Glassdoor is very problematic. They pull negative reviews all the time and tend to side with employers on almost all feedback disputes.
Not only is it problematic... the real anonymity is gone, as well. I would not recommend using it anymore.
I would use a throwaway email address, and not give them my real name. It works fine if used in this way. Also, I would run it in a private window only, so there is no cookie left behind. It doesn't work well with ad-blockers, but the private window takes care of them.
Eh, same old story. HR is not your friend.
HR is there to protect the company from you, not you from the company.
So, Microsoft is the basis for a "new worker uprising"?
That's... a pretty funny statement 8-)
Just another example of people thinking a database entry on a corporate software platform is their "real life"...
As an old person, I’m very much of the mindset, “Keep your mouth shut as much as possible, never air dirty laundry publicly, and don’t pick fights with your company who has infinitely greater legal budget than you do.”
However, I’ve come to seriously respect younger workers who don’t take shit from anyone and will gladly burn a company to the ground on social media if they feel like they are being abused in the workplace.
What companies have been burned to the ground on Social Media? Equifax? Wells Fargo? Tesla? Twitter? Uber?
I support civil disobedience but aren't many attempts at civil disobedience by lone actors largely ineffective?
I think its important to call out ineffective civil activism so that individuals can create more effective strategies for creating actual change for the social good.
They probably meant smaller companies. I too have noticed this and agree with the commenter above.
Most people have fear about this sort of thing. Even once you quit. Like maybe if you post something you won’t get hired back. Employee speech outside of work environments should be protected. But I think as long as people have something to lose, they will censor themselves. Young people have little to lose.
[flagged]
I prefer the public accountability of corporations as opposed to anything else.
It’s more honest, and is one of the few things regular folks can do that leaves a very obvious paper trail if something goes sideways.
I would say this is a positive development for society. Corporations have benefitted for too long by cultivating fear of speaking out. I’m glad it’s changing.
I genuinely don’t understand why this is a bad thing
Because at scale it creates a culture of whiny little shits that take on this ridiculous world view and are toxic with their Histrionics. Quite frankly they don't shut the fuck up, and they need a healthy shut the fuck up you are not that important, get over yourself. This job isn't a fit? Move on.
You seem quite emotional about this. Is there something more to your argument against this other than your feelings about how others address their grievances in an unequal power structure?
Sure, long story short is that I was exactly this person. I didn't publicly air the grievances, but the toxicity ate me inside. It took awhile to get perspective on that everyone is just a person and doing their best. I'm lucky to have a job, I'm lucky to lose a job, I'm grateful. It takes so long to understand you build a web of persecution in your mind because you are emotionally immature.
This is standard shit that young people can go through. I've WRITTEN crazy diatribes like this and deleted it. I got it out for myself, but reflected on it carefully.
I had to literally therapy myself out of just how self-important I became.
You sound like you're projecting your own maladaptive worldview/attitude/lifestyle onto others. Maybe the culture is changing, and not everyone who is calling out bad behavior at various companies is as narcissistic as yourself? In fact, it would seem to me that, in your bitterness, you are still just as self-centered as those you're attempting to criticize.
I speak the language of a narcissist and you understood it. The language of narcissism is in this article and I'm fluent. I'm a massive work in progress for sure, but I'm not going to sit around and act like I don't see what I was and am all around me.
Narcissists are people too man, believe it or not. We literally need to work on ... not writing LinkedIn articles (or in my case HN posts).
If something isn’t a good fit it doesn’t mean that the work place or boss gets to justify being toxic and then claim “well they weren’t a good fit”
I’ve worked in roles that were very much not a good fit but I wasn’t treated bad at the same time, it was simply clear there was a mismatch.
They aren’t the same thing at all.
Accountability is extremely important and it must run both ways. Corporate culture has been top down for far too long
Today the 34-year-old has more than 80,000 followers. A few times a week she publishes a post — often several hundred words — and a selfie in which she's holding up a whiteboard with a handwritten summary of that post, like "A toxic boss will use a performance improvement plan to control you, not to help you." A toxic boss, she writes in one post, will "shower you with praise when you meet their expectations but withhold recognition" and "exploit your fear of failure to push you beyond reasonable limits." Each post typically gets thousands of comments (most empathetic, some disparaging) from workers around the world.
