I can’t give more approval for this woman, she handled everything so well.
The backstory is that Cloudflare overhired and wanted to reduce headcount, rightsize, whatever terrible HR wording you choose. Instead of admitting that this was a layoff, which would grant her things like severance and unemployment - they tried to tell her that her performance was lacking.
And for most of us (myself included) we would angrily accept it and trash the company online. Not her, she goes directly against them. It of course doesn’t go anywhere because HR is a bunch of robots with no emotions that just parrot what papa company tells them to, but she still says what all of us wish we did.
(Warning, if you’ve ever been laid off this is a bit enraging and can bring up some feelings)
People said that the API revolt on reddit would change nothing and yet here we both are discussing the terrible behaviour of yet another corporation on a completely different platform to reddit that I would never even have known about if it weren’t for exactly this kind of story. I believe things do change and I certainly won’t forget that Cloudflare did this and I suspect you won’t either.
Cloudflare isn’t a social media site where all the users discussed the revolt on the site. Most people outside of IT don’t even know what Cloudflare is or that it even exists. A lot of people don’t even know what Reddit is.
“Most people outside of IT don’t even know what Cloudflare is or that it even exists.” They do now ;)
And by next week, they’ll forget because they don’t ever plan to apply there for work. The small percentage of people that will avoid applying there because of this is a small drop in the bucket of people that will still apply. This is no where near as important as some people make it out to be.
Yet the CEO felt the need to try to do some damage limitation. Clearly he doesn’t share your confidence about the lack of impact this could have on the company’s reputation.
Again, a little PR to brush it aside is all that was. Come back to me next week and show me the impact.
If it was nothing why brush it?
To get ahead of it and control the narrative. They were publicly accused of a wrongful dismissal. That has huge legal connotations, whether she realized that or not. But the corporation has all their legal ducks in a row. She hasn’t exposed anything but her own inexperience. Really, if she did have a wrongful dismissal case, she likely overplayed her hand by publishing the video so soon. She’ll get employment insurance, but that’s all she’ll get at this point.
I’m finding this confusing. On the one hand you are adamant this will have no impact for them but then also say this could have huge legal connotations for them. Which is it? It can’t be both.