In these cases where they have to rehire someone, does the employee usually stay after? Wouldn't the workplace be kinda hostile now with the manager who fired you?
Unlikely it was the person's direct manager who made the call to fire them. I would normally assume this person won't be up for a promotion for a long time. And they'd need to do everything by the book going forward.
On the other hand they've shown everyone they have backbone and that Atlassian ss petty and engages in illegal retaliation. So the company may be forced to be on its best behavior with this person in the future.
In this particular case I'd argue that the workplace is indeed going to be very hostile, and appropriate reparations here would not be to rehire, but a fat compensation package for unfair dismissal.
Many worker relations ombuds around the world has procedures for exactly this scenario.
Hell, I reckon the majority of 'illegal' firings does not result in rehiring the injured party.
Yeah I can't imagine that playing out particularly well. Maybe at a company as large as Atlassian it is feasible enough to stay isolated. But I'd think the relationship is tainted from both sides at this point and doesn't favor either party.
I don't know about other companies, but I don't really interact with my manager outside of 1 on 1s like once a quarter. Also, it's never his choice to fire someone, it's always from above. I'm sure if he was forced to lay someone off he'd be just as happy as they are to have them back.
Atlassian was extremely foolish. Obviously you want to fire someone who makes unprofessional comments like that on the company Slack, but you don't explicitly fire them for that, you find some other defensible reason to do it.
thats something i've wondered too, but as a long time jira user i'd rather foss contribute to something better designed (both code and ux-wise) than rehash the mess of ux anti-patterns of jira... just my 2c
I got downvoted for posing the possibility that the atlassian ceo actually is a ‘rich jerk’ and that his retaliation towards this employee was evidence of the statement itself.
I guess I’ve been vindicated. I’ll be accepting apologies.
A US administrative labor law judge judge found that software maker Atlassian had illegally fired an engineer after she pushed back against manager layoffs and other policy changes.
> The ruling found that the engineer, Denise Unterwurzacher, had a federally backed right to make such comments because she made them as part of a collective effort to aid or protect co-workers.
> The judge ordered the company to reinstate Ms. Unterwurzacher to her former job or an equivalent position, and to make her whole financially. It is one of the most significant outcomes in years in a case involving the labor rights of a tech worker.
Atlassian said it planned to appeal the ruling, however.
I am not a lawyer, but if they don't appeal and win, it will set a precedent that they'd (and other companies) have to pay out on any other employees fired for this reason. That will cost them more in the long run.
It’s depressing how the tech ecosystem works as a self-reinforcing cartel against workers for statusquo preservation. Yes, it’s rational from the tech industry as a whole’s POV, there’s little to no chance a single individual can really stand against such machinery
I think this is a salient point people are missing. This incredible freedom is equal on both sides, just as how companies are able to spread that risk around with multiple employees, it is common these days to have multiple jobs just in case of a layoff or other notable event where your job is lost.
I am doing a double take reading your comment and the parent comment of yours. They’re just so wildly corporate-biased.
I’m really not sure how we can conclude that the freedom is symmetrical.
The fact that this story made national news says everything about how rare it is for an employer to win a case like this. In most cases you just get fired for any reason with no notice or off-ramp. The employer is just always correct by default and you can easily be denied unemployment insurance because the company cooked up some official looking documents showing that you were fired with cause.
A corporation can spread risk by having 1,000 employees. I can’t have 1,000 jobs. It’s just not equal on both sides.
I mean, “incredible freedom is equal on both sides,” in the only developed country where there’s no mandatory paid parental leave and basic healthcare access depends on employment? Spare me.
My comments are not "corporate-biased", they are business owner biased, which includes small businesses.
Employment is an free arrangement between two entities, not a modern day serfdom where the employers are now responsible for their serfs housing, food, etc.
The power balance is tilted heavily towards employers though, no? If I quit you still have things like income and health care. If you fire me, not so much.
We can’t exactly say this isn’t a serfdom in a country where the majority of people depend on employer benefits to get access to affordable healthcare.
