I hope that these videos encourage others to leave, get their bag, or not apply to companies that employ shady at best firing policies. If I saw a person standing up for themselves in a place where corporate culture squashes out hope and individuality, I'd be more likely to hire them if my corporate culture actually matched the vibe of the person recording themselves getting fired.

I hear you. I think this is one of those things that becomes effective when most of your candidates are likely to have posted something like this at some point. Kind of like participation in a strike (or any union activity) only becomes useful when most other employees are also participating.

If I was a hiring manager, I wouldn't be looking at people's social media because I only care what their expected compensation, experience, and/or education is. Everything else past their CV is irrelevant unless they need a security clearance or will be working in a sensitive environment.

The problem is half the time they are being laid off, but the company frames it as a firing so they can save money. Getting fired by your previous employer will destroy your job prospects far more directly than some video on social media that only a few percent of recruiters will ever even be aware of. It makes sense to take a unified stand against such a bullshit practice.

If I was a hiring manager and saw a video like this from a prospective employee I would just throw their application straight in the garbage.

You probably wouldn't be a hiring manager very long with that attitude. I don't get the appeal either, but I don't do tiktok so. Just from the linked piece, it sounds like it's becoming increasingly common.

Quite a leap to posting private company details online. Where are those stored by the way? Office 365? SharePoint? The cloud?..

Not because they recorded it, though that's bad, but because they did something idiotic to follow a trend. I don't need that energy on my team.

If a company is firing you, fuck their "private company details." You should have zero loyalty or obligation to an entity that's potentially going to make you go hungry/homeless. Criminal disclosures will be covered by law already, so all you're doing is slurping up the boot juice and perpetuating the culture of silence that allows companies and capital owners to pit workers against one another

Sounds like it is a good tactic for them to dodge future shitty employers

I’m a hiring manager. I have trouble even imagining the kind of person that would just throw a lead into the trash because of a recording of them getting fired. Who does that? What do you possibly have to gain by doing that? Because you have a lot to lose, especially if that candidate got far enough in the process for you to be researching their background. Nobody gets that far unless they are a very good fit.

I get both sides of the argument here. I think we need to have this big reaction because companies have held so much power over employees for so long - I'll avoid ranting about worker-owned cooperatives here - but the past few years I've surprised myself by moving into a bit of a "slippery slope" camp with these things. Not to say it shouldn't happen, but that we need to be prepared for the follow-up.

Hopefully related example, in education: There were some really big push backs recently where I am over bad treatment of the students in highschool, all legit. The school board ignored it for a long time, it got bad, they finally took it seriously. Then they overcorrected and stopped believing teachers at all and started jumping straight to firing at almost any complaint. Then students started weaponizing complaints, and now teachers are getting fired for trying to enforce deadlines and for giving low marks because students are complaining about how deadlines, grades, and meeting grading requirements are detrimental to mental health and well-being, and now there are a bunch of these students from this board in my university classes failing hard and filing complaints about courses being too difficult and other things despite them having glowing reviews just a few years prior.

I guess what I'm getting at: I think it's fair for someone to choose not to hire people like this because it's possible that the people willing to stand up and make an important fuss over these things might not know where the line stands between a worthwhile complaint and a non-worthwhile one, and might make a company look badexternally even though it's doing good internally, just not to someone new to the workforce's expectations.

I also think it's fair to go the opposite direction, because ultimately we need major change in the way companies/everything are structured that lead to these nasty layoffs and poor conditions and if someone does raise issues where there aren't, hopefully we are prepared enough and in the right enough to take it seriously, but weather it and act in everyone's best interests.

Of course you would as you wouldn’t want to hire someone that stands up for themselves. Seems you’d just want to hire punching bags aye.