This personal narrative documents a case where an automated employment termination system stripped an employee of workplace access, income, and legal standing for three weeks, with no human ability to intervene or provide remedy. The story illustrates systemic violations of due process, the right to work, and human dignity when automation lacks human oversight safeguards. The author implicitly advocates for systems that preserve human judgment and appeals mechanisms to prevent such arbitrary harms.
I read it and still don't really understand why there was no one administrating the system. Who could have stopped the system (with the appropriate emails to cover their ass).
I also do not understand why a check couldn't be cut. Submit to accounts payable with an email approval?
I had a somewhat similar, but much less serious experience at Google. I resigned just after I had gotten a promotion, but before the date when the promo was effective. Much to my surprise, the resignation (slated to be effective after the promo) somehow cancelled the promo via some automated system.
However, a promo at Google is a huge deal. I really wanted the promotion to go through, so that I would have that level if I decided to re-join Google (or even so that go/epitaphs would match my resume). My manager and HRBP managed to get it sorted out, but it was a pain.
“The Machine” used to be a metaphor for the mindless beaucracy of the State and the mindless profit seeking of Capital. They both operate algorithmically, although their “hardware” were still humans. Now we are cutting out the human entirely from The Machine, hooking control of the economy directly into trading algorithms, and the control of humans directly into automated bureaucracies.
I had a sort-of related experience with PayPal where the machine said "No."
I've been using it for at least 10 years at that point.
What I did was try to pay for some cheap VPS hosting in Italy. The transaction was denied. I thought there was some problem with my CC, so I immediately tried to do a $1 transaction with some other company and it went without a hitch.
So I contacted PayPal support about it and the next day I actually get a phone call from one of their support staff.
He says my transaction was flagged as "suspicious" by the fraud prevention system. So I asked, okay... but now a Human has looked at it, can you manually approve the transaction? The answer was "No, I am not allowed to tell you why".
I was incredulous, so I asked "Wait... you acknowledge that I'm not a scammer or a terrorist (since my PP account still worked and does to this day), and the party I'm trying to purchase from is obviously not either since they're still accepting PP, but The Machine thinks there is something fishy about us two specifically and there is no way for someone to manually approve this transaction?"
And he said something to the tune of "Yes. I'm sorry, but there is nothing I or anyone at PP can do about it, and for security reasons we're unable to offer further details."
So yeah. This was just a minor nuisance for me, I purchased similar services elsewhere. But the whole thing was a real eye-opener. That was the day I realized that there is no pleading or reasoning with The Machine.
I was misatakenly caught in an automated ban wave in World of Warcraft for "botting" just a couple months after joining, but as soon as a human reviewed my account I was reinstated immediately.
The automated system flagged my account a second time a few weeks later, and when I appealed they simply said that although they didn't see any evidence of rule-breaking behavior, nobody got caught by the automated system twice unless they were cheating.
I was out over $100, and I didn't even get six months to play the game. Sometimes The Machine just "knows best".
The really surprising part is that after this incident OP still wanted to work with that company, even though from what I understand they didn't make it up to him in any way.
I have a story in a similar vein, although a much less scary one.
In that instance, The Machine Cleaned Out My Desk.
I had a cubicle at the company HQ, but was for some period of time working from home in another state. I still kept quite a few things in the cubicle (notebooks, mugs, etc), which I used when I was in the area.
When I finally came back, I noticed, after a month or two, that my office number has not been updated in the system (from being "HOME OFFICE"), and sent a request to IT to change it.
The next day I came back to see a pristine desk.
With all my stuff gone.
See, my request to update the office number triggered a relocation request. The system, in preparation of the move-in of the "new" tenant (me) into my cubicle, has removed all the belongings of the previous tenant (which also happened to be me).
Luckily, all the removed stuff was put in a box, which I got back several days later, after my manager found the right person in the facilities dept.
Just goes to show that automating even the simplest procedures can be very tricky - and that perhaps it's best to have people on-site manually approve any destructive steps.
> I missed 3 weeks of pay because no one could stop the machine.
Why has this company not made their loyal worker whole? He stayed there when they needed him even when their system was trying to lock him out.
They need to fix this. If they don't, they are not a company anyone should work for. Perhaps the worker did not want to risk making a big stink, but a manager should have taken the initiative. Humans were involved by the end and well aware of what was going on.
