[ivan_gammel]

The “people who are critical of you” are very broad category that includes both toxic behavior and constructive disagreement. The former must not be tolerated, the latter can be encouraged as long as it’s not a blocker. In this case it is clearly the former and it requires suppression, but disciplinary action may have been too harsh or perfectly adequate depending on prior history with this employee. It was not said like “it was insensitive to appear in front of the team this way”. It was indeed said like he is a rich jerk. Zero added value, rage bait, polarization of the team.

[Arainach]

> In this case it is clearly the former and it requires suppression

That's not clear at all. Why do you say so?

Read the article. "Rich jerk" are Atlassian's words, not the employee's. Even if they are it's not obviously the former.

I refuse to believe anyone, including Oracle employees, likes Larry Ellison. If Microsoft/Google/Apple fired everyone who badmouthed Satya/Sundar/Tim, half their products would fall apart overnight.

[ivan_gammel]

> That's not clear at all. Why do you say so?

Do you see any, even little sign of constructive criticism in what she said? Anything that could improve corporate culture or help her peers or management to understand the problem? Any hint on how it could be fixed? I don’t.

> Read the article.

I did read the article and came to the same conclusion as Atlassian.

> I refuse to believe anyone, including Oracle employees, likes Larry Ellison.

When you sign the working contract, your job is to act in the interests of shareholders. If you despise them or disagree with what they do, you can still work there and use your position to align their interests and the interests of the public. You can try to change it from within. But the moment when you decide to burn the bridges is the moment when you should leave. To me this is pretty obvious, and I’m really surprised to see here some sort of entitlement.

[Arainach]

"acting in the interests of shareholders" (which, for the record, no employment contract I've ever signed requires) does not mean blind allegiance to management and certainly doesn't mean not calling out bad actions by management.

The employee's statement here was fact. The CEO did harm the careers of employees and did call in to harass them without even bothering to come to a company office.

The CEO, who has much more of an obligation to act in shareholders' interests than an IC, shouldn't be attacking and alienating their labor force.

[ivan_gammel]

> no employment contract I've ever signed requires

The sole reason for existence of for-profit corporations does not have to be explicitly stated in the contract. It’s implied and better be understood.

> does not mean blind allegiance to management…

Yes, it doesn’t. Nobody said it does.

> The employee's statement here was fact.

Sure. It it wasn’t the fact, it would be even worse.

> The CEO shouldn't be attacking and alienating their labor force.

It’s irrelevant. One person’s bad judgement does not justify another’s.

[Arainach]

No, employees have no obligations to shareholders. They get money for their labor. End of obligation. They are not the corporation.

This is ignoring that the concept of companies having to care about shareholders above everything else is a lie spread to justify evil behavior.

[ivan_gammel]

> They get money for their labor.

Yes, and what is the essence of that labor? It is to create profits for shareholders. You are not getting paid to contribute to toxic culture or to seize the means of production. CEO could have been in the wrong, but the moment when the “us vs them” idea starts dominating in corporate culture is the moment company dies and those jobs that everyone is so afraid to loose are ceasing to exist.

>This is ignoring that the concept of companies having to care about shareholders above everything else is a lie spread to justify evil behavior.

Nobody is claiming the “above everything else” here