[fixxer]

This is smart. Guilty as sin or not, testifying against an employer seems risky for one's career. You want to be able to explain to future employers what happened in a manner that takes personal character assessment out of the equation: somebody broke the law and you got a subpoena.

EDIT: I've worked at some shops that were "cultish" and would look at testifying without a subpoena as not being part of the team. Fucked up, but organizations are often so. You need to do the right thing in the smartest way possible.

[evan_]

> Fucked up, but organizations are often so.

You can choose not to be a part of these organizations.

[fixxer]

You can certainly aspire to that. Some companies are really good at hiding their true colors.

Mortgage, kids... Sometimes you need a paycheck.

[cortesoft]

Right, which is why trying to hide the fact you testified might be a bad idea... If someone won't hire you because you testified against a criminal employer... You probably don't want to work for them. Since, as you said, companies hide their true colors, this way you can know before being hired.

[pyre]

On the other hand, many times hiring managers are just looking for a reason to discard your resume to narrow down the talent pool. Anything negative gets you tossed. They see this. Maybe it's a good sign, maybe it's a bad sign. Either way it's something out of the ordinary that will take more time to evaluate. Better just toss the resume. There's still another stack of 100 candidates to go through...

[mreiland]

if they're looking you up on the internet they've gone past finding a reason to chunk your resume.

[InclinedPlane]

Doing the right thing is rarely the most convenient option, that's why it's considered notable.

[cubancigar11]

PayPal comes to mind.

[sauronlord]

This is what they mean by 'your house is not an asset'

Mortgages are not inherently bad. It's what you take the mortgage for is the bad decision.

Example:

Good:

Having a mortgage for a legal duplex (2 dwellings) and renting the other half out, while you live in one.

Bad:

Getting a house that's one big sink hole of cash and having more bedrooms/lawn/what have you.

You can be employed to build someone else's dreams. However there are other options available to you that don't involve being a rat.

[kragen]

My reading of “your house is not an asset” is “Robert Kiyosaki apparently failed Introduction to Accounting because he still doesn’t know the definitions of basic accounting terms.” (Except in very rare cases, like when the verdict against you for the neighbor kid drowning in your pool is more than your house will sell for.)

[fixxer]

I could have just as easily used "rent" instead of "mortgage". Spare me the political grandstanding.

[strathmeyer]

Not if their former employees won't testify against them?

[TheOsiris]

I think OP's concern is that he'll lose out on even getting an interview. Basically, employers will get his resume, like what they see, google him then decide to pass