> “They should have first gone and made their grievances known in a private way to the appropriate people.”
Why did you automatically assume they didn’t? Do you have special knowledge of the situation or did you just assume that was the case solely on the words of a company press release? Clearly the company would have no reason to use the same tired recycled excuses in press releases of “you should have talked to us privately” every company claims after a protest (which often get proved out as false in later employment lawsuits).
It seems odd that someone would write, “this is especially true when I've witnessed how Microsoft has tried to quell and suppress any dissent from my coworkers who tried to raise this issue” if the issue had never been raised or discussed prior.
Do they deserve to be fired? Sure. Does that mean protesting and disrupting a celebration was wrong after many people had tried to voice opposition of their use of AI this way, I don’t know that I can agree.
If you have ever worked at a Fortune 500 company, you would know that you might as well scream into a void if you think a company is going to reverse their decision to make more profit because of some whiney employees who don’t want to “just do your job”. Sometimes disruptive actions are the only way to bring attention to the things companies do, as can be seen by this being covered in the press , which means more attention has been brought to the issue, which was exactly the goal was it not?
Seeing the footage I very much doubt Ibtihal Aboussad hadn’t addressed this before via a more proper channel. She addressed Mustafa Sulema by first name, she talks as if she knows he knows what she is talking about, as if she has addressed this to him personally multiple times before.
Reading about her history and role in No Azure for Apartheid it is very unrealistic to assume this is the first action they did.
Why did you automatically assume they didn’t? Do you have special knowledge of the situation or did you just assume that was the case solely on the words of a company press release? Clearly the company would have no reason to use the same tired recycled excuses in press releases of “you should have talked to us privately” every company claims after a protest (which often get proved out as false in later employment lawsuits).
It seems odd that someone would write, “this is especially true when I've witnessed how Microsoft has tried to quell and suppress any dissent from my coworkers who tried to raise this issue” if the issue had never been raised or discussed prior.
Do they deserve to be fired? Sure. Does that mean protesting and disrupting a celebration was wrong after many people had tried to voice opposition of their use of AI this way, I don’t know that I can agree.
If you have ever worked at a Fortune 500 company, you would know that you might as well scream into a void if you think a company is going to reverse their decision to make more profit because of some whiney employees who don’t want to “just do your job”. Sometimes disruptive actions are the only way to bring attention to the things companies do, as can be seen by this being covered in the press , which means more attention has been brought to the issue, which was exactly the goal was it not?