zlacker

>>claude+(OP)
> “We support every employee’s right to criticize their employer’s working conditions,” a spokesperson said, “but that does not come with blanket immunity against any and all internal policies.”

What a strange statement. "We support their right to criticize their working conditions, only actually we don't at all"

>>cirno+0y
>What a strange statement. "We support their right to criticize their working conditions, only actually we don't at all"

Without seeing the actual policy, my guess is that "criticizing" is something employees can do internally within the company. However, you can't post public tweets about it.

In other words, "don't air dirty laundry".

This type of distinction is very common in typical employee policies. Likewise, it's common for a CEO for VP to say to the employees "I have an open door policy so if you see something wrong, tell me." -- but common sense should tell you that the CEO does not mean for the employee to post an "open letter to the CEO" on Twitter or NYTimes for the public read as well.

I know of no well-known company that encourages employees to publicly criticize their workplace.

>>jasode+3B
Uh great... yeah just walk right into the CEO's office and tell them what's wrong... 0% chance of that coming back to affect your career....

>>alexan+nB
With a good CEO, your career might actually get a bump if you give them honest and helpful feedback.

>>bavell+iD
If the company is larger than 500 people, the CEO doesn't have the bandwidth for this type of feedback. He'll either figure out that his reports (CTO or lower) are not doing their jobs, or that you're a troublemaker. Odds are he has hired the CTO and had significant influence on hiring those below the CTO. So he's invested in that CTO. You, you're some rando coming up talking about stuff that makes you look incompetent.

>>greedo+8K
>You, you're some rando coming up talking about stuff that makes you look incompetent.

Or worse, threatening to make his choices look incompetent.