Any way you look at it you have a bad situation. This sounds like a clash of personalities. While the behavior is not right, the fact is that a lot of companies will 'manage out' people unfairly etc.. Politics and personality clashes are never fair. In a capitalistic society money tends to trump social justice. It sucks, but it would take some pretty large structural changes to the economy to really fix that.
If the founders wife is causing issues with other employees then that could be an issue. The question is would this cause enough of a legal liability for the company to do something? Will edging out the founder be beneficial to the company, the investors and the profit of the company or not?
Be it right or wrong, that is the question that is going to be asked in the board room if that option is even on the table with Github.
While I like to see justice and fairness in these situations something tells me that it is probably not likely to happen any time soon. Similar scenarios to this have been playing out in many different industries and many different countries for years.....and unfortunately will continue to.
Nor in Australia, is HR your friend. I had a very similar situation to this, as a male, in a software development environment. Even down to the bullying and the silently deleted files and commits. The thing I learnt about HR is they are not professionals. They do not exist to perform the professional duties associated with Human Resources. They may tell you and themselves that, but they are the formalised face (at an arms length so a claim of 'separation' can be made) of the power in upper management and their wish to do away with people they don't like.
In fact a lot of this story rings true with my past experience. It sounds to me like a toxic workplace with a bad management culture. And it is also sexist to add insult to injury. I would like to say that these people will reap what they sow, but I've found organisations like this tend to protect the sociopaths who abuse their power. A culture like this normally extends all the way to the top. So I agree nothing is likely to happen. In fact quite the opposite. Those bullies will be protected and promoted. Any claims of bullying will be dismissed by HR. The messenger will be shot. The truth tellers will not be greeted with laurels.
I would say the only thing to do, if you are in a situation to do it, is legal action. It's the only thing people like that understand. Power and money. So take their money if you can. And find a better place to contribute your skills. There are better places to work out there. They may not be as glamorous, but they will be much more enjoyable places of employment, and much more appreciative of what you have to offer.
I do agree that the bullies will be protected and promoted.
Unfortunately the legal action doesn't really solve the problem. Usually the companies just find loopholes around whatever they were sued for an it is business as usual.
For most companies once you get large enough the question is not if you will be sued, but when you will be sued. The incentives need to be changed to change the system.....which would mean a shift away from the winner takes all capitalism that we are in.
In my experience they usually settle pre-trial. They did in my case. Especially if the litigant has a strong case. Better to pay out than to risk a negative judgement.
The point is that questions get asked at a high level and internal changes can be triggered by a pre-trial settlement. As I said, it's the only thing people like that understand. They won't take you seriously unless you take their money.
I would say the only thing to do, if you are in a situation to do it, is legal action. It's the only thing people like that understand. Power and money. So take their money if you can. And find a better place to contribute your skills. There are better places to work out there.
Unfortunately, at least in the US, most employers will not hire someone who sued an ex-employer, even when the suit was clearly justified. It's actually legal (amazingly) to discriminate against people who used legal process.
I don't know who's right and I like Github, but a future employer with moral courage would take a chance on someone like JAH (who hasn't sued to my knowledge, but is still probably blacklisted, to tell the horrible truth) and at least hear her out, and hire her if she seemed well-matched to the role. Unfortunately, moral courage is incredibly thin on the ground. Most people are useless cowards.
Both with regard to stuff like this and whistle-blowers more generally, I kind of wonder why more companies don't hire former whistle-blowers as a signal they've nothing to blow whistles about.
Right or wrong, the story has blown up and the problem actors have to be dealt with. There is too much at stake.
That the wife, a non-employee, was in a position to be a main character in this story seems to be a blunder by the founder. If I'm an employee there, would my wife be able to put herself in that same situation? Probably not.
Would the wife make a good employee? Would she get hired to be in a position of such influence? Probably not.
Yet, there she was and here is our story.
Personally, I have been in relationships which were okay in my personal life, but I would have been horrified if my significant other would have anything to do with my business other than attend outside work functions with me always present. Bull in a china shop.
As a general rule, if you are not paying for their time, they don't have primarily your best interest in mind. The interest of those that they work for could temporarily align with your interests, but don't rely on getting a signal when that changes.
> Be it right or wrong, that is the question that is going to be asked in the board room
I am asking because you have stated this after "..would this cause enough of a legal liability...". So, in the end, does the board room decide what to do with the founder, his wife, and the company, or the court room?
My conjecture is that they (the board) will be trying to determine what the legal, PR and ultimately financial fallout will be from this. These will probably be the things that will drive any decisions on how Github addresses the situation.
With that being said, in the US HR is not your friend as an employee. Their job is to protect the company. http://abcnews.go.com/Business/20-job-tips-hr-exec/story?id=...
Any way you look at it you have a bad situation. This sounds like a clash of personalities. While the behavior is not right, the fact is that a lot of companies will 'manage out' people unfairly etc.. Politics and personality clashes are never fair. In a capitalistic society money tends to trump social justice. It sucks, but it would take some pretty large structural changes to the economy to really fix that.
If the founders wife is causing issues with other employees then that could be an issue. The question is would this cause enough of a legal liability for the company to do something? Will edging out the founder be beneficial to the company, the investors and the profit of the company or not? Be it right or wrong, that is the question that is going to be asked in the board room if that option is even on the table with Github.
While I like to see justice and fairness in these situations something tells me that it is probably not likely to happen any time soon. Similar scenarios to this have been playing out in many different industries and many different countries for years.....and unfortunately will continue to.