This is like I go to my boss and ask for a $1 billion dollars. Otherwise, I'll leave. Then, my boss decides that I should leave since the boss can't give me $1b. Then, I keep telling my friends that "well, I'm actually fired.". huh?
Employee: "If you don't fire my manager and give me a $1M bonus, I'm resigning, date to be confirmed."
Company: "Ummmm, no. Thanks for resigning, let's make that date today."
If someone says, do this or I'll jump, and the other person pushes them, that's not the same thing as the person taking the leap on their own. The result might be the same, but the way the result was reached was different.
If you offer to resign if new conditions of employment aren't met and the company accepts your resignation without honoring your exact terms of schedule, it sounds like you largely were responsible for terminating your own employment. Claiming that you were "immediately fired" as she tweeted just sounds dishonest to me.
She said if these conditions are not met, I will work with you on an end date. That's not what happened, she was terminated immediately with the rationalization being that they didn't like the tone of the email she sent to the Google Brain Women and Allies listserv. That alone points to it being a termination.
Is she largely responsible for her employment ending at Google. You could say yes, but fact is that Google is the one who cut things off.
Either party can choose an earlier date, but not a later date.
I don't really care if she left or Google fired her. But framing it as Google is evil for firing her seems dishonest when she was the one who gave the ultimatum.
Google is evil, but not for this activity.
This isn't just a framing. She was fired. Now you may say "she was asking for it" but that doesn't change the fact that she was fired.
There's no accepted relationship if you push someone threatening to jump. You're just an a-hole committing assault and possibly murder.
Is there a link to the letter that she sent? That could help to clarify.
The demand is something around exposing the identities of the peers who reviewed and rejected her paper. If Google doesn't give her the identities of those peers, she say she will leave the company.
Comparing to suicide is a bit much though. When considering death, everything else becomes secondary, so we can't use that analogy for comparison.
"If you eat dinner today, I'll quit my job" - then, I'll probably tell person that they can quit their job. I'm not gonna skip my dinner for that.
I hope this illustrates that, when death is involved, everything else becomes secondary, and we prioritize not death over everything.
So, it's a bad analogy to use in Timnit's situation where she will quit if she doesn't get to see the identities of peer reviewers. This situation is not life and death.
"If you eat dinner today, I'll quit my job" - then, you fire them and get on with dinner.
We can agree to disagree on being fired or not being fired.
But why would 'being fired' (or not) matter since both sides want to part way?
I don't see any unfair treatment. Her ultimatum isn't satisfied, so both part way.
This group of people also hyper-focus way way too much on this part, which is not the important.
It's much better to focus on other stuffs like her paper didn't get approved because o A, B, and C. Or how Google suppresses her paper because of X, Y, Z.
Instead these people are yelling that Timnit was fired unfairly when she was the one who gave the ultimatum first...?
But that doesn't seem right. That looks more like a different type of letter, sent to a wider audience than just Timnit to her manager(s).
I've seen referenced that there was a timeframe for when she was going to quit that she mentioned. I see no such reference in that letter.
Maybe there's a real copy of the letter floating around. My guess is that people pretend that they've seen "the letter" but only read this other one I referenced above.
I'm happy to be proved wrong, though. I have no dog in this fight except to understand the truth of the situation. If you've seen a different letter than shows her ultimatum and time frame, please share.
They made the decision they did not want to work for you as had been previously agreed. You only changed the timetable.
To put this another way, if I tell my company that I will be quitting in 2 weeks and they tell me not to bother coming back to the office, did they fire me? I would not say they did.
If you give your company a date for the cessation of your employment, that is giving notice. If you say I "will resign if", is saying that you will do something in the unspecified future.
So if you give your two weeks notice you have formally turned in your resignation. In your example I would agree that they just changed the timetable. If you haven't given your notice, and they terminate your employment citing an email you sent, you have been fired.
By all accounts she didn't submit her resignation, she simply said that she would. Sometimes situations like that result in the person getting cold feet, or the two parties working out a compromise. Maybe things would've always ended up the same way, but either way Google didn't wait for her to actually resign.
Saying she resigned sounds better I guess and is at least plausible to enough people that maybe they thought it better to characterize it that way.
But like you said, it's not really the crux of the whole situation. At least not IMO.
It's also unreasonable that she will get to choose her leaving date at her own liking.
When wanting to part way, either side has the full right to choose an earlier date.
> If someone says, do this or I'll jump
This is not a great analogy. I actually would go as far as saying people who use this analogy have malicious intent.
When death is involved, everything else becomes secondary.
Let's look at a small example. Say I'll commit suicide if you go and see your kids today. Now it's only one day, and you (as a decent person) will probably skip seeing your kids for one day to save one life.
Now if I say I'll quit my job if you go to see your kids today. You would probably say "Then, please quit."
People choose their end date all the time. That's just standard. Sometimes the company moves a date up, sometimes the two parties negotiate a different date for some reason, sometimes people are fired.
If it's an at-will employment state, both parties can choose whatever date they like. But if the employer terminates employment early, that's generally a firing. If an employment does so, we call it quitting.
> Let's look at a small example. Say I'll commit suicide if you go and see your kids today. Now it's only one day, and you (as a decent person) will probably skip seeing your kids for one day to save one life.
> Now if I say I'll quit my job if you go to see your kids today. You would probably say "Then, please quit."
Use whatever analogy works for you, ultimately the point is the same. Someone can threaten to do something, but if you do it for them it's different than if they do it themselves.
If someone says "I'll quit" and the company disables their badge and security escorts them out, they've been fired.
That is absolutely false.
Either side has the full right to choose an earlier date.
You can choose an earlier date to leave. Company can also choose an earlier date for you to leave.
> If someone says "I'll quit" and the company disables their badge and security escorts them out, they've been fired
Do you expect to choose your exit date at your own liking at any date at your comfort?
We can agree to disagree.
Saying you're fired when you actually give the ultimatum seems dishonest. I thought Timnit was supposed to be a role model of high ethics.
Not sure if constructive dismissal is a thing in the US but it is in the UK.
How about if you go to your boss and demand that the racial discrimination you're experiencing stops?
Since we don't have the original email, we can't tell. But I bet it's closer to my example than yours.