I am actually going through this right now. I'm in a position that renews yearly. I'm a regular employee but it's the way this kind of position works (I'm being a little vague on purpose to avoid personal identification). Before renewal I talked to the officer manager, he sent everything over to HR a few weeks early.... which seems to be the mistake.
HR let it sit on their desk and then forgot. My office manager is working at getting them to fix it ASAP. I've already missed one paycheck (which I will receive eventually).
First hint was a notice that I am going to be losing email access soon (which I still have currently). Then I lost keycard access to the building and office (it unlocks automatically at a set time, so I can still get in eventually). I've lost access to some of the resources we have (not critical to my job at this point). Got a letter in the mail about COBRA. Got a letter in the mail about retirement. I'm wondering when I will lose access to our wifi and cluster.
I've had this happen, myself and an employee who I had signed the termination paperwork for shared the same first name and someone put my name in instead of his. It was hell for at least a month as different automated systems kicked in and disabled my accounts, benefits, and payments.
Worse, the first notification email happened while I was presenting to the CEO and the HR contact in the meeting had noticed half way through that I had been fired. Queue jokes of "was the presentation that bad?". No one was able to stop the machine because no one really knew all the different processes or they weren't built to stop midway.
It makes sense that the HR IT industry would have some of the worst software developers. It seems obvious to me at least that you can't rely on first name + last name to make a match, and if you do, you have to write code that fails if there are multiple users with such a combination, as well as falling back on soundex or double or triple metaphone as well as nickname support. Second, the screens involved in termination should display warnings if multiple employees have similar names and departments, etc...
I've been in health IT for the last 15ish years so I know a lot about patient matching (wrote at least 4 patient matching MPIs in my time at different companies).. so maybe it's just my perspective..
However, that all being said, almost all processes like this are NOT automated, but instead handled by automated emails telling people to do operations. You're basically then subject to the lowest common denominator logic of people in IT that are in charge of disabling accounts- with no regard or care about who the person is.
Anyway to the person that got fired like this - just be happy you are out of the environment - it is not for you. There are signs in life.
About six months ago I left my long-time enterprise-y employer for a startup in another city. So we sold our house, packed up the family, bought a new house and moved in.
After 3 months it became obvious I had made a terrible mistake, so we sold the new house, packed up the family again, and bought another new house in the same city we had just left 3 months ago so I could return to my previous employer. They were happy to have me back and I ended up in the same desk and chair I had just vacated 3 months previous.
Only it took awhile. Since I was already in the system as a terminated employee it required manual intervention and code changes to the employee management system to get me added back in. It took about 3 weeks before I could do anything besides go to meetings.
If anything needs disrupting, it’s the employee management systems in use by pretty much all the large enterprise shops. It’s a mess.
This is literally an episode of Better Off Ted.[1] In it, the titular Ted is inadvertenly deleted from the company system when trying to correct a misspelling of his last name. Eventually, he is forced to interview for his own job as the system had already put out an ad for his replacement. I think the most striking part of it, and of the true story from the post, is the human factor - the idea that the humans involved looked to the system as an authority and followed its orders blindly.
I wonder what other examples there are of people blindly following technology - people driving into lakes because their GPS told them to, etc. Plus, as our society gets more and more dependent on these systems, we may lose out on the flexibility that human mediators and problem solvers once gave us. The human tendency to defer to authority may never be as terrifying as when that authority is held by an uncaring machine with a couple bugs.
This is the problem of imperative/functional programming languages, instead of using provers/verifiers.
Edit:
In "The Count of MonteCristo" by Alexandre Dumas, the protagonist was accused of aiding Bonaparte, and in the French island prison meets the priest who was accused (under Bonaparte) of aiding royalty. (I may have switched that around, it's been a while since reading). So even though switches in power occur, once incarcerated the evolving machine does not correct its past decisions.
When you automate corporate decisions with code, there is no real judicial branch (arbitrator, judges, ...), only an executive branch (computers) and a legislative branch (programmers). Hence there is no appeal mechanism.
In theory one could formalize our natural language concepts so that a verifier (for example MetaMath verifier) can act as a neutral judge. Then the automated corporate decisions would not just compute the decision to be taken, but also the proof that this is follows from the axiomatic corporate rules. Of course there is no guarantee that such a set of axioms actually encode what the corporation truly wishes, so even in the system I describe Ibrahim would get fired, BUT with the difference that he (and any superiors all the way up to the director) can see the "proof" of why this "should" happen, at which point they will understand which rule(s) were misformalized, which rule(s) did not accurately convey their intention. At this point they could fix the rule(s) and verify all the previously generated decisions with proofs, and possibly identify other individuals who where a bit meeker, and after the 3rd signal something was wrong simply went home never showing up again...