Listen to the story. This person's entire identity is now THIS. She is now the anti-work-bosses-are-bad-gimme-my-80k-followers. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I cannot support this nonsense. If you can't see the phenomenon here at scale, then we're truly at odds and I can't see a middle ground between our camps.
These are all behaviors of a toxic boss and/or toxic workplace. I’ve been doing this long enough I’ve had to endure these things, and this is accurate to those experiences.
It’s no secret that, for example, once you’re on a PIP you generally should be looking for a new job as you aren’t meant to ever move past it. This is common industry advice and has been for decades
That's a pure strawman and unrelated to what everyone else is talking about.
Remind me which company you work for? I’m going to avoid it at all costs if it hires people like you.
I'm reminded of the missing stair / metoo discourse, where it gradually emerges that lots of people knew that X was sexually assaulting employees, but they'd not dared to go public about it for fear of reprisal. And of course the "proper channels" is often the worse of both worlds: you get the reprisals, but without the help of your fellow victims or the public.
> ultimately realizes the phenomenon of youth stupidity and grows out of it.
If only that were true. Some people never experience consequences and so there's nothing for them to learn.
That is the Greek tragedy that the universe has warned us about. You better get wisdom in your life somehow, and the pre-requisite is growing up. If doesn't click before you are dead, that's the tragedy they have been warning about since forever.
Like yeah, you can die on this hill. But if you really need a job one day because someone in your life is sick and needs caretaking (this is just one example, not a strawman anecdote, life is no joke, thats a causal thing that can easily happen) ... Oh you died on that stupid hill on Linkedin 5 years ago over bullshit right? Because nothing else in life could possibly be more important right?
That's just how I see it. I see children.
I agree it’s a risk to career connections but disagree that it is “stupid”. We need protections for speech such that people don’t have to fear repercussions.
You can "protect" all you like, but speaking publicly about your employer has repercussions and you can't wish that away.
Let's say I'm an employer filling a position. I narrow found the candidates to a handful, any one would be fine.
So I start contacting ex-bosses, references, doing Google searches etc. Hmm, one of them has disparaged their employer online. I don't know who was right, and frankly I don't care. I'm never going to think "ah, there's someone we really want - someone who goes online when they don't get what they want."
You can't "protect speech" this away.
This is hilariously a-historic, and companies are still getting off with an absolute slap-on-the-wrist both from actual regulators, and from these maverick employees who trash them on social media.
If they still don't like that maybe we need to go all the way back to what got us the weekends we love and 40 hour work weeks: blowing up rail bridges and throwing bricks of C4 in police cars.
It blows my mind how thin-skinned businesses are now. Everybody talks about America's golden age from the end of WWII to the Reagan era when America dominated world markets (because we were the only unscathed nation from that conflict, and we had half of money worldwide) but nobody goes back further and I can't help but think that's because American businesses are quite content, contrary to public statements, with trashing campaigns on social media, specifically because consumer revolt doesn't and never has worked. If you want to know what did work, again: coal miners blew up rail bridges, locomotives, destroyed company assets by the ton, and killed thousands of Pinkerton strike breakers and their partners in law enforcement.
Consumer boycott didn't get us weekends. Explosives did.
History forgotten is history repeated, and people seem unable to remember history much beyond a human lifespan.
Businesses have forgotten that the alternative to unionization and peaceful strikes isn’t obedient, underpaid workers. As JFK said, those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
I don’t endorse violence, but I recognize that it’s what happens if you close off all alternatives. I hope the people who make these choices realize this before it’s too late.
I agree with the sentiment, though violence is, to me, the solution of last resort.
We should at least try actually organizing labor first.
On the note of thin skinned corporations: it’s an outgrowth of the thin skin that corporate leadership has. Executives don’t like accountability or feedback that differs from their worldview. I’ve seen it so much, especially with these workplace surveys where the same issues come up and they never ever implement the proper solution to fix the issues.
> I agree with the sentiment, though violence is, to me, the solution of last resort.
