[jki275]

I really doubt this.

If a company would lay you off because you have a profile on a jobs network, they’re really a shit company you wouldn’t want to work for anyway.

Not that I agree with their actions - anything like this ought to be opt in only, but I can’t see people getting laid off. I have a profile on linked in with my boss and multiple people from my company as contacts, I’ve got profiles on multiple additional jobs board both locally and nationally. I’m not really looking for a job, but I have absolutely no reason to think I’d get fired for having a profile on triplebyte (which I do as well).

[mthoms]

Scenario: You're the boss. Your company needs to layoff one of two people in a specific role. The two employees up for termination are more or less equal in terms of performance, wages, experience, etc.

You have strong evidence Employee A is unsatisfied and looking to move on. Employee B has given no indication of such.

Which one do you lay off? Keep in mind that unsatisfied employees often have a detrimental effect on the morale of their (otherwise content) co-workers.

Answer: You lay off Employee A. And not because you are a bad CEO or bad person. You do it because it's legitimately in the best interest of the company.

Now take the same scenario and substitute a promotion in place of a termination. Which employee will get the promotion? Which employee is in your best interest to invest more money and time in? I think you know the answer.

[jki275]

we can make up hypotheticals all day long. Firing someone because they have a profile on triplebyte is just silly. I ge that you all need to justify your rage over this, but this really makes no sense. The world doesn't work the way you want to believe it does. I don't know, maybe you work somewhere that's normal, but if you want to call something toxic, that's toxic. No boss I've ever had would care less about my online profiles.

[mthoms]

>we can make up hypotheticals all day long.

So you're not going to point out any logical flaws in the scenario? You're not going to tell me why it's not a useful exercise? You're just going to avoid answering it because.... reasons.

> Firing someone because they have a profile on triplebyte is just silly.

Neither of the examples I gave were about firing.

>I ge that you all need to justify your rage over this, but this really makes no sense

I don't have any rage. My comment didn't express any rage. It gave two perfectly sound illustrations of why this information being public could put one at a disadvantage.

>The world doesn't work the way you want to believe it does.

Please elaborate. How does it work? And why is your experience about how it works more "correct" than the hundred of commenters here?

>I don't know, maybe you work somewhere that's normal, but if you want to call something toxic, that's toxic.

You can prove it by answering my question. What decision would a non-toxic, perfectly reasonable employer do? What would you do? I'm genuinely curious.

>No boss I've ever had would care less about my online profiles.

Same here. Aren't we lucky. Not everyone has had the same experience as evidenced by this thread.

[jki275]

It's a silly hypothetical, and not worth addressing any further than I already did.

You've now admitted you're not even in the situation, so why debate for it other than internet gotcha points?

[mthoms]

>It's a silly hypothetical, and not worth addressing any further than I already did.

You haven't given a _reason_ why it's "silly" and "not worth addressing", you just declared it so. That's not how civilized debate works and not how intelligent, honest, people disagree.

>You've now admitted you're not even in the situation, so why debate for it other than internet gotcha points?

Because I believe in privacy, ethics and get some enjoyment out of vigorous and fair debate. Sometimes my mind gets changed, sometimes I change other peoples minds. Other times, there are people who just aren't up to it intellectually and cover their ears and spew childish nonsense.

So let's cite some sources shall we?

1) According to a specialist in employment law at Dilworth Paxson LLP and author of the online law blog “The Employer Handbook” it is sometimes advisable for employers to terminate an employee looking for other work.[0]

2) According to hundreds of professionally employed developers on HN. "We feel at risk of this happening to us."

3) According to internet user jkl275. "That's silly because it doesn't match my experience. And if it is true, the company you work for is shit. Therefore your concerns are unfounded because.. well... I'm not sure. Why are you even arguing with me!?"

[0] https://blog.shrm.org/workforce/caught-in-the-act-employees-...

[jki275]

I’m pretty sure one can find a lawyer to argue any side of any point. That doesn’t make it so.

[frandroid]

> you wouldn’t want to work for anyway.

Sure, but you still have a mortgage to pay and would like to switch companies on your terms rather than on your employer's terms, right? Have enough time to find the right job you want, instead of the least-worst because you're really not comfortable with being out of work in what's looking to be a long economic crisis?

[greenyoda]

> you wouldn’t want to work for anyway

That would have been much easier to say a few months ago. But now, lots of startups and even large companies like Uber and Airbnb are laying off workers. Suddenly, for many, staying at that crappy company they currently work for is starting to seem like a much better option.