> Being a manager does not mean you are correct by default.
It means the company you're working for is giving you the autonomy to decide paths forward for yourself and those that report to you. "Correct" is not binary.
> Also, a brief refresher: lying about someone is defamation.
If you believe something, is it a lie? If you get fired because your manager _believes_ you're bad at your job, even if you believe you aren't, who's lying? Are there any lies?
> We should sue managers more, when they indulge in bad habits such as lying about performance and making false accusations.
This feels like you're speaking from a very specific position (ie, on the wrong end of perceived lies about performance). "Performance" is subjective (and is usually defined by one's manager).
I was going to go on but honestly this post feels very very....I don't really know, delusional? By this same logic a manager can (and should) sue an employee over workplace performance. The whole concept is just ridiculous (and as another person claiming to be a lawyer said below, just plain stupid).
If you are a serious manager, you should be able to articulate your opinion regarding someone's performance in terms of qualifications, experience, role fit, hard skills, soft skills, specific situations, etc. It's not just an intuition, feeling or belief. It's management, not astrology.
If you have not met a person and "believe" they have bad performance, that's discrimination. If you make up or mischaracterize situations as a part of your evaluation, that's defamation.
Your employer has degrees of freedom with regards to setting up a path to you, sure. But that employer operates in a territory where there's legislation, which will often include defamation laws. Your employer cannot do whatever they want.
These are just more non sequiturs though. Vague platitudes that avoid actually meaningfully discussing what you're suggesting.
> It's not just an intuition, feeling or belief. It's management, not astrology.
Facts aren't intuition, feeling or belief but their perception _can be_. Being late to work every day for a month _can be_ firable, or not.
> If you have not met a person and "believe" they have bad performance,
If you haven't met a person but have observed their behavior, it's literally not discrimination.
> If you make up or mischaracterize situations as a part of your evaluation, that's defamation.
If you mischaracterize your manager as making things up, that's also defamation, no?
> But that employer operates in a territory where there's legislation, which will often include defamation laws. Your employer cannot do whatever they want.
And as I pointed out in the previous post, this goes bidirectionally (and functionally means nothing).
It means the company you're working for is giving you the autonomy to decide paths forward for yourself and those that report to you. "Correct" is not binary.
> Also, a brief refresher: lying about someone is defamation.
If you believe something, is it a lie? If you get fired because your manager _believes_ you're bad at your job, even if you believe you aren't, who's lying? Are there any lies?
> We should sue managers more, when they indulge in bad habits such as lying about performance and making false accusations.
This feels like you're speaking from a very specific position (ie, on the wrong end of perceived lies about performance). "Performance" is subjective (and is usually defined by one's manager).
I was going to go on but honestly this post feels very very....I don't really know, delusional? By this same logic a manager can (and should) sue an employee over workplace performance. The whole concept is just ridiculous (and as another person claiming to be a lawyer said below, just plain stupid).