Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by JambalayaJim 889 days ago
She specifically set herself up to be recorded and then shared it across the internet. That is the problem part, not her questioning of the HR people (which was a show for the camera!) That kind of “I’m the main character” type energy would be a lot to deal with, especially for a 4 month employee.
1 comments
sangnoir 889 days ago
Yes, she didn't follow the rules. Whether one views that as inherently problematic broadly follows the value-system I outlined earlier. I think her breaking (the letter of) the rules is amply justified in this case - others clearly disagree. AFAICT, she didn't violate the spirit if the rules - no confidential. information was revealed.
link
FreakLegion 889 days ago
People's names, roles in the company, and voices were revealed. If you Google "rosie cloudflare hr", the top result is a LinkedIn profile for Rosemary J. Fantozzi, who works in GTM HR. That profile is now hidden or deleted, and it's not hard to figure out why.

I have no regard at all for corporate rules, but I do for privacy and privacy laws. Brittany may have broken the law by making the recording (Georgia is a one-party state, but she couldn't know where the other people in the meeting were -- New York is also one-party, but California for example is all-party), but either way it was poor judgment to release it without at least redacting names and roles.

link
sangnoir 887 days ago
> People's names, roles in the company, and voices were revealed. If you Google "rosie cloudflare hr", the top result is a LinkedIn profile for Rosemary J. Fantozzi, who works in GTM HR

As you noted, Rosie's name and title was already public on LinkedIn! So it's just the voice that was possibly non-public, and I don't think that's widely considered to be "confidential information".

As for breaking the law, I consider thr actions to be whistleblowing on a layoff disguised as performance-related firing (as evidenced bu the recording!) Realizing this information is in the public's interest, she showed excellent judgement and robustly defended herself against a sham dismissal that makes a mockery of norms: most companies have the decency to place "poor performers" on PIPs (even when the poor performance is due to stack-ranking rather than failure to do assigned duties). Firing someone for poor performance out of the blue, without giving them feedback about it first is immoral (and hopefully illegal considering employment is at-will. That could have fired her fir any reason, but I suppose they don't want to trigger layoff-provisions)

link
pg_1234 889 days ago
If the recording was made in a one-party state it doesn't matter where the other parties were.

You'd only be bound by other laws if the recording was done at the location governed by those laws.

link
FreakLegion 888 days ago
You're wrong. The California Supreme Court, for example, has said so explicitly, for the general case. That leaves the question of this specific case, which nobody here is qualified to judge.

Either way, tech is in California, and she's definitely going to lose out on opportunities because of this. The good news for Brittany is that a bunch of companies will try to hire her right now purely for clout, so she'll be fine.

link