When a previous company was acquired, everyone got a new job offer generally better since the company wanted everyone to stick around. Well except for one guy. A junior engineer in one of our teams. He was a really good engineer too so we were shocked. It turned out he had the same first and last name as another person at our company so they thought it was a duplicate entry and omitted it. Eventually a offer was prepare after a week of escalation.
Peeling back the layers a bit, it seems a major misfire in this whole story is that the employee in question was a short-term contractor... But a shot-term contractor who was apparently quite valuable to his team.
Smart companies'll make people in that position permanent employees. The machine is so automated partially to make sure legal compliance of two companies sharing one employee is executed upon correctly (because past lawsuits have made it clear that if you get too chummy with your contractors, you're on the hook for treating them like they're full-time).
Don't want to get screwed by your own automation? Make fewer people working in your building interchangeable third-party subcontracts.
Something eerily similar happened to me.
One day I arrived at work as usual and the turnstile didn’t work. I had to request a guest pass and call some colleague to escort me because I was disabled in the security system.
I went up and I obviously couldn’t open the door and access my pc.
The scary thing was that I was still in the middle of my contract, it would have expired only 3 months later.
I contacted my boss and went home.
A couple of days later they managed to reinstate my security account, although I couldn’t still access my pc for one or two days.
In these days I just helped my colleagues.
Once I got back my account I started re-requesting the 10s of permissions that I needed, and while I was doing so I found an open request to recycle my machine.
Luckily I managed to contact the guy that was supposed to take it and I stopped him just in time.
On the whole I probably lost two weeks.
What was the trigger for my termination?
Apparently someone managed to input the wrong termination date in SAP for my contract, and that started the havoc.
Obviously there were alerts before my termination but everyone ignored them because in the other systems visible to the approvers my termination date was correct.
Luckily I got paid for every single day, even when I was at home, but after three months I’m still suffering from random problems in random systems that are probably related to this mess.
This reminds me of a co-workers 6 month battle to get his drivers license back. He got a letter from his insurance company saying his car insurance was cancelled. He called them up to find out why and they said it was because his license was suspended. After several calls to the police, he found there was a warrant out for him for ignoring a traffic ticket for being pulled over in Wyoming. Now, my co-worker is from Wyoming, so it wasn't totally implausible, but the specific location he had never been to and he definitely wasn't there when the ticket was issued.
The county issued a request for a copy of the ticket, since it was out of state. Weeks later the copy came and the ticket clearly wasn't for him. It didn't have his drivers license number, had a different name and address. I can't remember if it had a similar license plate number or not. ISTR that the name was incorrect.
So it seems like there was a data entry problem from the ticket into the system, and his name was selected as "good enough".
You'd think once it was seen that the ticket wasn't written for him it'd be all solved... Nah. He had to get up to where the ticket was issued, 300 miles away, without a car, and go through the system to prove that the ticket was invalid. Then he had to spend months calling the DA there over and over to get him to get it all resolved. It was always "I'm waiting to hear back from this person" or "I'm trying to get ahold of this other person" or "we are waiting for this paperwork".
What made you think that you were entitled to something that you were supposed to receive on a date which was later than the date on which you resigned?
On the one hand, you have been promoted to a new role, so you have reached a compatible level of expertise. You can put that role on your resume and sell yourself.
On the other hand, you never, ever actually performed in that role, with the new responsibilities. How can you list that on your resume !
I am not sure what is the right answer here... but as your new employer I would take your last promotion with a big grain of salt. A resume is not a score sheet of levels accomplished in a game, it is a list of things your have actually done.
Simple explanation: they did in fact see what you were doing and just didn't want to tell you because they don't want to teach cheaters how to evade bans. They were hoping after the first review that you would start playing by the rules.
That’s what I was thinking. If you had a contract and your manager was saying you were supposed to be working… Why not sue for the three weeks of pay that they illegitimately kept you from earning?
