zlacker

>>tech-h+(OP)
I don't really understand why it's surprising to anyone that they would face "internal retaliation" after exposing their employer as evil and boycott worthy to the entire world. By publicizing it to the degree that they did and attaching their name to it, they were putting their interests over the company. If my company started doing business practices that I didn't approve of, I would try my hardest to change the direction from the inside out or I would leave and then criticize. I don't understand the desire to stay with a company and accept paychecks while simultaneously publicly denouncing and leading protests against them.

>>charli+Cf
This should be obvious to anyone, but people are for some reason having trouble understanding it.

It's completely expected for a company to get rid of individuals on the payroll who are badmouthing the company they work for.

Why would anyone willfully employ people to work against the company's interest?

>>snvzz+ri
Retaliating against whistleblowers is illegal. Therefore, I strongly advise you stop treating it as “obvious” and “expected”.

>>enrage+Mo
Explaining it and condoning it aren't the same thing.

>>tyingq+pq
Explaining it is an uninteresting answer to an unasked question. The reason whistleblowers *(edit: or protestors) are protected is because everybody already understands why. Justifying it interesting.

It's obvious why you would fire someone for trying to start a union, or for turning down your sexual advances.