Slashdot Mirror
Apple Fires Five Employees for Downloading Leopard
BuzzardsBay writes "The good folks at VARBusiness are quoting a ThinkSecret report that claims five Apple employees got canned over the unauthorized downloading of the Leopard OS. According to the article: one of the employees says:
"Because we had the character to tell the truth and to face the consequences of our actions, we were terminated. If we all lied and denied it would we still be working at Apple today? Even more so, is that the kind of person that Apple wants working for them?""
congratulations, you faced em.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Is that the type who steals or the type who thinks being honest about their crimes absolves them of punishment?
"All of us know that we violated our NDA and ethics policy. Therefore, because we had the character to tell the truth and to face the consequences of our actions, we were terminated,"
How about the lack of character you showed by violating the NDA in the first place. If you had any character (or ethics) you would have obeyed the obligations of the contract you signed.
On your next job application where it asks "Why did you leave your most recent job?", now you can write "I was fired because I was fucking stupid."
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
From an ethical perspective, you have two things:
1. Employee does something that runs counter to the company's stated policy in an important way. Bad employee - no biscuit.
2. Employee tells the truth when lying might have saved their job. Good person - refused to lie even when lying seemed to be of benefit.
There's no reason to mix these two - they're separate actions. One's a mistake, one's a sign of character. So of the mistake, you say "oh shit, that was really stupid, I wish I hadn't done that." And of the truth-telling, you say "yay, I'm glad I did that."
When you try to mix the two, it wrecks the good taste of telling the truth. Don't regret doing the right thing. Just take this lesson forward and try to avoid doing the wrong thing in the future.
--Speaking as one who was burned by exactly this kind of thinking in high school, and wasted a lot of emotional energy on it.
If people admit to having done something, in particular something that would otherwise go undetected, they have expressed remorse and almost certainly realized that their action was wrong, which means they are likely not going to do it again. Therefore, a good part of the purpose of any consequences has already been achieved. So, in that case, "accepting responsibility" does indeed mean that the people involved should face significantly less severe consequences than people who lied and were found out.
That's an entirely different situation many politicians and corporate leaders are in: they often "accept responsibility" for things simply because they can't hide them anymore, and there is usually no remorse or realization involved that their actions were wrong. In those cases, "accepting responsibility" is a meaningless gesture.
I find your cynical attitude and unthinking approach to ethics reprehensible.
There was a couple in the apple store next to me looking at a mac book talking about playing back some of the movies they had ripped for traveling. They were new to the apple world so wern't sure if they could play them back. I told them about some of the multimedia apps other than quicktime (handbrake, vlc). The employee quipped "I'm not supposed to talk about those" half joking and wandered away..
hmmmmmmm
Look, RTFA.
The employee admits to violating the company's NDA AND their ethics policy. Any NDA will spell out the consequences of that violation. They were found to possess copies of an unreleased product. HOW they got it doesn't matter. WHERE they got it doesn't matter. It is something that, according to company policy, they had no need or authorization to have. Therefore, that possession violates the NDA. Period, end of story. No need to dither about torrents or any other source.
Question from Management: "Do you have a copy of Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard?"
Answer from Mall Store Employee: "Yes."
Reply from Management: "Ok, you violated your NDA, the consequence of which is Termination. You're fired."
This whole case goes to honesty and integrity. Either you have it or you don't. They didn't, and paid for it. Nuff said.
"Money is truthful. If a man speaks of his honor, make him pay cash." Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein
First - ethics,
Exactly, they got fired because they talked. As a retail employee, you are supposed to keep your mouth shut. If they had been exercising that particularly (to Apple) valuable skill, they'd still have a job.
Second - the NDA.
WHERE they got it doesn't matter. Leopard is a product that is restricted. Not just unreleased. Apple has what is known as a stovepipe organization. Some would term it as a firewalled org., too. What that means is that, depending on WHERE you work will determine what products you have access to. The NDAs the employees sign most likely have a clause that prevents them from getting access to information in other parts of the org., to prevent leaks. So where they got Leopard isn't at issue, simply the fact that they had it is enough. They work in the retail stores, so thay would have NO access to it at all.
Third - cutting off of the nose
Not an issue. Public reaction is not something they worry about here. The NDA these people violated spells out the consequences of the violation. If Apple doesn't fire these people, the next time Apple tried to do that, THOSE employees could go to court and use these cases as examples of how Apple had 'constructively changed' the terms of the NDA by this action. In the business world, the firings are normal and expected.
"Money is truthful. If a man speaks of his honor, make him pay cash." Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein
Are people upset because the employees were fired even though they told the truth? Or are they upset because those fired employees should have had the right to download any software in existence without paying for it and without any repercussions?
Methinks that we have just discovered why it called a Court of Law and not a Court of Justice.
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
Congratulations on being honest enough to admit your were cheating your employer. Now you have the opportunity to pay for your actions with your jobs.
No of course apple (or any company) wouldn't want employees lying to them. They also wouldn't want employees leaking their software you freaking dumbasses.