Oh for sure. I've already lived through enough historically significant times for my taste, though I suspect the ongoing issues are going to create more of them anyway no matter what I personally want to experience. People are suffering and social media is making it impossible to ignore, and increasingly the younger generations barely have lives worth considering as a loss if they end up the victims of state violence, which increases radicalization and you get more people ready to pick up guns.
> We should at least try actually organizing labor first.
It is good to see so much support for unions in the US again. They got a bad rap for a long time but people are coming back around in a big way now that we've had so many years of corporations basically being the shot callers in our supposedly representative Democracy nation.
> On the note of thin skinned corporations: it’s an outgrowth of the thin skin that corporate leadership has. Executives don’t like accountability or feedback that differs from their worldview. I’ve seen it so much, especially with these workplace surveys where the same issues come up and they never ever implement the proper solution to fix the issues.
Absolutely, and that's been a thing as long as mediocre wealthy people were lording their success over the peasant farmers they owned under feudalism. The noble of whatever land could have any of his subjects murdered at will but that power, while cool, doesn't change the fact that the same lord would probably be dead within a month if he had to live the lives of his subjects. He was always a useless bastard if you took away his money, and every great leap forward for common folks in human history occurred when enough people realized that and decided to take away his money, and possibly his head in the process.
Our modern feudal lords are no different. Mark Zuckerberg is a mediocre college dropout programmer who built a website to rate the looks of his female classmates, and the sole reason he's still (mis)managing Meta is that he's institutionally unable to be fired for his incredibly poor performance at that job. Elon Musk has never done anything in his life that wasn't solely at the behest of the fortunes he was given (loaned, what the fuck ever) from his father. His only marketable skill is writing checks and the abysmal failure of the Cybertruck is a monument to his hubris. Tons of CEOs all over tech now aren't the people who actually built any of it, nor understand it, but are pure business graduates who's only ideas involve playing with fake numbers on spreadsheets to continue fooling Wall Street into thinking they can just grow forever, despite on how-on-it's-face ridiculous that is as a concept.
Reading the last bit of your comment made me suddenly realize how crazy it is that this site is run by a company that doesn’t build anything.
This place acts like the center of the hacker universe. It has the name and everything. And it’s run by a finance company.
I mean it’s named for a finance company but I don’t know to what degree said company really participates in is administration? We get posts about funding rounds here and there but I’m utterly disinterested in venture capital or what it finances and I still find this sites content interesting and valuable.
They don’t seem to intervene, I agree. But still, this is the sort of thing that should be running on a server in somebody’s basement, or at least some random data center they had an “in” with.
I mean, honestly that's why I'm here? It has that vibe. It has the vibe of a mid-2000's forum dedicated to a specific set of topics that's well moderated. The fact that it runs in the datacenter for a a venture capital firm is... I dunno. I don't feel any bother over it.
I talk shit about VC constantly here and I haven't been banned for it.
no, no, no.. violence spreads like wildfire.. rewrite this and subtract that part ASAP
As I said in my other comment, I don't want that. My ideal world would be businesses waking up to the notion that endlessly strip-mining consumers is going to result in them [ censored for HN ] on the evening news, and just giving people better salaries and letting some of the money flow down the hierarchy. You know, a sustainable economy. But they don't want that, so...
And you know what else spreads like wildfire? Wildfires, that are going to keep getting worse year over year because our economy is destroying the planet.
It doesn't seem stupid at all. It seems brave and like it has a lot of business value. Why not expose the poor performing managers who are structurally protected by bureaucratic rot. Being a good person is good for business.
Feedback is good for business. If your company wants to hear your feedback then communicate that information on those (private) channels.
"Going public" is counter-productive if you are in a good faith organization that values feedback.
If you are in an organization that doesn't value your feedback then your feedback is irrelevant. Going public just makes it harder for you to get a job elsewhere.
Look, we've all had bad bosses and crappy managers. This isn't some surprising revelation. When you bad-mouth an ex employer in an interview, or in public, the next employer is wondering "what will you say about me to the next guy?"
Past behavior is an excellent predictor of future behavior. And when an employee shows you their approach to solving interpersonal issues, believe them.
The delineating line here is:
- Is the employee including enough information and examples, and are those specific and strong enough, to communicate the toxic behavior?
