HP3000-L Archives

November 2000, Week 1

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"FAIRCHILD,CRAIG (HP-Cupertino,ex1)" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
FAIRCHILD,CRAIG (HP-Cupertino,ex1)
Date:
Thu, 2 Nov 2000 17:05:26 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (45 lines)
I'm concerned that a great deal of opinion and speculation and accusation
have been generated on this topic, with very little thought as to what the
true facts of the matter are. I've seen many posts that could be paraphrased
as:

 * "I imagine that this fellow acted in such a way, and so he deserved
   to be fired." or
 * "I imagine HP was trying to force people to think like that, so they're
   obviously wrong."

While these posts give us an insight into the authors' imaginations, I'm not
sure that they help in understanding the actual incident.

I first read about this issue last month. (Ironically, I found the link
after visiting searchhp.com to see what the fuss was about in that
controversy.) The link took me to an Idaho newspaper's editorial page, which
I can no longer find after about a 15 minute search. The editorial presented
some information on a suit being brought against HP by a former employee,
and, in summary, stated that their opinion was that HP had stepped over the
line and acted unreasonably.

From my recollection of the editorial, while agreeing in most aspects, there
were several differences between the summary posted on this list and the
story I read. The most important correction was that the employee was
actually terminated in 1998, but was just bringing the suit against HP now.
Thus the original premise for this thread is moot. Carly was not employed by
HP at the time of the Boise firing, and therefore any political, religious,
or any other personally held belief of hers was not a factor.

Because I can't find that source article, and because I'm not sure that an
editorial piece would satisfy my internal criteria as an authoritative
source, I have felt that I should refrain from commenting. Perhaps I should
have held to this! :-)

Like many others on this list, I'd like to share my opinions. But even
though the editorial I read was (I felt) somewhat biased to the former
employee, I really don't know how he acted or all of what he did. I
certainly don't know HP's view of the facts, and here in Cupertino I've
never seen any such posters. So, if you'd like, please feel free to join
with me and continue to wait until more is known about what actually
transpired (if these records ever become public).

Take Care,
Craig

ATOM RSS1 RSS2