Small businesses definitely feel a squeeze that bigger companies don’t, but they’re not saints to be put on a pedestal, either.
In that regard, small businesses get a ton of carve-outs. For example, they don’t have to pay healthcare benefits to full time employees. They are exempt from a slew of regulations targeted at larger businesses.
I don’t really have the same reverence for small businesses that a lot of people do. They’re just companies. Some are good, some are bad. When you work for one, there’s still a power distance between you and the owner.
I find that many small business owners are taking things way too personally. Their business is their baby and therefore any employee that doesn’t have a grindset like them is taking advantage of them.
The small businesses I respect are the ones that move toward employee ownership. Employees who own the company care about the company and don’t try to screw it over. Problem solved.
Yes, indeed: the rich and poor alike have freedom from being allowed to sleep under bridges.
Come on; there are such obvious imbalances of power here that "each side has incredible freedom" is blatantly misleading.
On the one hand, you have each individual software engineer (because heaven forbid we should ever join unions! Those are for people who aren't A+ 10x alpha coders and negotiators, amirite?), every one of whom needs a salary so they can afford food, clothing, shelter, etc.
On the other hand, you have a group of the most wealthy and powerful countries the world has ever seen, who openly work together, have the ear of the flagrantly-corrupt president, and could coast on their cash reserves for, in some cases, many years even if every single customer decided to boycott them all at once.
And you think that "each side has incredible freedom" is a meaningful statement here...?
That's not really true at all. You just think that because you never hear about it. Stare decisis still applies at a trial level, but its scope is obviously much narrower. Moreover, most things really aren't that novel. Most importantly, its quite hard to research on this level and usually pointless because theres usually a higher level case anyway.
Only if customers don’t care about your labor practices. For me this story screams “Don’t Use or Recommend Atlassian - in fact, strongly advise against it.”
No reason stated is trickier if the employee shows a timeline/cause and effect then gets discovery in court. Also, firing for no reason would not be very believable in itself compared to a timeline.
This is why employers even get extra careful with documentation in some situations where they have cause but also potential legal issues.
I mean... yes? A company pays you to work. If you are using company resources, during company time, to attack your company... why exactly would they keep you employees? She was warned multiple times. It's quite amazing this court let this happen at all.
If an employee of yours spent hours every day attacking you.... would you keep them employed? Why not?
From the article I read it didn't say employee was attacking them hours every day. From the articles the employee posted a message on an internal slack "Outrage Notification" channel which looks to be an internal venting channel containing similar content.
Atlassian has values "Open company, no bullshit" which they selectively use. "Open company, no bullshit" until it isn't. Example, this case, upsetting Mikes ego.
I was on a team at Atlassian that got constructively dissambled after not being happy with some changes for the worse. Worst retro I've ever been in, all developers heads on desks, manager: "suggest how we fix this issue", developers silent as every answer from the developer got the reply from manager on the lines of "no, you know we can't do that anymore". Then the digging through historic slack messages and social media posts started followed by departures...
That was a very long time ago now, seems not much has changed.
In these cases where they have to rehire someone, does the employee usually stay after? Wouldn't the workplace be kinda hostile now with the manager who fired you?
Unlikely it was the person's direct manager who made the call to fire them. I would normally assume this person won't be up for a promotion for a long time. And they'd need to do everything by the book going forward.
On the other hand they've shown everyone they have backbone and that Atlassian ss petty and engages in illegal retaliation. So the company may be forced to be on its best behavior with this person in the future.
In this particular case I'd argue that the workplace is indeed going to be very hostile, and appropriate reparations here would not be to rehire, but a fat compensation package for unfair dismissal.
Many worker relations ombuds around the world has procedures for exactly this scenario.
Hell, I reckon the majority of 'illegal' firings does not result in rehiring the injured party.
Yeah I can't imagine that playing out particularly well. Maybe at a company as large as Atlassian it is feasible enough to stay isolated. But I'd think the relationship is tainted from both sides at this point and doesn't favor either party.
Even if that's the case, this ensures that she has a stable paycheck while she searches for another job.
