Linked by Eugenia Loli on Tue 28th Mar 2006 00:56 UTC
Microsoft Microsoft employees are arguing among themselves over who is to blame for the delay in the launch of Windows Vista. One disgruntled insider named Who da'Punk voiced his feelings in a blog posting under the heading 'Vista 2007. Fire the leadership now!'.
Thread beginning with comment 108686
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
vitae
Member since:
2006-02-20

Why? One could argue that the stockholders should be privy to such things rather than perhaps not getting the truth from the higher ups or Microsoft's PR department. God forbid, corporate execs should be embarrassed. It would seem to be light punishment for perhaps a subpar performance whereas a worker lower down the rung after a subpar performance might be out of a job. No, people not speaking out when things are wrong (granted they may or may not be wrong in this situation) would be the corporate equivalent to hollering "National Security" everytime there's something embarrasing to cover up. Even more undignified would be believing or knowing something is wrong and standing by idly while it happens. A shake up inside Microsoft wouldn't be the end of the world.

Reply Parent Score: 5

rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Why?

It's a matter of principle. Employee grievances should be handled through the proper channels of communication within the company. If the company doesn't have proper channels of communications, and it appears that might be the case at Microsoft, then that's really the company's fault, and the company is responsible for the consequences. However, that still doesn't give employees the right to air the company's dirty laundry in the media.

No, people not speaking out when things are wrong (granted they may or may not be wrong in this situation) would be the corporate equivalent to hollering "National Security" everytime there's something embarrasing to cover up.

Your analogy is incorrect. A corporation is not a country. A government works for the people. Employees work for the company. Corporations are not democracies, and should not be run that way.

Even more undignified would be believing or knowing something is wrong and standing by idly while it happens.

I'm not objecting to them doing something, I'm objecting to them publicizing internal politics. You could argue that such actions could potentially benefit the company in the long run, but that's besides the point. Decisions relating to the public image of the company are in the domain of management and its public relations staff. If they don't want certain things publicized, that's their call. The "rank and file" don't have the right to make that call for them.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Wintermute Member since:
2005-07-30

Which law states that employees can't complain about internal corporate policies in public? A corporation is not a country and it doesn't have to be run like democracy, but that doesn't mean corporation have the right to tell people how they can act in public. Certainly, an employee that talks about internal politics in public should suffer the consequences, but that's about it, there is no law on this issue.

Certainly such actions might be unethical, but who cares. It's only a corporation, since when do they care about acting ethically. Especially Microsoft, they are not known for acting ethically.

Why don't you support a good cause or something, not act as apologist for corporations, I am sure they will be fine without your help.

Reply Parent Score: 2

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

It's a matter of principle. Employee grievances should be handled through the proper channels of communication within the company.

All very nice and proper, but it never happens like that. Dirty laundry is put out around water coolers and coffee machines all over the place, and since Microsoft is a more public company than most with a lot of money at stake, they simply have to put up with it. This is just one giant coffee machine. The grievance procedure in jus about all organisations is seldom 'official'.

It's a case of like it or lump it I'm afraid.

Reply Parent Score: 2

vitae Member since:
2006-02-20

It's a matter of principle. Employee grievances should be handled through the proper channels of communication within the company.

No doubt in perfect world that would just fine. But clearly this is the only recourse these people have. Especially after last year when someone was fired there simply for taking pictures of the G5 PowerMacs arriving at Microsoft's loading dock. After that episode, who would dare speak out. We all know know how Gates would love to have absolute control. But it could be advantageous for Microsoft to allow the employees to speak out like this rather than, say, file a class action lawsuit against the company. I'm sure they could find grounds for one if they look hard enough.

If they don't want certain things publicized, that's their call. The "rank and file" don't have the right to make that call for them.

This is old fashioned thinking. No doubt, Dale Carnegie would have appreciated that kind of mindset, but if we learned anything about corporations in this last century, it's that they must be held accountable whether it's something minor like this or something major like Enron. Bill, perhaps, needs to clean up his house, and if he doens't know where the dirt is maybe someone else can show him.

Reply Parent Score: 1