But if they say so themselves!
> What’s up Outragers, just dialing in from my NBA team’s headquarters to yell at the people whose careers I’ve just pummeled
And I just don't see how that can cross the line. It's clearly meant to stoke the fires, but it's also pretty close to a recitation of the facts. Perhaps if the CEO finds this insulting he shouldn't have dialed into a layoff AMA call from his NBA team's headquarters.
> “What’s up Outragers, just dialing in from my NBA team’s headquarters to yell at the people whose careers I’ve just pummeled,” Unterwurzacher wrote.
It takes a certain amount of entitlement and lack of awareness to do this on official internal channels - with your name attached and viewable by anyone in the company, particularly during a downsizing event.
This would have been akin to printing out the statement, signing it with your name, and then stapling it to a literal bulletin board in the office hallway. There's no reality where that is acceptable...
Except the reality in which the criticism is well-deserved, obviously. That's subjective, of course, and I'm not commenting on whether it applies here, but "zero public outcry allowed, no matter what's happening" is an absurd position. Of course that doesn't mean you shouldn't expect consequences, even up to being fired by the tyrant in question, but that's not the same thing as "unacceptable". Employees aren't slaves.
Again, what she did was akin to printing out the statement and stapling it to a bulletin board - or, mass emailing it to everyone in the company. It was an official internal channel everyone in the company can access...
Imagine one of your reports saying something like this about you during a team meeting, while you're standing there. Not acceptable workplace behavior... and that would be limited to just your team.
Actually, yes, yes it does. There are some things you can't say to any employee of any rank: racist or sexist harassment for example. And commenting on the performance of an employee that doesn't report to you is also generally a no-go. But legitimate, job-related criticism of the CEO, or any other senior management, is entirely acceptable. Why wouldn't it be?
Your comment would make sense if it were talking about the CEO.
Otherwise, it's a unwittingly sad comment on the quasi-feudal nature of these corporations.
The CEO was at his NBA team's HQ. He had demoted many staff members. He was then criticizing staff members for protesting those demotions.
It takes integrity and bravery to challenge the lies of the powerful.
“What’s up Outragers, just dialing in from my NBA team’s headquarters to yell at the people whose careers I’ve just pummeled,” Unterwurzacher wrote. Atlassian fired her a few days later, saying she had “engaged in acrimonious communications and ad hominem attacks against teammates and colleagues.”
Unterwurzacher replied, “I think it’s difficult to point out the power imbalance in a way that is not potentially described by somebody as an ad hominem attack.”
> At a March 3 hearing in Austin, a National Labor Relations Board attorney said the fired software engineer, Denise Unterwurzacher, had been acting in the spirit of Atlassian’s own stated “Open Company, No Bullshit” philosophy
I think if you have a "Open Company, No Bullshit" philosophy in your company handbook, then you can't claim "No, not like that..." when called on your BS.
If their company policy was "always obey legal orders from superiors" instead then I think they have a much clearer case at firing for cause.
If you can't take such a gentle ribbing from people you've potentially just fired, you shouldn't be CEO, because you can't control your emotions in the simplest way.
Almost none of these tech leaders deserve their station except by virtue of luck or often borderline sociopathic tendencies. To flaunt it so egregiously is a bit over the top.
this controversy will not have enough steam behind it to affect hteir bottom line whatsoever
Many of us are mature enough to follow the principle of, "if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything." But not so when you have young developers flowing in and out of the company. In one of the town halls, a 24 year old dev, was put on a mic, and simply said, "I don't like X, he is super annoying, why do we keep plastering his face everywhere."
I've never seen an entire company freeze before. There was no way forward, no way backwards. The script had been broken. The dev, thinking he wasn't heard properly, sent the same message in our townhall slack channel. I did what I believe 90% of other people did. I screenshoted it.
The kid got another job a few months after. For once we saw the emperor wore no clothes.
Edit: million typos
Edit 2: in case it wasn't clear, no was not fired, he just found another job.
Brave of the developer to bring it up. This cult of personality is pervasive throughout the tech industry.