A man from the country seeks the law and wishes to gain entry to the law through an open doorway, but the doorkeeper tells the man that he cannot go through at the present time. The man asks if he can ever go through, and the doorkeeper says that it is possible "but not now". The man waits by the door for years, bribing the doorkeeper with everything he has. The doorkeeper accepts the bribes, but tells the man that he accepts them "so that you do not think you have failed to do anything." The man does not attempt to murder or hurt the doorkeeper to gain the law, but waits at the door until he is about to die. Right before his death, he asks the doorkeeper why even though everyone seeks the law, no one else has come in all the years. The doorkeeper answers "No one else could ever be admitted here, since this gate was made only for you. I am now going to shut it."
I've heard nothing but bad things about PayPal and how they often hold your own money hostage. Why don't people switch to alternatives? Are there no good ones?
> and for security reasons we're unable to offer further details
To give a little behind-the-scenes here, I worked for a bit for a web hosting company that had this as standard policy. This was because, before it was put in place, scammers would actually use coordinated campaigns of support calls with otherwise legitimate accounts in order to extract piecemeal details about how the company's fraud investigations worked, then reorganize their scamming to precisely evade the time periods and credit card checks used at the time.
The system didn't need to be stopped. The employee's contract wasn't renewed, which is indistinguishable from a decision terminate him, so the system executed the termination as scheduled.
The system did exactly what it was intended to do, it was the humans who screwed up. Humans who presumably understood the way the system was designed, and didn't care enough to do some due diligence.
>I also do not understand why a check couldn't be cut. Submit to accounts payable with an email approval?
He was fired. It doesn't matter that people didn't intend for him to be, he was, it went through the system, it was a done deal. Paying people not in your employ is fraud, even under the best of intentions.
The real lesson here is that few of us, no matter how much money we make, how into the culture we are or how long our tenure has been, are more than a row in a database to our employer, and we can be dropped at any time. The contractor in this case would not have had much more "job security" with humans in the loop.
Financial fraud prevention gambits are complicated.
It may be possible that PP thought someone else was using your account.
What should happen in these scenarios is simply a validation of some kind ie payment only goes through if you click on the email your received.
I used to travel to SF from Canada a lot and my bank would block my Visa even though I told them not to.
In the US there's no password in Visas, i.e. no chip-and-pin, which is totally crazy = huge fraud.
It's funny to think in the Silicon Valley, top tech companies in the world ... everyone is still using that old mag stripe stuff when pretty much the rest of the world has moved on.
> No one was able to stop the machine because no one really knew all the different processes or they weren't built to stop midway.
This is (in my opinion) one of the reasons why everyone talking about getting rid of dedicated IT ops in their organizations is making a mistake. You can have devs building integrations and automation all day, but you still need sysadmins who can see the whole picture and override them when necessary. Having an outsourced (or even internal) hell desk that goes off a script doesn't take care of situations like this either.
Yeah that seems insane to me. Sure maybe you go back since it doesn't seem to be malice on the part of the employer, but to not get compensation for the time you were "fired"...
I tried to delink my bank account from PayPal, so I could close it, and it refused cos I apparently owed $1.27 even tho my balance said $0. I tried to add a credit card but it was flagged as suspicious. Contacting PayPal they said I needed to go into the bank and put some money, my account so PayPal could take it. But I had already closed the bank account.
After PayPal refusing to help. I resolved it by opening a new PayPal account. Adding my credit card (not flagged suspicious) and transfer $2 to the account. Then I could delink the bank account and close it. Then I closed the new account I opened.
The author assumed that the recruiter accidentally thought that he had been fired after reading the list of fired employees, as there were other employees with the same name.
In reality, he had been fired as his contract had not been renewed. He wasn't actively fired, but rather his contract expired because someone failed to renew it.
A big part of the problem here seems to be rather that there were no warnings of his impending "departure" to the correct people. There were no emails to his manager reminding them that his contract was ending, or to the author himself. Even if it was intended for his contract to end, it would still be a good idea to have that email sent out, just to remind them. I can totally foresee somebody forgetting that their contract is finished.
I purchased the board game "Cuba" from someone on gumtree (we're both Australian) and paid them with Paypal. For the transaction note I wrote "Cuba" and my (Australian) address.
This is what I received from Paypal:
To ensure that activity and transactions comply with current regulations, PayPal is requesting that you provide the following information via email to ComplianceTransactions@paypal.com
1. Purpose of payment XXXXXXXXXXXX attempted on 29 May 2016 in the amount of 53.00 AUD, including a complete and detailed explanation of the goods or services you intended to purchase. Please also explain the transaction message: "Cuba and postage to 4113. <my address>."
They obviously have a block on the word "Cuba" and there was some back and forth to let the transaction through.