I don't know about other companies, but I don't really interact with my manager outside of 1 on 1s like once a quarter. Also, it's never his choice to fire someone, it's always from above. I'm sure if he was forced to lay someone off he'd be just as happy as they are to have them back.
A lot of companies have 1 on 1s weekly.
https://archive.is/YkrVy
Atlassian was extremely foolish. Obviously you want to fire someone who makes unprofessional comments like that on the company Slack, but you don't explicitly fire them for that, you find some other defensible reason to do it.
Now that we have fancy AI can't someone make a FOSS jira clone?
thats something i've wondered too, but as a long time jira user i'd rather foss contribute to something better designed (both code and ux-wise) than rehash the mess of ux anti-patterns of jira... just my 2c
I got downvoted for posing the possibility that the atlassian ceo actually is a ‘rich jerk’ and that his retaliation towards this employee was evidence of the statement itself.
I guess I’ve been vindicated. I’ll be accepting apologies.
A US administrative labor law judge judge found that software maker Atlassian had illegally fired an engineer after she pushed back against manager layoffs and other policy changes.
> The ruling found that the engineer, Denise Unterwurzacher, had a federally backed right to make such comments because she made them as part of a collective effort to aid or protect co-workers.
> The judge ordered the company to reinstate Ms. Unterwurzacher to her former job or an equivalent position, and to make her whole financially. It is one of the most significant outcomes in years in a case involving the labor rights of a tech worker.
Atlassian said it planned to appeal the ruling, however.
> Atlassian said it planned to appeal the ruling, however.
I think it'd be cheaper to keep her at this point. I'd tell your lawyer's egos to take a chill pill.
I am not a lawyer, but if they don't appeal and win, it will set a precedent that they'd (and other companies) have to pay out on any other employees fired for this reason. That will cost them more in the long run.
It’s depressing how the tech ecosystem works as a self-reinforcing cartel against workers for statusquo preservation. Yes, it’s rational from the tech industry as a whole’s POV, there’s little to no chance a single individual can really stand against such machinery
Each side has incredible freedom. There are downsides to them.
Employees can take up a huge amount of resources and then leave before costs are recovered.
I think this is a salient point people are missing. This incredible freedom is equal on both sides, just as how companies are able to spread that risk around with multiple employees, it is common these days to have multiple jobs just in case of a layoff or other notable event where your job is lost.
I am doing a double take reading your comment and the parent comment of yours. They’re just so wildly corporate-biased.
I’m really not sure how we can conclude that the freedom is symmetrical.
The fact that this story made national news says everything about how rare it is for an employer to win a case like this. In most cases you just get fired for any reason with no notice or off-ramp. The employer is just always correct by default and you can easily be denied unemployment insurance because the company cooked up some official looking documents showing that you were fired with cause.
A corporation can spread risk by having 1,000 employees. I can’t have 1,000 jobs. It’s just not equal on both sides.
I mean, “incredible freedom is equal on both sides,” in the only developed country where there’s no mandatory paid parental leave and basic healthcare access depends on employment? Spare me.
My comments are not "corporate-biased", they are business owner biased, which includes small businesses.
Employment is an free arrangement between two entities, not a modern day serfdom where the employers are now responsible for their serfs housing, food, etc.
The power balance is tilted heavily towards employers though, no? If I quit you still have things like income and health care. If you fire me, not so much.
We can’t exactly say this isn’t a serfdom in a country where the majority of people depend on employer benefits to get access to affordable healthcare.
Small businesses definitely feel a squeeze that bigger companies don’t, but they’re not saints to be put on a pedestal, either.
In that regard, small businesses get a ton of carve-outs. For example, they don’t have to pay healthcare benefits to full time employees. They are exempt from a slew of regulations targeted at larger businesses.
I don’t really have the same reverence for small businesses that a lot of people do. They’re just companies. Some are good, some are bad. When you work for one, there’s still a power distance between you and the owner.
I find that many small business owners are taking things way too personally. Their business is their baby and therefore any employee that doesn’t have a grindset like them is taking advantage of them.
