The term “shareholders” is getting used pretty loosely here. I’m a shareholder: I’ve been putting money into our retirement mutual fund for years, and my son’s registered disability fund since he was three. Are we a……s?
If when you see someone saying that it feels good not to line the pockets of A**holes "Sorry, I meant Shareholders" and think "I'm a shareholder, does he mean me?" I would ask how much that retirement fund is "Lining your pockets" off his work.
The context of his statement makes your attempt to redirect his aggression towards the people he worked for into a broad insult to you and other people with a retirement account that gets diversified by the company holding your retirement account (companies that gamble people's retirement savings and sometimes LOSE THEM) is more than a bit of a reach.
Stretch first.
If he meant predatory, Wolf of Wall Street types, he could have stated that, but as a communications expert he chose the broader term. Seems like trolling to me, and I would definitely be unimpressed as a potential employer unless I was looking for that. And maybe that’s where he wants to go.
Oh noooo... you'd be unimpressed.
If he had the credentials to do the job, the availability to do it, and the skills and material you needed, would this stop you from hiring him?
We absolutely check the social media of prospective employees, just as we do criminal record checks. We’d be negligent not to.
Which is fine, sure. But if -this- would cross the line into "You're unhirable" then I don't think the problem is on this person's side of the office desk.
I think it represents a social expectation that ever aspect of an employees life belongs to their employer. And that's just weird.
Like I get it if they're attacking a minority group or shooting off strings of expletives or posting other widely objectionable material.
But this? Come on.
Yeah I have no issue with what he said on a personal level. More power to him. I even agree.
Cool.
But as someone who does a lot of hiring I could never hire someone who so publically and profanely went after a former employer. Because it may be my organization next if they become disenchanted.
HAH! No.
See this? This right here is an admission I don't think you intended to make. That he might become "Disillusioned" implies there's an actual Illusion to see through. That your company would do things that make statements like his a response he or others might give.
And rather than acknowledge that and address it, most companies would rather not hire people who don't comply with the company line after they've left.
If you want to keep this from happening, treat your employees well and it won't be an issue. Read more of what Greg Tito has said about his time at WotC and particularly the last year or so he was there.
I would not do business with any company that would publicly say that wouldn't hire someone for badmouthing shareholders.
QFT.
If someone owns a business where they're scared to hire someone who badmouthed their previous business for fear their own business would be badmouthed? I would immediately wonder how they treat their employees.
Dude was treated badly and spoke up about it. People who refuse to hire people because they're scared they'd speak up about the bad treatment tells me their employees are treated badly and just haven't spoken up.
Yet.
www.enworld.org
.