He returned to the company but jumped ship at the next opportunity, which makes sense assuming that there's going to be some lag time on opportunities - particularly since he'd just missed 3 weeks of pay and presumably wanted to keep a paycheck while he was looking.
The next day I came back to see a pristine desk.
With all my stuff gone.
Something like this happened to me too at a previous employer, some things I recovered but many were just gone, the cleaning staff apparently help themselves to stuff that “former” employees leave behind, so my fancy headphones for example were just gone. Fucks given by HR/facilities? Zero. One of many similar incidents for me and my cow-orkers. And this was a desk move literally from one row to another!
It wasn’t even an algorithm per se, most of the “machine” at this place was people in India following checklists manually. You could speak to them (tho' they made this very difficult to do) and tell them to stop and they would say “yes” and do it anyway.
I had a friend at another company who was mistakenly terminated, a week later his manager called him at home to find out if he was OK, the conversation apparently went,
Reminds me of Frank Herbert's ominous (fictional) prophecy:
“Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.”
That show was incredibly on the mark, if Black Mirror was a comedy it would have been that show.
The episode about the black engineer who isn't detected by the motion sensors is basically straight out of HP's webcam fiasco[1](although the show takes it to the logical and hilarious extreme).
> automating even the simplest procedures can be very tricky
automating business processes is actually a similar activity to doing programming!
When it's done competently, the business runs smoother. But if there are bugs (and as anyone who programs knows, there are always bugs), things go wrong. And yet, people who know not anything about complex systems design attempt to write up business requirements for such automation are numourus.
I agree. It's a theme I run across in many US-worker situations we read about on HN. There is such a lack of basic rights, but also basic norms when relating to workers.
Ethical behaviour, from my perspective, would be to compensate the employee, regardsless of his legal rights. In a more worker-central system, the worker should have easy recourse to an official judgement for his money.
In the Netherlands there is even a concept of culpability in laws regarding firing. Mess up too much, and the employer will have to pay a premium on the disengagement fee. And while our economy is moving towards a lot more 'sole employee contractors' with less worker-rights, you still have rights and a way to affordably enforce them. For them (only) basic contract law holds. That would probably mean paying the full 3 years in this context. A contract _is_ a contract.
Generally in cases like these, they don't want to waste the promotion(the new position) and they give it to whoever is next in line and wants to stay longer.
A very logical thing to do. In big companies it takes time to build a case for a promotion(position). If you were not going to use it, it was always a good thing to give it to somebody else.
Plus asking somebody to sustain a position for somebody who was promoted and still wants to leave seems like bonkers even from the HR perspective.
So true. Recently I was at the pharmacy, the doctor wrote a wrong prescription and my wife was in the car having a hefty migraine. They wouldn't give me the drug even though they could see she has been using it for years and the wrong prescription could be solved afterwards. I think such people will be the first to be completely replaced by robots, I for sure wouldn't notice the difference, in fact I expect a robot to be inhuman so it would be less frustrating.
Editorial Channel
What the content says
+0.30
Article 19Freedom of Expression
High Practice Advocacy
Editorial
+0.30
SETL
+0.17
The author exercises freedom of opinion and expression by publicly sharing a critical account of systemic failures and implicitly advocating for better safeguards
Observable Facts
The article is published publicly on the author's blog without apparent censorship or restriction
The blog includes a comment section where readers can share perspectives and reactions
Inferences
The author's publication of detailed, critical account demonstrates exercise of freedom of expression
The blog platform architecture supports UDHR values of free expression and dialogue
-0.20
Article 5No Torture
Medium Framing
Editorial
-0.20
SETL
ND
The inflexible, soulless system's treatment shows disregard for human circumstances that could be characterized as cruel through its inhumanity
Observable Facts
The author describes system emails as 'soulless and written in red' issuing irreversible orders
Multiple attempts to resolve the situation were rebuffed by an unstoppable automated process
Inferences
The characterization of the system as 'out for blood' and 'soulless' suggests treatment approaching cruelty
Inability to provide human compassion or exception in response to clear error demonstrates cruelty through rigidity
-0.20
Article 12Privacy
Medium Framing
Editorial
-0.20
SETL
ND
The author's personal employment data, access logs, and system status were used against them without consent