The small businesses I respect are the ones that move toward employee ownership. Employees who own the company care about the company and don’t try to screw it over. Problem solved.
Holy shit, did you just try to spin serfdom??
Yeah, no corporate bias here whatsoever
Yes, indeed: the rich and poor alike have freedom from being allowed to sleep under bridges.
Come on; there are such obvious imbalances of power here that "each side has incredible freedom" is blatantly misleading.
On the one hand, you have each individual software engineer (because heaven forbid we should ever join unions! Those are for people who aren't A+ 10x alpha coders and negotiators, amirite?), every one of whom needs a salary so they can afford food, clothing, shelter, etc.
On the other hand, you have a group of the most wealthy and powerful countries the world has ever seen, who openly work together, have the ear of the flagrantly-corrupt president, and could coast on their cash reserves for, in some cases, many years even if every single customer decided to boycott them all at once.
And you think that "each side has incredible freedom" is a meaningful statement here...?
Trial courts can't set precedents. Only appellate courts can.
Trust me, other companies are watching this case already and will adjust accordingly.
Of course, they won't stop firing employees who point out inconvenient truths, they'll just be more careful about the reasons they put in writing.
That's not really true at all. You just think that because you never hear about it. Stare decisis still applies at a trial level, but its scope is obviously much narrower. Moreover, most things really aren't that novel. Most importantly, its quite hard to research on this level and usually pointless because theres usually a higher level case anyway.
It is just persuasive precedent so any other court, or even the same court when dealing with case involving different parties, can ignore it.
> That will cost them more in the long run.
Only if customers don’t care about your labor practices. For me this story screams “Don’t Use or Recommend Atlassian - in fact, strongly advise against it.”
It's not the lawyer's decision, it's the client's
Atlassian almost certainly has their own legal department, which calls its own shots (or rather isn't beholden to anyone below C-level).
Atlassian could have fired her for no reason and had no problem.
Yes, if they fired her for no reason…
No reason stated is trickier if the employee shows a timeline/cause and effect then gets discovery in court. Also, firing for no reason would not be very believable in itself compared to a timeline.
This is why employers even get extra careful with documentation in some situations where they have cause but also potential legal issues.
> Atlassian said it planned to appeal the ruling
To me this reads as: Atlassian says it doesn’t want customers.
Happy to oblige. Our $100 million startup moved off Atlassian recently, and we couldn’t be happier.
what/where did you move to?
[flagged]
Making comments against layoffs is "activist" "drama" now?
If you don't want to be a "victim" here simply don't fire people for making those comments.
I mean... yes? A company pays you to work. If you are using company resources, during company time, to attack your company... why exactly would they keep you employees? She was warned multiple times. It's quite amazing this court let this happen at all.
If an employee of yours spent hours every day attacking you.... would you keep them employed? Why not?
Her comments were very unprofessional and unproductive. She will lose on appeal. No worker has a right to distract the company like she did.
[flagged]
> Court rules employee has the right to make the comments she made
Random HN comment:
> her comments were unprofessional and she has no right to distract the company.
Same User:
> y Downvote :(
[flagged]
From the article I read it didn't say employee was attacking them hours every day. From the articles the employee posted a message on an internal slack "Outrage Notification" channel which looks to be an internal venting channel containing similar content.
Atlassian has values "Open company, no bullshit" which they selectively use. "Open company, no bullshit" until it isn't. Example, this case, upsetting Mikes ego.
I was on a team at Atlassian that got constructively dissambled after not being happy with some changes for the worse. Worst retro I've ever been in, all developers heads on desks, manager: "suggest how we fix this issue", developers silent as every answer from the developer got the reply from manager on the lines of "no, you know we can't do that anymore". Then the digging through historic slack messages and social media posts started followed by departures...
That was a very long time ago now, seems not much has changed.
Come on. Her comment was
In a water cooler channel, while the CEO was calling in from his NBA team headquarters to announce layoffs...It's mildly dramatized, bordering on milquetoast satire of exactly what he was doing.
She committed the ultimate sin: pointing out what a CEO was actually doing.