[da_big_ghey]

Agree, I am confused why the surprise that somebody bad-mouth an employer publicly and get fired for it. Ask, if you were in a business, you have a problem employee who will not stop talking to press to make a public damage against your reputation. How can you handle this when this employee will not stop? Said person is now working against your company interests and not for.

[angry_octet]

This is a big cultural disconnect. What you interpret as "bad mouthing" is actually an indication of corporate health, a mechanism for self-correcting behaviour, and pruning bad management practices that cause behaviour to deviate from objectives. However, your views are not uncommon, people like to hide their misbehavior, and it's always a challenge to root those people out.

[ripbubu]

Agreed. And Apple had a reputation for organizational health. Something went wrong. Perhaps, they scaled quickly and the leadership brought in at that time did not grasp the science behind Apple’s organizational health. Since when did Apple become the Navy? Just leave? Some of us dreamed as children to work for this company. In that dream I didn’t envision being sexually harassed and hr shielding the harasser or being paid 20% or more less than my male peers. This isn’t just an Apple issue, but they do set the example for many other companies in tech and out. As an admirer of the innovation of Apple, subpar organizational health promotes stagnation.

[da_big_ghey]

Its not criticism that is any problem. Its going to press to try to force some change when you are not getting entirely your way. This is a bad thing. Correct answer if this person was seriously in the interest of Apple would be write letters to shareholders/board if management has ignore the concern.

[angry_octet]

This is, again, the view that the institution is always right, an outmoded and discredited viewpoint.

[PrincessJess]

No it's not lmao. It's that the institution is the one who fills out your fucking paychecks. If I pay you to clean the kitchen, but you want to clean the bathroom, and I tell you to clean the kitchen and not clean the bathroom or you're fired, and you decide to clean the bathroom, what exactly do you think should happen?

[cybernautique]

I'd like to propose a constructive and highly novel perspective: I, me alone, am correct. Yours is, once again, an outmoded and discredited viewpoint.

[geofft]

They're not working against the company's interests. They may be working against the interests of individuals in management. For public companies like Apple - and arguably for any company larger than a sole proprietorship - those aren't the same thing.

(It is still true, of course, that management has the power to fire you and therefore picking fights with management is generally not good for your career. But that's a cold practical observation, not a statement about merit. There's a significant difference between losing a political fight and working against the company's interests.)

[prepend]

It’s hard for us to determine what’s in the company’s best interest. It seems to me that the ex-employee was being counterproductive, but what do I know.

The organization is the best equipped to understand the best interests over a single employee.

The challenge is that many fired employees will think they are right and the company was wrong. If there’s lawbreaking then maybe a judge will decide.

It’s like asking prisoners if they are guilty. They all say not guilty. And some are right and the institution was wrong. But typically the institution is right.

With private companies that’s the trade off. Management will decide and fire.