Yes, the implication here is that having to give up something that is comparatively very valuable to you (your livelihood) while the consequences to the company of plucking it away from you are tiny (a line item on a budget somewhere) in order to exercise your freedom is a flaw of capitalism.
To clarify, I mean more like "your ability to pay the bills on time" but more importantly I mean that the risks you incur losing your job are much higher than the risks your job incurs from firing you, typically. It's a power imbalance.
Well, the reason for this particular firing is because the risks of keeping this person employed were higher than keeping them employed. One mitigate their risk of getting fired by not being actively detrimental to their employer and even trying to contribute in a meaningful way. Being utterly replaceable is going to get you replaced.
Conversely, if you're employable, a company is always at risk of you leaving. It's not like you're an indentured servant who can be dismissed at will. The voluntary nature of employment goes both ways. I don't I want to be a part of any system where the working relationship is not bilaterally voluntary.
Employability isn't the only factor, there's insurance, health, debt, rising cost of living, visa status, and so on that can make it such that, while you can _technically_ leave at any time, it may be disastrous to do so.
Which has knock-on effects like "people with disabilities are pressured to not speak out on social media for fear of losing the job that is covering life-saving treatments" without better protections.
All of that stuff is irrelevant, you get a new job and all of that stays the same. You're just flailing for social justice buzz words now.
As for "speaking out" on social media, that's not really a loss, it's useless. Talk to a lawyer, if you have a case, they'll take it for free. It's funny that slacktivism is so normalized that people think it's the right thing to do when they are trying to help themselves.
> All of that stuff is irrelevant, you get a new job and all of that stays the same.
I'm glad life is so simple for you that you can just get free lawyers and new jobs whenever anything goes wrong, but others can't and they're concerns and fears that people deal with every day.
Again, free lawyers are generally available for any person who has a reasonable chance of winning a case. The author of the article herself appears to have done that. Expensive lawyers in civil cases are for people who are making cases with little chance to win, often where the legal proceeding is the goal itself.
Also, We're talking about moving jobs by choice due to a disagreement with your current employer. The author of the article isn't some coal miner in a dead end coal town, she's a software engineer, she can find another job, or could have, if she didn't publicly prove herself to be more trouble than she's worth and then double-down by publicly brag about it.
I can't think through all the flaws but "criticism of the government is protected speech for employees" broadly seems achievable, which of course has tons of annoying details like "when is an employee speaking for a company vs for themselves, are personal twitter accounts an employee's own speech" or "what is a government entity" or "what is criticism" or "what is an allowed disciplinary response to grey areas" and so on.
It pretty clearly is criticizing the DoD and it's representatives for 1. killing people (probably in a general sense) and 2. participating in and advertising themselves at a tech conference while doing so.
Is it the profanity that puts it over the line? Profanity is often how we express that a feeling is extremely strong, and in the context of criticizing the government it's a pretty time-honored tradition given the power imbalance it has.
