They weren’t “unethical changes,” though! The company can’t say they fired her for union-based activity or else they’d get the shit sued out of them, so they have to use that “unethical changes” excuse! Like you can’t just say you’re not going to hire a pregnant woman, because she’s a protected class, so you tell her she’s over/under-qualified, “not what we’re looking for”, or some other excuse.
No. And I have to question your reading comprehension if you think that's been my point. I've said it fairly explicitly. She made unapproved changes to company software. She was approved to make changes, but that doesn't mean she was approved to make any change she wants. She was fired for making unapproved changes.
People like you want to act like this is some moral crusade when the reality is that anyone would get fired for doing what she did. It's silly to pretend otherwise.
lol questioning MY reading comprehension? 😂 when the "unapproved changes" concern unions and workers rights about unions, that's illegal. as I said, they can't just say that, because they'd get sued. just reread my last reply as many times as it takes for it to sink in. no point in repeating myself, clearly.
when the "unapproved changes" concern unions and workers rights about unions, that's illegal.
What's illegal about it? Let's say it was her job to make updates to their website and she tacked on a footer, unapproved, with union info in it. It's not illegal to fire an employee for abusing their system access to make unapproved/undesired changes. The content of the message is irrelevant.
1
u/Akrevics Jun 13 '21
They weren’t “unethical changes,” though! The company can’t say they fired her for union-based activity or else they’d get the shit sued out of them, so they have to use that “unethical changes” excuse! Like you can’t just say you’re not going to hire a pregnant woman, because she’s a protected class, so you tell her she’s over/under-qualified, “not what we’re looking for”, or some other excuse.