You must log in or register to comment.

pickleer t1_irh9dag wrote

Brave bastard but do they really want to go back? All the exxoners I know are pretty hardcore and toe the "party line".


pbradley179 t1_irivc3e wrote

I'd imagine getting their benefits reinstated and back pay returned, costs, etc. Is the real benefit here, not having to go sit at their desk again.


DresdenPI t1_irix3b4 wrote

Yeah usually there's a monetary settlement for salary in these sorts of circumstances rather than the person actually returning to work.


truethug t1_irk1h6c wrote

I’m a premium basin guy. Can I get some money?


Fivethenoname t1_irj63tm wrote

I now work with Lindsey Gulden at Indigo Ag. She's a phenomenal scientist. We were talking over beers at our last on site and she had a lot more to say about Exxon including some seriously shitty stock option manipulation. Fuck Exxon, all their upper management. Fuck the people who are ACTIVELY lying to the world and trading our future for money.


moralpomposity t1_irj05zw wrote

Exxon is the epitome of an evil corporation.


Fringie t1_irjn7gu wrote

If they earn mid-200k's, 300k compensation isn't enough. Exxon have not changed, they need to be made an example of.


Divinate_ME t1_iriejk0 wrote

So the whistleblower snitched on the company, due to their unethical practices, and then insisted on keeping their job there?


CosmicCactusRadio t1_irihsi5 wrote

They requested to not be punished by being fired from their job, and ostracized from being hired anywhere else in their industry, for doing the right thing, yes.


Cautious_c t1_irif78u wrote

Do you have a job offer for them? Lol


Divinate_ME t1_irig9ug wrote

My man, the reputation of being a whistleblower for Exxon Mobile is incredibly marketable. Some NGOs would kill for the guy.


Cautious_c t1_irigzps wrote

I would think that orgs wouldn't wanna be associated with them for fear of pushback from big oil. Seems more like... Infamy to me


Divinate_ME t1_irihhk4 wrote

And why exactly push back on the whistleblowers exactly? Let's imagine Greenpeace here for a second. What makes them fear the legal repercussions?


Cautious_c t1_irjat7s wrote

I looked up Greenpeace. That's a cool org. I would think that the gradual destruction of their industry is more of a threat than legal fees. Unless there's enough individual cases to do some real damage


Parafault t1_iriv996 wrote

One thing I learned is that one way to change unethical companies is to work for them, and try to influence others there.


AutoModerator t1_irh5ww7 wrote

Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


malthar76 t1_irj1s5n wrote

In big but non-evil corporations, whistleblowers can find another place to work within the company if the really like it. For Exxon, I think the overt unpleasantness but not-quite-illegal retaliation might make it hard to stay.


Drevil335 t1_irlw0f4 wrote

I just don't understand. So, these whistleblowers reveal that Exxon is completely and knowingly over-projecting their future Permian Basin drilling prospects, and thus lying to investors about their future profits (which is fraud, and very illegal), and they still want to work for them. Apart from how hypocritical and self-serving it is to reveal this important information, and then agree to shut up about it after getting their jobs back and paid arrears, it seems that they simply haven't fathomed what this fraud suggests about Exxon itself. Any company which has to actively lie in order to maintain a perception of future growth is a company which is seeing its prospects and future profits inevitably crumble. The point of this exercise was to put off the realization of this inevitable contraction by their investors, and thus delay a plummet in investor confidence, by maintaining the illusion of growth long into the future. In the end, though, shareholders are going to realize that in our modern climate change impacted, energy transitioning era, there's no more place for fossil fuels: it is then that the Carbon Bubble will pop, with disastrous effects for Exxon and other fossil fuel corporations. This, on Exxon's part, is all one sick play for time, with our planet and civilization's health and prosperity on the line, to make a few more hundred billion dollars over the next few decades. If I were in these whistleblower's positions, I would get out as quickly as possible, and try to find work with a more ethical firm.


WikiSummarizerBot t1_irlw1ee wrote

[Carbon bubble]( carbon bubble is a,fuels which are not yet)

>The carbon bubble is a hypothesized bubble in the valuation of companies dependent on fossil-fuel-based energy production, resulting from future decreases in value of fossil fuel reserves as they become unusable in order to meet carbon budgets and recognition of negative externalities of carbon fuels which are not yet taken into account in a company's stock market valuation. While most campaigns to reduce the investment, production, and use of fossil fuels has been based on ethical reasons, financial analysts, economists, and financial institutions have increasingly argued in favor of doing so for financial reasons.

^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)


[deleted] t1_irk7nni wrote



zylstrar OP t1_irpekvu wrote

For example:
"This memorandum begins by providing an overview of the scope of constitutional protections for public employee speech, including for legislative staffers, before addressing the potential limitations federal employees may encounter when seeking legal recourse for constitutional violations."


[deleted] t1_irphhrk wrote



zylstrar OP t1_irpqmyt wrote

OK, whatever, look it up yourself: . I guess you simply disagree with all the lawyers and judges (i.e. experts) who have written the whistleblower laws and decided that it DOES comply to The Constitution, and no doubt is in the best interest of the citizens?