And this is literally why people like myself hide my cancer from my employer.
US discrimination laws are a fucking joke.
I don’t know about that. He took like four months off for cancer treatment. And he’s going to need to take more off for more treatment. Not sure how you can hide that from your employer.
Aren’t you allowed to provide a doctor’s note that does not specify the ailment?
I’ve actually heard it the other way: if your employer knows you have cancer or other disability, they have to try even harder to fire you to ensure that they could survive a lawsuit.
Independently on US laws, It’s funny how people in the technosphere still believe that Mozilla are the good guys.
We need to, because they are the only ones fighting against Chrome monopoly. It’s so sad to read news like this
I don’t understand your comment. They are the good guys browser-wise but that doesn’t mean they are good guys everywhere.
They’re not the good guys browser wise, they’re just slightly less shitty than Google, which was (still is probably?) their biggest customer.
How do you arrive at that conclusion?
Mozilla has consistently supported user privacy and the open web, which is consistent with their mission statement. They also need to pay the bills, and they’ve done that in a very unobtrusive way. Look at Pocket, which is easy to disable and is reasonably privacy friendly (for what it does). Look at Mozilla VPN, which is just repackaged Mullvad, essentially the gold standard for privacy-friendly VPN.
Yeah, Mozilla does a lot of stuff I disagree with and I’d run it differently, but I think they do enough good that they’re on the good end of the spectrum. Using Firefox isn’t the lesser of evils, it’s a decent option among good options. Maybe it’s not the best for you, but it’s pretty good.
We’re purity testing Mozilla now? What’s up with that…There are no “good” or “bad” guys, this isn’t a morality play. It’s fucking browsers, bro, and to equate Mozilla to Microsoft or Google is insane.
I hate to say it, but when we’re talking about a leadership position, that hasn’t been filled yet, looking at somebody’s ability to be consistent leader is a factor.
If memory serves this executive was out for treatment, when the previous CEO stepped down in the replacement was chosen.
They simply were not available. It’s hard to be a part-time CEO
It’s pretty clear they’re trying to fire him to due to not wanting to fire 50 developers.
Mozilla is a for-profit corporation now, there isn’t room for products like Firefox that don’t make money.
Mozilla is a for-profit corporation now, there isn’t room for products like Firefox that don’t make money.
No, Mozilla is not for-profit now. Mozilla Corporation is a taxable subsidiary of non-profit Mozilla Foundation. That’s public knowledge.
Am I missing something?
Firefox is Mozilla’s most profitable product. Its millions of users enable Mozilla to make deals for sponsored content (e.g. shortcuts), integrations, and biggest of all: the default search option with Google.
That’s a really good point. That’s a good test of an executive, if they can’t do what the board needs… They aren’t a good fit either
if they can’t do what the board needs… They aren’t a good fit either
But does the board need it, or just want it to maximize profits, like boards usually do in their typical chase of infinite growth that isn’t sustainable?
And if the person won’t stick up for what they think is best for the company and the people (which they’ve deemed firing 50 people is that), maybe they’re not a good fit that way. But hey, they are sticking up for said company and 50 people, so maybe they are.
That’s a good point, and that’s what a long-term CEO could fight for. But this executive before they became CEO was given a test, could they do this difficult executive thing, and they didn’t. If you’re the board of directors, is this the person you promote to CEO? They’re already giving you friction before they become the CEO
Apologists gonna be apologists.
I’m not apologizing. I think this person would make a terrible CEO. For a variety of reasons. The biggest is the fact that they’re going around on a campaign besmirching the company they tried to become the CEO of. That’s an Elon musk move
The only worse choice for CEO is Chambers. She had a valid reason to just fire his ass. If he’s not willing to do what he’s told to do, then he’s not willing to do his job. It looks to me like the board wanted to get rid of him for reasons that had nothing to do with cancer. Why reference the cancer at all?
I have the feeling the only reason they didn’t just get rid of him was because of the cancer diagnosis. Trying to be “nice”. But even if the cancer was the reason for not just cutting him loose, there’s no reason to bring it up.
How does the CEO not know referencing the cancer would expose them to liability? Did they not sit down with their lawyers before sitting down with him?
Now they’re probably going to lose in court and be forced to pay him off.
They should fire Chambers.
And tankies are gonna tank.
Yeah, I’m gonna wait a bit before bringing out the pitchforks.
A plaintiff in a civil suit can allege anything they want, but that doesn’t mean they’re being 100% truthful. Any lawyer will slant the facts as much as possible to make their client look as injured as they can to garner the most sympathy- that’s just lawyering 101. We have his version of events but don’t have Mozilla’s, but the fact that he’s publicly shit-talking the company (rather than let the legal process play out) doesn’t cast him in a good light IMO.
Yup, I’m guessing there’s some sort of GoFundMe angle here.
That may be warranted, I just want more facts first. People like to play the victim to garner sympathy, and I want to make sure that’s not happening here.
Any decent lawyer will tell you to shut the fuck up once you’ve filed a suit, so as I see it there are three possible scenarios here:
- He’s too stupid to listen to his lawyers.
- His lawyers are too stupid to advise him to shut up.
- They’re trying a public pressure campaign against Mozilla to get Mozilla to capitulate before their case goes too far. They’re hoping that the headlines of “Mozilla hates cancer patients!” will cause enough bad press that Mozilla will want to get the case over with quicker by settling sooner, especially if Teixiera doesn’t have a very strong case.
Yup, 3 is basically what I’m thinking, but potentially with Teixiera looking for money in some way (i.e. maybe getting hired elsewhere?).
But I want to hear Mozilla’s side before really forming that opinion. I’ve heard Teixiera’s side of the story, and I’ve looked into potential motivations, now I want to hear the opposing side to decide which is the simplest explanation.
I mean it sucks for him, but after having been away for three months with more leave time coming the company probably doesn’t have any obligation to keep him hired.
At least that’s the case here in Switzerland (if you worked for a company long enough) and I’d be surprised if the US had better protections.
I think that depends.
If he’s accurately representing the reality, he has every right to make behavior he considers unethical from an organization that takes donations known.
