Should this guy lose his job

[Martinus]

Then I fail to see how this would be a huge reputational damage not to fire this guy - it's not like this is a consumer company operating in a highly competitive brand-sensitive environment. I don't see how people would suddenly stop getting electricity because the company continues to employ this guy.

[crazy canuck]

Then I fail to see how this would be a huge reputational damage not to fire this guy - it's not like this is a consumer company operating in a highly competitive brand-focused environment. I don't see how people would suddenly stop getting electricity because the company continues to employ this guy.

You are using the wrong analogy (shocking as that may be to some).  The reputational risk isn't market driven.  It is the fact that it is a public company.  Something you might not know is that the board of public companies is largely appointed by the government.  Do you see a potential risk now?

[Martinus]

Not really. Then the decision to fire him was not in any way motivated by the company's interest - it was motivated by the board's attempt to protect their asses. That's even worse, really.

[Malthus]

Then I fail to see how this would be a huge reputational damage not to fire this guy - it's not like this is a consumer company operating in a highly competitive brand-sensitive environment. I don't see how people would suddenly stop getting electricity because the company continues to employ this guy.

More like 'hate the government, and the governing party the Liberals, that much more', presumably. Which may explain why the Libs are applauding so very loudly this guy getting fired.

Though in reality, I doubt it would have been much of a story at all if Hydro just did what the other company did.

Also, it plugs into a considerable amount of public anger about overpaid public servants (though this guy isn't really a "public servant"), particularly of the midlevel-professional type. Every Joe Sixpack who grumbles at tax-time and on paying his utility bill is likely to feel a lot of schadenfreude over some dude earning over 100K at the power company who loses it all in such a moronic manner, which makes this more "newsworthy" than it might otherwise have been.

[Martinus]

Malthus, I can appreciate how this is "how things work", especially as ugly stuff like politics is involved. What I object to are CC's apparent assertions that this vile example of politics destroying a guy's life is somehow desirable, ethical and preferred result.

[Barrister]

Malthus, I can appreciate how this is "how things work", especially as ugly stuff like politics is involved. What I object to are CC's apparent assertions that this vile example of politics destroying a guy's life is somehow desirable, ethical and preferred result.

Getting canned hardly destroys one's life.

[Grey Fox]

Do people even know what Cognex Corp does?

I do! I do!

[Martinus]

Malthus, I can appreciate how this is "how things work", especially as ugly stuff like politics is involved. What I object to are CC's apparent assertions that this vile example of politics destroying a guy's life is somehow desirable, ethical and preferred result.

Getting canned hardly destroys one's life.

With his name being publicised, he will have a very hard time finding another job.

[Malthus]

Malthus, I can appreciate how this is "how things work", especially as ugly stuff like politics is involved. What I object to are CC's apparent assertions that this vile example of politics destroying a guy's life is somehow desirable, ethical and preferred result.

I think he's more looking at it in a professional capacity, than a policy one. I happen to disagree with him that there is much reputational risk, though. OTOH, there powers that be have definitely reaped a benefit from doing things this way - which I agree with you sticks in the craw.

[crazy canuck]

Do people even know what Cognex Corp does?

I do! I do!

Bonus points. 

[crazy canuck]

Malthus, I can appreciate how this is "how things work", especially as ugly stuff like politics is involved. What I object to are CC's apparent assertions that this vile example of politics destroying a guy's life is somehow desirable, ethical and preferred result.

I think he's more looking at it in a professional capacity, than a policy one. I happen to disagree with him that there is much reputational risk, though.

Call it the Ghomeshi effect.  Employers don't want to be caught on the wrong side of any media story that involves sexual harassment.

[DontSayBanana]

I'm just glad there was no youtube when I was 20 and stupid.

EDIT: I'll retract this statement since youtube really had nothing to do with this, and there was news television back when I was 20, although social media had a lot to do with the consequences of this story

Two incidents in high school of saying something stupid without thinking right at the height of the PC craze (where I actually didn't make the connections being asserted by administration) resulting in near-misses with court appearances mean I'd have to agree with you on that.

[DontSayBanana]

Then I fail to see how this would be a huge reputational damage not to fire this guy - it's not like this is a consumer company operating in a highly competitive brand-sensitive environment. I don't see how people would suddenly stop getting electricity because the company continues to employ this guy.

Actually, I'd argue that the company's lower public profile means this guy did even more reputational damage.  It's easier to drown out bad press with a media blitz of good than it is to stay quiet until bad press surfaces.

[Josquius]

What happens outside work should stay outside work.
Alas that is really not the way the world is going.
Anyone read about IBM's Watson?

[Admiral Yi]

Then I fail to see how this would be a huge reputational damage not to fire this guy - it's not like this is a consumer company operating in a highly competitive brand-sensitive environment. I don't see how people would suddenly stop getting electricity because the company continues to employ this guy.

This argument seems to me more applicable to a civil trial for money damages than to a termination case.