• Billiam@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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.

      • Billiam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        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:

        1. He’s too stupid to listen to his lawyers.
        2. His lawyers are too stupid to advise him to shut up.
        3. 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.
    • bean@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Did you read the article? It seems like they had a plan to make him CEO, he got sick, they quickly found an interim CEO, and the moment he got back:

      On the day Teixeira returned to his job, it’s claimed, he was instructed to lead a company-wide layoff of 50 people, 40 of whom were in his MozProd organization.

      Followed by:

      “Mr Teixeira had ethical concerns regarding the layoffs because they were primarily motivated by a desire to increase profit margins at Mozilla, which was already operating at a profit,” the complaint claims. “Mr Teixeira viewed this as antithetical to Mozilla’s values as espoused on their website: ‘We’re backed by a non-profit, which means we prioritize the interests of people first, not corporate profits.’”

      They continue to retaliate against him by denying him bonus, and trying to maneuver him into a demotion. They even had the shitty audacity to say like “well this frees up time for your cancer treatments” which at that point he wasn’t getting anymore.

      The complaint claims that Teixeira, appointed in August 2022, helped reverse the decade-long decline of Firefox, which generates about 90 percent of Mozilla’s revenue and is the company’s only profitable product. He’s further credited with growing Mozilla’s advertising business, and AI capabilities, and with reducing investment in the money-losing Pocket service.

      Sounds to me like they’re just being really shitty to this guy who has done a lot for the company in general and was on his way to CEO before the poor behavior of these two (Chambers and Chehak).

    • Engywuck@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Independently on US laws, It’s funny how people in the technosphere still believe that Mozilla are the good guys.

      • idefix@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        I don’t understand your comment. They are the good guys browser-wise but that doesn’t mean they are good guys everywhere.

        • gnuhaut@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          They’re not the good guys browser wise, they’re just slightly less shitty than Google, which was (still is probably?) their biggest customer.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            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.

    • Lommy241@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • bean@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        3 months. End of October to start of February. It shouldn’t matter though. How long should he have worked there before he’s allowed to? Like if he was CPO for five years and then got cancer, would that have been OK? At what point does it become not ok?

        Also he’s got history there and this promotion was due to that. I think they just expected from him to take the reigns on some stuff and then wasn’t there because of the cancer treatment which is 100% understandable. Mozilla isn’t going to collapse in 3 months.

        On the day Teixeira returned to his job, it’s claimed, he was instructed to lead a company-wide layoff of 50 people, 40 of whom were in his MozProd organization.

        That’s just shit management from above. That is pure retaliation.

  • jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    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

    • bean@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      A three month period for cancer treatment isnt gonna cause the company to fail. We’ve had people get hired in positions and then take their first like month off on approved leave.

    • ms.lane@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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.

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        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

        • FutileRecipe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          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.

          • jet@hackertalks.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            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

            • bean@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              Come on be fair though. HE JUST got back from medical leave:

              On the day Teixeira returned to his job, it’s claimed, he was instructed to lead a company-wide layoff of 50 people, 40 of whom were in his MozProd organization.

              Pulling this shit on him the second he gets back reeks of retaliation or a desire to throw him under the bus.