Anyway, good for him. Too many agree to too much because they fear they'll lose their job.
I was working as a programmer at some high flying merchant bank in London in the 90's and at the pub with my workmates one night I started tearing strips off of the IT director because he was comically incompetent. Everyone was kicking me under the table because unbeknownst to me his close friend was at the table taking in my rant. Everyone agreed that I was toast and bought me drinks.
In the morning, at about 10am, security went into his office and marched him out of the building, right past my desk. I turned around and said to my team and said "See! Don't fuck with me!"
It was hilarious.
Bravo.
Another memory from that time: a stressed sounding trading desk assistant rang me asking after a trade confirmation that went missing and the client was demanding. I determined that the system I worked on didn't handle those kinds of trades. Out of curiosity I looked up the trade. It was for 2 billion GBP of UK Gilts (government bonds), thats about $5 billion USD in today's money.
This isn't maturity, this is selfishness. A group often benefits from someone challenging the status quo, but the individual doing that gets punished. In your view, Germans during WW2 were "mature" by not saying anything that wasn't nice about nazism, and nowadays Russians are "mature" when they don't want to discuss a war that left a million people either dead or wounded - both cases are individuals acting out of self-preservation, not "maturity".
If you're American, then maybe a good example is Martin Luther King Jr. - do you really think that he should've had the maturity to shut up and not say anything that wasn't nice about racism? Well, he got killed, just like your junior employee got fired, so I guess he was indeed a loser in a sense.
In general this is a very common pattern in corporations where everyone is "just doing their job" and "being mature" but the end result is atrocities - for example Nestle literally killing babies.
It's completely okay to say whatever you want and stand up for yourself, but you are not a child, own the consequences rather than whine
If a rich guy can't take some minor criticism maybe he's the whiner.
The CEO has money and the power to fire that person if the employee is disliked. Maybe that shouldn't be a thing, maybe it should be illegal, but they'll find a way around it. Just because they can means that they will.
I wish it wasn't like that but that's how I see things are happening these days, save for perhaps a few nuances here and there.
It's ok to be angry at people for behaving in a way that is unsurprising. Otherwise, there's no room for the word "immoral".
For most normal CEOs criticism from a low-level employee would just not be worth thinking about.
You have a choice not to use said tact, but this entire "employee goes on moral crusade, gets fired, goes on moral crusade about firing", is a feature of a kind of employee that is even for other employees not amazing to be around
The statement doesn’t claim any fact: it’s a hypotheical not unlike a “based on real events” movie/book/etc that never quotes or attributes specific actions to a subject.
And that’s why Atlassian is very likely to lose over and over as they appeal (but never say never these days in the US).
Were they calling to aggressively dismiss employee claims (without video I cannot prove "yelling", but that is a way that word is used in common parlance)? Yes.
Does downleveling employees have a significant negative impact on their careers? Yes.
This wasn't satire, it was truth.
> “What’s up Outragers, just dialing in from my NBA team’s headquarters to yell at the people whose careers I’ve just pummeled,”
from germany i know that whether an insult is grounds for firing someone depends on the regular interaction the two people have, so if you take a company of rednecks (to employ a stereotype), a redneck employee calling their redneck boss some typical redneck insult would be interpreted as acceptable, and make any firing based on that illegal. but if the same insult is used by a lawyer in a law firm from a big city, then suddenly that same insult is a valid reason to get fired.
(edit: rephrase and replace court with NLRB)
As for "the consequences", those are what are at stake now. They are what the courts & to some extent the people of the USA get to decide.
Meta could've saved billions of dollars if more people told Zuck that the Metaverse is stupid, because it was. The end result is the same. The death of the idea. That much is actually unavoidable, because stupid and bad ideas will always fail, with or without support. So, it shifts to a question of it being a long, drawn-out, expensive death or a quick Old Yeller type putting down.
I think the issue we're seeing across a lot of companies is that leadership is incredibly stupid. I think we have this wrong idea that, because a CEO exists purely to make decisions, they must be pretty good at it. But that's not really the case. You can only be capable of doing one thing and still be shit at that one thing, it's definitely possible.
