We have attempted to make the politics involved in and surrounding the current Ukraine scandal more relatable for the average American. While keeping the facts, as they are known, as consistent as possible we have restructured the scenario from politics to business.
While this is not the perfect example, we do believe it addresses the issue in a short and understandable manner. Even the least politically minded should be able to get a feel for the issue at hand.
In the example, the boss is the President. The whistleblower is a co-worker. The lawyers are Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Socialists. HR is the DoJ. The Ukraine is you. The company is America, and the project is the Trump Administration policy.
Your boss talks to your manager and wants them to see if they can demote you for doing a poor job. You don’t know this is happening.
A few days later, you are speaking with your boss, outside of work along with some of your co-workers, and he mentions the company-wide project you work on is not on schedule. He suggests you should work extra hard on that project. You agree its important for the company.
Your boss never introduces you to the people you mentioned, nor does he mention your conversation to the management team. You continue to do your job. They continue to do theirs.
You also mention that the people in management are doing a good job. You point out a couple of people in that department as particular examples. Your boss suggests you should talk with them about how they got to their positions so you can learn to do yours better. You agree with this idea.
A month or so later, you are informed that you will be demoted for poor performance of your job. A co-worker (that doesn’t like your boss and wanted his position), that is not in management nor involved in the conversation between you and your boss thinks that your boss intimidated you. They complain to HR – who reviews the case and determines that nothing happened that was unfair and note the bias of your co-worker (that they made public of their own free will previously).
Someone else hears about the HR review and spreads a rumor about your boss on social media. Investors hear about it, and fearing a lawsuit sell the stock – hurting the business. A law firm (ambulance chasers type) hears about the rumor and starts a class action suit just as the boss tells everyone in the company that a transcript of the conversation will be provided as a memo for anyone interested to see to quell the unrest in the workers that don’t like him or his plans for the company.
The lawyers declare that the memo, that they have not read, is proof of a crime and everyone should join the lawsuit and the boss should resign or be fired. Upon reading the memo, the people that don’t like your boss say it is doctored. People who like your boss note that there is no crime and that HR confirmed it. People that don’t like your boss say the other people are racist.
Meanwhile, you find out that the law firm and several people that don’t like your boss sold the company stock short (invested on the company losing money for a profit) 2 months ago and were losing their bet. The controversy is helping to make back their money.
In this scenario, who exactly is in the wrong?