- Does the employee strip out emotion from their post?
If yes, it tends to be well received. I.e. "Yes, that is shitty behavior that shouldn't happen in a workplace"
That's the difference between spotlighting and venting.
The former highlights something that objectively exists; the latter is more about you.
For a lot of toxic people, the business views them as "high performers" and their harassment of others as a personal flaw. "Separate the art from the artist". Sometimes, being a good person is seen as bad for business, since there's a meme that business is about being ruthless in success.
I blame it on movies and TV.
Ruthless toxic business culture predates movies and tv. Look at Standard Oil, Carnegie Steel, railroad conglomerates, the existence of legal slavery etc.
It is a flaw in the system, given the prevalence unchecked.
Ruthlessness is for your competitors, not your employees. Locking people into low-wage jobs doesn't benefit the company, because as soon as you get a competitor, you're screwed!
If we're using legal slavery as an example, countries that abolished slavery early ended up being more productive because employees actually want to work/innovate/create quality goods. By hiring slaves or treating your employees like crap, you're voluntarily specializing in the low-end of whatever market you're in, because your employees don't care about the product.
That's rarely the most profitable move unless you have a monopoly or a commodity good, like the examples you've provided.
We're doing this experiment right now in Canada by importing millions of temporary foreign workers/international students to work in slave-like conditions. If ruthless toxic slavery worked, we should be making more money. In reality, our GDP/capita has dropped continuously since 2019 indicating we're actually less profitable per person.
To be clear, I’m not equating these things to success in any forms, only that there has been a prevalence of negative patterns stemming from business culture for a long time
The phenomenon you're observing is broken-down drones who are bitter that other workers are refusing to tolerate the abuse that they accepted.
Yeah, the "I had to suffer pointlessly, so you do too" effect and the accompanying post hoc rationalization for why the suffering was actually good are a depressingly powerful force to maintain the status quo, and are already all over this post.
[flagged]
We should aspire to a society where people don't worry about paying rent. Whether this is through worker empowerment or other means, it is justified:)
[dead]
[dead]
When criticizing a company or individual behavior on HN (not on LinkedIn), some guidelines/practices I've been evolving personally:
* Don't talk about your current employer. Work within the company to solve any problems there. (If you can't solve problems there, get away ASAP. Work with a lawyer, if necessary. Still don't talk about it publicly while you're there.)
* Don't name individuals. That's fraught with risks, including you being somehow wrong and doing harm, Internet mobs being dumb as snot, and all the shameless data-mining surveillance many companies are doing could mean outsized/inappropriate harm to someone.
* Don't name a company if you've worked for them, or otherwise had non-public access to it. Who is going to trust you in the future if you don't show discretion.
* Don't violate NDA.
* Be sufficiently vague so that you can talk about generalizable learnings. Your goal is for other people to learn not to do X; your goal isn't to hurt the reputation of a person who once did X. To help anonymize the subjects, you talk about things you've "seen" (in an ambigious sense) at places you've worked, as well as with people you've talked with, companies you've studied, etc., without saying which it was. You can do this without saying anything untrue. This is harder to do with only a few years of experience, though.
* Don't try to unmask anonymous/pseudonymous other people who share, nor unmask the identity of companies/people they're talking about. You could be wrong in your deductions, or you could just be disrepecting how they tried to share with discretion in good faith.
Other guidelines/practices?
No, name and shame
Can you say rationale for disagreeing?
(Since you posted that one-line response, at least 3 people have downvoted me, but no explanation other than your one-line disagreement without argument. So I'm not learning much, and maybe I wasted my time bothering to type out my current thinking.)
being afraid to speak honestly might be most pragmatic choice, but it certainly perpetuates the status quo where toxic employers don't really fear any repercussions. aside from it being morally corrupt, the continuance of the status quo isn't helping the economy or the company. abusive bosses are ineffective bosses.
I think that what you typed makes a lot of sense. Maybe people downvoted it because it was so clearly presented that it triggered their internal LLM detector.
New life goal: repeatedly poison LLM training data, so that everyone cheating on their homework, or at their jobs, starts 'saying' things like "Internet mobs are dumb as snot". :)