zlacker

I don't see anything wrong about that...

Because that is if you don't agree with company policy or whatever company is doing, you should not work there. They should lose all employees and go bust.

In practice I understand one would like to disagree and things should change to better. But life is not that simple, so if you can afford quitting please do so (if you are wealthy enough even in their face saying what they should do better), if you somehow cannot afford that, for the sake of your close ones really put your head down and work your way through... there is nothing bad I could say about such person, those are just circumstances.

That said - for all those assholes that should say something because they have their comfortable position in a company ... fuck them really bad!

That is why I highly regard Snowden, he had comfortable position, yet he went against all of that. If he would be someone oppressed and making barely living wage that would be just a normal thing that someone would like to fight for a better life ....

>>ozim+(OP)
We can always count on someone on Hackernews to defend billion dollar companies in the face of workers abuse "they could always quit!". They clearly don't care if you criticize internally, there is a need to expose those bad practices in the press.

>>ozim+(OP)
What if you actually believe in the company and what they do? Does that mean you must support each and every policy that the company instates?

>>jerome+O
Good luck reading the first part only mate! After you cool down read 4th and 5th paragraph, if you would make it to 3rd maybe you would notice something more...

>>shawnz+t1
That is a good counter question... I don't have to name people who believed their company was doing the right thing but was in reality setting death camps.

But in reality they (bad guys) were using line workers who could not really make right or wrong because they were not educated on the front line doing atrocities. Fuck you is about people who are educated enough that they could spot slimy stuff (though they were enough removed from bad stuff to not "spot" the bad stuff) but still stick to their comfortable life.

>>ozim+y8
I didn't keep reading. I found your paragraph structure difficult to want to follow.

You give one line. This draws you in.. 3 then 4 sentences which explains your point and I decide to stop reading. Your third paragraph was bigger than all of the others combined. Your fourth is small followed by a bigger last paragraph.

Beef up 2 that is where you make your key point.

Keep the last line short.

>>shawnz+t1
Sounds like that person has been drinking the kool-aid. Believe in what? For those people they would support all policies for the greater company good.

>>wolco+ZI
> Believe in what?

The idea that using logistics technology to enable fast and efficient delivery of household goods is a nice thing to have in our world?

> For those people they would support all policies for the greater company good.

That's just a narrative you are constructing. Obviously it doesn't apply to the whistleblowers in question here or they wouldn't have spoken out in the first place.