Nah, they hated what the guy did still. They may have tossed the VP under the bus to try to mitigate the backlash, but it was still Garza that exposed the mess to the public in the first place, and that’s just way worse for the bottom line than being snobby and racist and bad mouthing your own product.
So they hope attention stays on ousting the VP in the court of public opinion, and handle Garza in more formal channels, and likely win if Garza recorded without informing the other party, particularly making that conversation public.
While that is true, and what i am about to say is unlikely for them to realize, but pretty much the best way for them to quickly regain favor with the consumerist sheeple that they supposedly care about buying their products would be the positive press they would get from rehiring this guy with back pay and a small pay increase. And then they quietly fire him a year from now for an unspecified reason like a layoff.
That’s true, depends on if the recording was done in a two party state or not. Still need to fire his old boss though. Maybe whoever in HR decided to go after him instead of the VP.
Good step, but they need to fire Garza’s old manager and offer Garza a settlement, alternately, his old job back + back pay and a nice bonus.
Nah, they hated what the guy did still. They may have tossed the VP under the bus to try to mitigate the backlash, but it was still Garza that exposed the mess to the public in the first place, and that’s just way worse for the bottom line than being snobby and racist and bad mouthing your own product.
So they hope attention stays on ousting the VP in the court of public opinion, and handle Garza in more formal channels, and likely win if Garza recorded without informing the other party, particularly making that conversation public.
While that is true, and what i am about to say is unlikely for them to realize, but pretty much the best way for them to quickly regain favor with the consumerist sheeple that they supposedly care about buying their products would be the positive press they would get from rehiring this guy with back pay and a small pay increase. And then they quietly fire him a year from now for an unspecified reason like a layoff.
That’s true, depends on if the recording was done in a two party state or not. Still need to fire his old boss though. Maybe whoever in HR decided to go after him instead of the VP.