The problem is, I think, we assume that CEOs and other leadership work like normal people, but I don't think this is the case. I think there is a brain decay that occurs as people become more rich and powerful. It's becoming evident to me that the human brain was never intended to be in that type of situation, and there are consequences. There's a sort of detachment of reality that comes along with that, and it almost seems unavoidable. Like a type of delusional psychosis that just onsets when you become rich and powerful enough.
It's not a new thing, either. You can basically see this across all of history with kings and rulers of all kinds. The really good ones do something remarkable: they predict their own oncoming psychosis. They build in controls and preventative measures so that, when they inevitable go off the rails, the damage is minimized. It's wild, isn't it? I think about everything George Washington did prior to his rise in US politics, and it can only be describes as stopping his future self from eventually becoming drunk with power.
> I think there is a brain decay that occurs as people become more rich and powerful.
So I think it's important for leaders to surround themselves with a distribution of opinions. I think in order to make good decisions we need friction. We need frustration. We need people to tell us we're wrong when we're wrong. We also need people to tell us we're wrong even when we're right, because the challenge of the idea forces us to think deeper. But I think the real challenge is implementing this correctly. It needs most "advisors" to be acting honestly, independently, and in good faith. It's hard to cultivate that and I think to do so you need to let people trash talk you, even egregiously. Because a misinterpretation of punishing someone can be seen interpreted as retaliation (even if completely fair), and upsetting the whole balance. Context can easily be lost
I suspect it's an unstable equilibrium, making it really difficult to maintain.
See Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is ignoring that the concept of companies having to care about shareholders above everything else is a lie spread to justify evil behavior.
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
If you are so burned out that you can’t help but vent publicly, it’s time to go. It’s just not healthy for you.
But of course leadership is going to take care of that for you because it’s not healthy for the company either to have open dissent. And most of us are far easier to replace than a CEO
It's deeply unhealthy to not have open dissent.
But TikTok actually fixed that, so now Confluence is back on top. Good on you, Atlassian.
Honestly I don’t hate JIRA, it’s “fine”. There aren’t really any project tracking tools that I love.
Should employees be required to discuss things explicitly? Without the natural way people talk? Especially the natural way Americans talk? Seems pretty rigid if you ask me
"“What’s up Outragers, just dialing in from my NBA team’s headquarters to yell at the people whose careers I’ve just pummeled,”
That is an absolutely true statement (to the degree that you can pummel a non-physical thing).
Amazing answer.
NextDNS doesn't route to .is or .ph or .fo or .today anymore.
My ISP doesn't route to .is, but it routes to the others. Using my ISP's DNS means receiving tons of spam though.
Cloudflare apparently doesn't reliably route to them either, and I wouldn't want to use it even if it did.
UPDATE: I see that https://dns.adguard-dns.com/dns-query still routes to all of them, so guess I will use it! I have no conflict of interest.
“ What’s up Outragers, just dialing in from my NBA team’s headquarters to yell at the people whose careers I’ve just pummeled.”
Seems like a fair statement to make, and she didn’t call him a jerk directly. She didn’t deserve to be fired, but I’ll be surprised if she has any actual recourse.
Frankly, if the CEO is the leader he’s pretending to be, he’d apologize to her and offer her the job back with a signing bonus.
It’s sad how little respect most of these guys have for the engineers that enable them to walk into their country clubs and call themselves “tech CEOs”.
Is he too rich for some people’s taste? Does that indicate workers are unhappy with the real/perceived pay disparity?
Is he a jerk in other contexts? Is this proxy for unapproachable, rude, or some other unbecoming set of behaviors?
It’s an opportunity to improve, or at least reflect on the perception they have in the company. Firing, and asserting the right to do so for expressing an opinion, seems to me to be a poor choice of action.
They don’t treat their employees well. Now with all the AI slop, it seems they don’t know what good software is.
Yeah if you have option to move away from Atlassian, you should do so.
Modern tools like Claude code have the ability to craft and bring dreams to reality.
Atlassian is old school. Their rich CEOs no longer care about good software. They are rent extractors.