And I always thought of Apple as a good employer...
Good employers fire people all the time. It's good to fire people that can't do the job. It's a tremendous drain on everyone else to keep these people on.
As an at-will state, it will be tough to get this thing to rule in favor of Bucher especially since the events seem kind of ad-hoc. The order of things seems difficult to mail down. He's likely looking for a monetary settlement, to get the options or some portion of their value back and move on beofre it can go to trial.
From the account given, it sounds like Apple made him to go to a shrink against his wishes and he denied needing one. I would think that not only would Apple have to act in good faith to get him counseling before firing him, but that he would have to act in good faith as well. Seems suspicious from the account that he denied having any psychological problems at the time, but now he's suing because he has post-facto realized that he, in fact, does have these issues? Would Apple be responsible for something he has essentially admitted after the fact?
I guess the one thing I'm not clear on is the claim of a corporate power play and how that fits in.
As an at-will state, it will be tough to get this thing to rule in favor of Bucher especially since the events seem kind of ad-hoc. The order of things seems difficult to mail down. He's likely looking for a monetary settlement, to get the options or some portion of their value back and move on beofre it can go to trial.
From the account given, it sounds like Apple made him to go to a shrink against his wishes and he denied needing one. I would think that not only would Apple have to act in good faith to get him counseling before firing him, but that he would have to act in good faith as well. Seems suspicious from the account that he denied having any psychological problems at the time, but now he's suing because he has post-facto realized that he, in fact, does have these issues? Would Apple be responsible for something he has essentially admitted after the fact?
I guess the one thing I'm not clear on is the claim of a corporate power play and how that fits in.
Well assuming that none of us work for Apple or were directly involved with either Jobs or this fellow it is a lot of specuation at best. My guess is the general public will never know what really happened. Perhaps someday a "tell all" type book will be written. Then again maybe not, this will just be yet another tiny footnote in the History of Apple Computer.
We can go back and forth all day on this. Each is entitled to their view and theory, but without a lot more information, from MULTIPLE sources its not even good "arm chair" quartering back because so little is known.
Comments
Originally posted by Denmaru
And I always thought of Apple as a good employer...
Good employers fire people all the time. It's good to fire people that can't do the job. It's a tremendous drain on everyone else to keep these people on.
From the account given, it sounds like Apple made him to go to a shrink against his wishes and he denied needing one. I would think that not only would Apple have to act in good faith to get him counseling before firing him, but that he would have to act in good faith as well. Seems suspicious from the account that he denied having any psychological problems at the time, but now he's suing because he has post-facto realized that he, in fact, does have these issues? Would Apple be responsible for something he has essentially admitted after the fact?
I guess the one thing I'm not clear on is the claim of a corporate power play and how that fits in.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
As an at-will state, it will be tough to get this thing to rule in favor of Bucher especially since the events seem kind of ad-hoc. The order of things seems difficult to mail down. He's likely looking for a monetary settlement, to get the options or some portion of their value back and move on beofre it can go to trial.
From the account given, it sounds like Apple made him to go to a shrink against his wishes and he denied needing one. I would think that not only would Apple have to act in good faith to get him counseling before firing him, but that he would have to act in good faith as well. Seems suspicious from the account that he denied having any psychological problems at the time, but now he's suing because he has post-facto realized that he, in fact, does have these issues? Would Apple be responsible for something he has essentially admitted after the fact?
I guess the one thing I'm not clear on is the claim of a corporate power play and how that fits in.
Well assuming that none of us work for Apple or were directly involved with either Jobs or this fellow it is a lot of specuation at best. My guess is the general public will never know what really happened. Perhaps someday a "tell all" type book will be written. Then again maybe not, this will just be yet another tiny footnote in the History of Apple Computer.
We can go back and forth all day on this. Each is entitled to their view and theory, but without a lot more information, from MULTIPLE sources its not even good "arm chair" quartering back because so little is known.
my .02