Observable Facts
The author's name, employment status, and access history were visible to security guards and colleagues
System-generated emails with the author's information were sent to multiple parties without explicit consent
Inferences
Use of employment data in automated systems without privacy protections suggests privacy violation
Personal information was leveraged by the automated system without author knowledge or consent
-0.20
Article 18Freedom of Thought
Low Framing
Editorial
-0.20
SETL
ND
The inflexible automated system prevents human conscience and judgment from modifying its course
Observable Facts
The director and manager were unable to exercise human judgment or conscience in response to clear error
The system permitted no override or exception for human moral reasoning
Inferences
System's absolute inflexibility suggests suppression of human conscience and discretionary judgment
Inability of humans to act on conscience about obvious injustice violates freedom of conscience
-0.20
Article 28Social & International Order
Medium Framing
Editorial
-0.20
SETL
ND
The failure of company systems and human leadership to maintain basic fairness suggests breakdown in the social order necessary for rights protection
Observable Facts
Even senior leadership could not establish basic fairness in response to obvious error
The automated system operated entirely outside any accountability or justice mechanism
Inferences
Systemic failure suggests breakdown in organizational and social structures needed for rights protection
Inability to enforce basic fairness indicates insufficient order to protect fundamental rights
-0.30
PreamblePreamble
Medium Framing Advocacy
Editorial
-0.30
SETL
ND
The narrative critiques systemic failure to uphold human dignity and justice, showing how automated processes stripped away fundamental protections without human oversight or remedy
Observable Facts
The author was systematically locked out of all company systems without human review, explanation, or appeal mechanism
The article describes escalation to increasingly senior management who all stated they were powerless to override the automated termination
Inferences
The narrative illustrates how systems can fail to uphold the fundamental dignity and justice promised in the UDHR Preamble
The author's experience demonstrates that automation without human safeguards violates foundational UDHR principles
-0.30
Article 3Life, Liberty, Security
Medium Framing Advocacy
Editorial
-0.30
SETL
ND
The wrongful termination and forced separation directly threatened the author's security of person through loss of income and employment status
Observable Facts
The author lost employment income for three weeks and describes psychological distress
The article describes being physically removed from the building and locked out of all workplace access
Inferences
Loss of employment income directly threatens security of person by removing financial stability
Forced removal from the workplace violates sense of security and liberty
-0.30
Article 9No Arbitrary Detention
Medium Framing
Editorial
-0.30
SETL
ND
The author was arbitrarily locked out of the workplace and all systems without lawful basis, process, or notice
Observable Facts
The author's key card access was disabled without explanation or notification
Physical removal occurred based on automated directive rather than any conduct violation
Inferences
The arbitrary lockout without due process violates protection against arbitrary detention of employment rights
Automated removal from workplace suggests violation of the right to not be arbitrarily deprived of liberty
-0.30
Article 13Freedom of Movement
Medium Framing
Editorial
-0.30
SETL
ND
The author's freedom of movement was restricted through key card denial in parking structure, building, and floors
Observable Facts
The author's key card was disabled, preventing entry to parking garage, building, and secure floors
The author was trapped on the stairs waiting for someone to let them through
Inferences
Restriction of physical access violates freedom of movement within what should be accessible workplace
Automated denial of access constitutes a form of restriction of freedom of movement
-0.30
Article 17Property
Medium Framing Advocacy
Editorial
-0.30
SETL
ND
The wrongful termination stripped the author of property rights to employment income and job security
Observable Facts
The author lost three weeks of wages due to wrongful termination
The author's right to employment and associated income was revoked without just cause
Inferences
Loss of employment wages represents deprivation of property without just cause or process
Denial of job security represents violation of the right to property in one's employment
-0.30
Article 25Standard of Living
Medium Framing
Editorial
-0.30
SETL
ND
The wrongful termination and three weeks of unpaid separation directly violated the author's right to adequate standard of living
Observable Facts
The author lost wages for three weeks during the wrongful termination period
The author had to go through a lengthy appeal process to recover wages the staffing agency did not pay
Inferences
Loss of income directly threatens maintenance of adequate standard of living
Prolonged deprivation of wages violated minimum economic security
-0.40
