Introduction

Thanks for visiting my blog. I am a former employee for Mentor/Siemens company. I moved to a new state during the time I landed my new challenge. I was happily performing if not excelling my new challenge duties to a point when after nearly three months, my mind sparked with new idea that it made its way through to land on Mentor/Siemens product roadmap for the coming 5 years! I consider that a kingpin of all my achievements with Mentor/ Siemens.

During the few months before, after, and including April 2019, I had to juggle between different commitments I had. One of those commitment was to provide little care my friend who had stage 4 cancer. I was able to cut time and go visit him in Dublin and spend few hours with him. My friend later succumbed to his illness on 05/13 ☹

In the midst of all duties, an unexpected new challenge came my way. This time it came my way from my immediate manager at Mentor/Siemens company. Although, I was excelling performing my duties and was receiving praises from teammates, my immediate manager exaggerated a minor interaction to a point of no return. Please find below my “Performance Review” email drafted by manager and sent to me and also forwarded to Mentor/Siemens HR and to my 2^nd level manager.

At first, I have to admit I was not thinking as proper and consistent as I should be. I was and still am incapable of making any sense of my whole ordeal. Thanks to George Orwell, I thought I am living my 1984 moments here in the US in 2019. However, I have to come to terms with Mentor/Siemens employment saga and carry on moving forward with my life with no setbacks.

Now that I am thinking clearer and consistent with the way I lead my life, the best way to come to terms with the whole thing is to put my employment termination saga to the public scrutiny for the following reasons:

1. Calling out Mentor/Siemens for their inaction during my interaction with my manager. I realize it is employment at will and am not debating that. However, reputable workplace put measure in place to curb the unchecked power of employment at will granted to manager from going to unchartered territories as clearly this one did.
2. Come clean with my employment experience and clear my mind of any burden this interaction has brought along. The best way for me is to be transparent and speak about it honestly.
3. I am hoping this would stir public discussion among development community that would ultimately encourage the introduction of measures that enhances the at-will employment workplaces either at state level or community level. Community can keep track and record this abnormal practice of the at-will power and call out on companies that have bad record history in order to help them enhance their record and progress toward open work environment.

In the following I will address the first three cons points A to C corroborated with email trails from different interaction with teammates and managers. Those emails will have names cloaked for the time being (Original emails could be provided if need be.) For example, I show up in those email as <Team 1, Member 1> and my manager would show up as <Team 1, Level 1 Manager>. Points D and E will boil down to she/he said such a thing. I will hinge onto my history and people who know me well that those points do not line up with behavior I consistently exhibited everywhere I go or had the pleasure to serve with.

Update-2020/04/17: It’s been almost a year since this incidence took place and Mentor/Siemens did not apologize and so I think it is now fair to call those who acted dishonestly, out. Ant the post will be updated to reflect this fact. The <Team 1, Level 1 Manager> is Mr. Fayyazi[, Morteza]. His immediate superior <Team 1, Level 2 Manager> is Mr. Vuillemin[, Laurent]. HR contact who facilitated this act is Ms. Monroe, Jacqueline[, Monroe]. This page will remain open for them had they wanted to contribute their side of the story given it is truthful and factual.

The format will be that each point with have a separate section that consistent of simple elaboration on the point followed by corroborated evidence.

You reached out to other teams (e.g., <Team 2, Member 1>) asking them to make changes before any discussion with me (and even cc me on emails).

First Things First

My <Feature 1> work consisted of interactions with <Team 1, Member 2> for internal interfaces and with <Team 2, Member 1> for external interfaces. External interfaces are handful and they are:

1. Two interface API that return collection of objects
2. Additional API that returns object attributes that I asked for on 01/04/2019 as will be shown below in with corroborated evidences.

It is also, unclear to me till this moment, why this is cons point to start with! I can literally move this point to my pros section and I will be happy with. My manager saw otherwise. I will give her/him that for argument’s sake. However, I will prove it is inaccurate to say the least in the following section. Every workplace I had the pleasure to serve with will consider this point as being proactive person who seeks proper and timely closure to task in hand! Let’s refute it!

Cons Point A Rebuttal

• I asked my manager for an API (along other API) that returns object attribute on 01/04/2019 as per following email:

• On 04/16/2019, my API requested was channeled to <Team 2, Level 1 Manager> by my manager as per the following email trails (last part of page 3 and beginning of page 4):

• On 03/15/2019 to 03/31/2019, my manager went away on vacation time.
• <Team 2, Member 1> committed external APIs on 03/13/2019.
• I started working on integrating <Feature 1> with external interfaces committed on 03/13/2019. I then found out that Additional API I asked for was not committed.
• I reached to <Team 2, Member 1> and I asked about he missing API. <Team 2, Member 1> was surprised as s/he knew nothing about the API.
• I called <Team 1, Member 2> and I asked about the missing API. <Team 1, Member 2> kindly added me to the email trails referenced in point 2 above. From which I came to know the above time lines I highlighted in point 2 above.
• I had to mock the missing API in order to finish my integration work. I then shelved my patch waiting my manager return.
• On 04/01/2019 upon my manager return, I initiated the following email thread:

• In the above thread on page 5, you can clearly see my new request for the attribute API based upon my mock work. My manager then asked me to wait for <Team 2, Member 1> to make the change as could be seen on the tail end of page 4. On Page three of the same email thread, my manager came back to be and informed me that <Team 1, Member 2> pushed the change I asked for.
• I then un-shelved my patch and wen ahead and pushed the changed as it was approved by manager in the above thread.
• In the above email thread on page 1, <Team 1, Member 2> recommended sending an email with a patch that addresses an inconsistency in the API signature.
• On 04/14/2019, I composed an email and attached a patch that fixes the constness issue as recommended by <Team 1, Member 2> in point 12 above. Here is the email thread:

• On Page 1 in the above email thread, <Team 2, Member 1> informed me that a change similar to my request has been pushed in and that it should still addresses my concern. On page 1, ma manager responded by thinking <Team 2, Member 1>. I also thanked <Team 2, Member 1>.

Conclusive Remark

From the above time line and every interaction with <Team 2, Member 1>, my manager was well informed and is on every email thread above and these are all email threads pertaining to <Feature 1> interactions. It is worth noting that my manager refused or rather failed to corroborated this claim when asked to during my meeting with her/him and HR person.

You made request for changes on our git system from <Tools Team, Member 1> that impacted everyone in <Our Division> without any discussion with me.

First Things First

Just to be clear the git request that would impact everyone in <Our Division> is a request to remove <Tools Team, Member 1> email from notification email send after developer commits to git local/developer repository/branch! I am not clear how that would affect the whole division.

Cons Point B Rebuttal

• I the email thread below, <Tools Team, Member 1> who had her/his email on ever local git commit email notification, has admitted her/his email should have not been there as could be seen on page 2 of the email thread.

• My manager was already on the email thread above from the start. My manager the following stated in the email thread above on page 1 and I quote “This is not an important change. I don’t see any issue if you prefer to receive these emails and you don’t make any change.” The latter statement contradicts the very same manager statement given in the section titles and I quote “You made request for changes on our git system from <Tools Team, Member 1> that impacted everyone in <Our Division> without any discussion with me.” Those are two statements describing the same request in two different contexts and are made by the same person; my manager!
• I cannot corroborate this point; however, it will lead to the next section. I continuously explained that the git change does not affect everyone to my manager and others as well. <Team 2, Level 2 Manager> received the same explanation from me and s/he showed understanding which I could not receive from my manager!

Conclusive Remark

It is not clear why my manager exaggerated the effect of git request. S/He might have not read the email and even read and did not understand the extent of the request. In either case, I wanted to have further document as I show persistence in ignoring logical rationale and going to discretionary rationale!!!

You insisted on your request for git changes even after my disagreement. You sent multiple emails each one to a wider audience ignoring my request

First Things First

As I indicated in the conclusive remarks of the previous section, my manager was continuously refusing to understand or rather accept that git change will not affect the whole division as s/he portrayed it to be. This persistence leaded me to send an email to wider audience explaining how git works and later elaborating more on my driving forces.

Cons Point C Rebuttal

• I sent the following email to a wider audience consisting of purely developers in my division:

• Please go through and read the whole thread and if you find insistence from my end on make the change, let me know. Simply put, this is not true either as all the above claims.

Mentor/Siemens Response

On 07/22/2019, I’ve reached out to Mentor/Siemens officials in order to have their side of the story incorporated within my blog. I have not received any response to my request until this date. Once a response is received, this section will reflect Mentor/Siemens side of the story.

I’ve also reached out to Siemens/Mentor officials during the course of my saga. Namely, I had interactions with the following individuals:

1. Mr Joe Kaeser; Siemens CEO
2. Mr. Joel Kirsch; Head Compliance Regulatory Americas
3. Mr. Tony Hemmelgarn; CEO of Siemens PLM Software
4. Ms. Vicky Sargent; Mentor Chief HR Officer
5. Mr. Charley Selvidge; 3rd-level Manager
6. Ms. Jacqueline Monroe; Mentor HR Partner
7. Mr. Laurent Vuillemin; 2nd-level Manager
8. Ms. Melissa Hicks; HR Advisor Manager, Employee Relationships Solutions

On 08/07/2019, I demand Siemens/Mentor to issue an apology for subjecting me to manipulative and Orwellian practices. It is worth noting that those practices were highlighted in a timely manner through proper escalation process, however Siemens/Mentor willfully chose to turn blind eye to those practices.

---

Follow My Blog

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.