Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

She was fired for threatening to quit. If you threaten something like that it just happens; you can't stop the machinery.


sort by: page size:

They didn't fire her. She said "I will quit if you don't meet these demands" and they were unwilling to meet the demands.

If she didn't threaten to quit, I can't imagine they would've done anything other than tell her no. But she gave them an ultimatum and they chose which side they would be on.


How did she hold the company hostage? She did quit.

I'm just wondering if she wanted to quit but did this on purpose to get fired instead? i.e. severance pay?

She's now been fired.

This is the kind of rot that destroys great companies.

Everyone in the chain of command who thought that disciplining her over this is the correct course of action, should be fired. Her manager for threatening to terminate her should be immediately terminated.


They fired her because she could no longer be effective in the position they hired her for.

She's prejudging management. If she was fired for refusing to do something, is management likely to replace her with another person or team who will also refuse to do the same?

Why is this such an issue? She was fired for making a tantrum, move on.

This isn't the email that she sent with conditions she wanted met. Apparently she said she would resign if those conditions were not met, and the response to that email is that she was fired.

It sounds like she said "I demand that you do X Y Z or I must resign" and they said "Very well we regrettably accept your resignation. No backsies." and she was like "You're firing me??!"

She immediately called her boss.

She didn’t get fired. Boss was initially sympathetic. But she lost her promotion. Then had hours cut. So she had to leave.


She didn't force them to fire her. People are just blowing this way out of proportion. Everybody needs to chill out, especially the corporate management of both companies.

She resigned, she was not fired.

By all means argue that they made her feel that it was not possible or sensible to try to do the job she wanted to do. But she resigned, and that's not the same thing.


And this is why she got fired. She turned this issue into a "women" thing, which it never was.

She's toxic to any company, and especially other women.


She was fired for outright refusing to do her job [1], encouraging her subordinates to the same, and for going public about it.

[1] "to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned"


She wasn’t being fired for “unionizing”. She was being fired for abusing her access.

> She's not a victim. She was an employee who sent in her resignation/ultimatum letter and then blasted an unprofessional message to a bunch of her colleagues.

The most interesting part of the story is the part that happened before this.


The pressure was trying to influence the type of work being undertaken.

It may not be good but there's no suggestion there they were pressuring the place to fire her.


Same news from yesterday.

She refused to do her job. They offered to resign her and she claimed retaliation, which the labor board investigated and rejected.

These sorts of employees are poison to the company in various ways.

next

Legal | privacy