Article 1Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood
Medium Framing Advocacy
Editorial
-0.40
SETL
ND
The article demonstrates how an automated system reduced a valued employee to a non-entity, stripping away their equal standing and dignity regardless of actual performance
Observable Facts
The author's account shows their name being 'grayed out' and marked 'Inactive' in company systems
Despite consistent positive performance and being 'the go-to guy,' the author was treated as disposable by the automated system
Inferences
The systematic erasure of the author's status illustrates violation of the principle that all humans are born equal in dignity
Rigid application of system rules regardless of individual circumstances violates the equality principle
-0.40
Article 6Legal Personhood
Medium Framing Advocacy
Editorial
-0.40
SETL
ND
The author's erasure from company systems and denial of legal standing represents loss of recognition as a legal person
Observable Facts
The author's JIRA account shows their name 'grayed out' and marked as 'Inactive'
Multiple systems simultaneously denied legal standing to work or access any workplace systems
Inferences
The systematic depersonalization through technical erasure violates the right to recognition as a legal person
Automated system stripped the author of legal personhood by removing all employment status markers
-0.40
Article 7Equality Before Law
Medium Framing Advocacy
Editorial
-0.40
SETL
ND
The article demonstrates how an automated system's authority superseded all human authority, rendering the director and manager powerless
Observable Facts
The director, despite organizational authority and title, stated 'There was nothing the director could do about it'
The system applied inflexible rules regardless of whether the termination was erroneous
Inferences
The complete inequality in power between system and all human stakeholders violates equal protection principles
Narrative shows systemic inequality where machine authority overrides human judgment and organizational leadership
-0.40
Article 11Presumption of Innocence
Medium Framing Advocacy
Editorial
-0.40
SETL
ND
The author was treated as guilty without any trial, evidence, or presumption of innocence
Observable Facts
The author was terminated for contract expiration caused by management oversight, not author misconduct
No evidence of any violation was ever presented to the author
Inferences
The automated termination presumes guilt and imposes punishment without presumption of innocence
System violated the right to be presumed innocent by treating the author as guilty of an offense they did not commit
-0.40
Article 22Social Security
Medium Framing Advocacy
Editorial
-0.40
SETL
ND
The author's employment security was completely eliminated through automated process without social protections or appeal
Observable Facts
The author was terminated and lost three weeks of pay despite being a valued, high-performing employee
No social safety net or appeal mechanism protected the author from wrongful termination
Inferences
Loss of employment security through inflexible automation violates the right to social security
Absence of protective mechanism against arbitrary termination demonstrates failure to ensure social protection
-0.50
Article 8Right to Remedy
High Framing Advocacy Coverage
Editorial
-0.50
SETL
ND
The complete absence of any remedy mechanism is central to the narrative; escalation over three weeks to higher authorities yielded no relief
Observable Facts
The author states: 'There was nothing my manager could do about it. There was nothing the director could do about it'
Over three weeks, escalation to 'bigger and more powerful titles over and over, yet no one could do anything about it'
Inferences
The narrative demonstrates systematic denial of the right to remedy at every organizational level
The automated system had no override or appeals mechanism, making remedy impossible even for clear errors
-0.50
Article 10Fair Hearing
High Framing Advocacy
Editorial
-0.50
SETL
ND
The termination process lacked every element of a fair trial: no hearing, no evidence presented, no opportunity to respond, no appeals
Observable Facts
The author received no notification of charges or opportunity to respond before termination
The author was terminated despite clear evidence of good performance and no evidence of wrongdoing
Inferences
Complete absence of procedural justice violates the fundamental right to a fair trial
Automated termination without any elements of fairness constitutes systematic denial of due process
-0.50
Article 23Work & Equal Pay
High Framing Advocacy
Editorial
-0.50
SETL
ND
The core theme: arbitrary termination despite excellent performance violates the right to work and just conditions of work
Observable Facts
The author had worked eight months of a three-year contract with constant positive feedback and being 'the go-to guy'
Termination resulted from administrative error in contract renewal, not from any performance or conduct issue
Inferences
The narrative demonstrates arbitrary deprivation of the right to work unrelated to performance or misconduct
The inflexible system violated protection for just and favorable conditions of work by removing them without cause
ND
Article 2Non-Discrimination
No specific content regarding discrimination based on protected categories
ND
Article 4No Slavery
Not applicable to this content
ND
Article 14Asylum
Not applicable to this content
ND
Article 15Nationality
Not applicable to this content
ND
Article 16Marriage & Family
Not applicable to this content
ND
Article 20Assembly & Association
Not applicable to this content
ND
Article 21Political Participation
Not applicable to this content
ND
Article 24Rest & Leisure
Not applicable to this content
ND
Article 26Education
Not applicable to this content
ND
Article 27Cultural Participation
Not applicable to this content
ND
Article 29Duties to Community
Not applicable to this content
ND
Article 30No Destruction of Rights
Not applicable to this content
Structural Channel
What the site does
+0.20
Article 19Freedom of Expression
High Practice Advocacy
Structural
+0.20
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.17
The blog platform supports free expression through public publication and a comments section enabling reader dialogue
ND
PreamblePreamble
Medium Framing Advocacy
Not applicable; content is narrative rather than structural practice
ND
Article 1Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood
Medium Framing Advocacy
Not applicable; content is narrative
ND
Article 2Non-Discrimination
Not applicable
ND
Article 3Life, Liberty, Security
Medium Framing Advocacy
Not applicable
ND
Article 4No Slavery
Not applicable
ND
Article 5No Torture
Medium Framing
Not applicable
ND
Article 6Legal Personhood
Medium Framing Advocacy
Not applicable
ND
Article 7Equality Before Law
Medium Framing Advocacy
Not applicable
ND
Article 8Right to Remedy
High Framing Advocacy Coverage
Not applicable
ND
Article 9No Arbitrary Detention
Medium Framing
Not applicable
ND
Article 10Fair Hearing
High Framing Advocacy
Not applicable
ND
Article 11Presumption of Innocence
Medium Framing Advocacy
Not applicable
ND
Article 12Privacy
Medium Framing
Not applicable
ND
Article 13Freedom of Movement
Medium Framing
Not applicable
ND
Article 14Asylum
Not applicable
ND
Article 15Nationality
Not applicable
ND
Article 16Marriage & Family
Not applicable
ND
Article 17Property
Medium Framing Advocacy
Not applicable
ND
Article 18Freedom of Thought
Low Framing
Not applicable
ND
Article 20Assembly & Association
Not applicable
ND
Article 21Political Participation
Not applicable
ND
Article 22Social Security
Medium Framing Advocacy
Not applicable
ND
Article 23Work & Equal Pay
High Framing Advocacy
Not applicable
ND
Article 24Rest & Leisure
Not applicable
ND
Article 25Standard of Living
Medium Framing
Not applicable
ND
Article 26Education
Not applicable
ND
Article 27Cultural Participation
Not applicable
ND
Article 28Social & International Order
Medium Framing
Not applicable
ND
Article 29Duties to Community
Not applicable
ND
Article 30No Destruction of Rights
Not applicable
Supplementary Signals
Epistemic Quality
0.64
Propaganda Flags
2techniques detected
loaded language
'The system was out for blood and I was its very first victim'; 'soulless and written in red'; anthropomorphizing the system as malevolent
causal oversimplification
The author attributes the firing entirely to automated system logic and single contract renewal failure, without exploring broader organizational factors in detail
Solution Orientation
No data
Emotional Tone
No data
Stakeholder Voice
No data
Temporal Framing
No data
Geographic Scope
No data
Complexity
No data
Transparency
No data
Event Timeline
20 events
2026-02-26 22:08
rater_auto_disable
Model llama-4-scout-wai auto-disabled: 6 consecutive parse failures
--
2026-02-26 22:08
rater_validation_fail
Validation failed for model llama-4-scout-wai
--
2026-02-26 20:01
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: The Machine Fired Me
--
2026-02-26 20:01
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: The Machine Fired Me
--
2026-02-26 20:01
eval_failure
Evaluation failed: Error: Unknown model in registry: llama-4-scout-wai
--
2026-02-26 20:01
eval_failure
Evaluation failed: Error: Unknown model in registry: llama-4-scout-wai
--
2026-02-26 19:59
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: The Machine Fired Me
--
2026-02-26 19:59
eval_failure
Evaluation failed: Error: Unknown model in registry: llama-4-scout-wai
--
2026-02-26 19:59
rate_limit
OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b
--
2026-02-26 19:58
rate_limit
OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b
--
2026-02-26 19:57
rate_limit
OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b
--
2026-02-26 19:55
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: The Machine Fired Me
--
2026-02-26 19:54
rate_limit
OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b
--
2026-02-26 19:53
rate_limit
OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b
--
2026-02-26 19:51
rate_limit
OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b
--
2026-02-26 18:42
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: The Machine Fired Me
--
2026-02-26 18:41
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: The Machine Fired Me
--
2026-02-26 18:41
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: The Machine Fired Me
--
2026-02-26 18:40
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: The Machine Fired Me
--
2026-02-26 18:40
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: The Machine Fired Me