Did he have a legitimate grievance?

Did he have a legitimate grievance?

Hello, Jerry.

Movie: Maybe, probably not.
Book: Kinda, but not really.

>work in a large multinational corporation
>have a legitimate grievance
>don't take it up with the local HR division

HE DUN GOOFED
NO WONDER HE DED

>my uncle used to work here
>violin snap
>cut to black

the mail neverstops

No.

He is a skilled worker, bid for the job and wasn't cheap about it. He had money issues outside of work and wanted more money cause he figured the park could afford it. Hammond was not about to be bullied into renegotiating, he was compensated fairly. The parks assets were being watched as it is, with investors worried, so Hammond couldn't just spend more money on one man that's been paid already either.

Maybe if he waited till after the park opened he could have done something about it, but he agreed to do the job for an amount. If he wanted more he should have done so before being hired.

He coulda done the talk show circuit. Done a tell all, hidden camera with Geraldo
>WE ARE LIVE FROM HAMMONDS ILLEGAL SITE B FREAKSHOW

hello numan....

In the movie, they never really delved into his circumstances, and Hammond was portrayed as a cuddly old grandpa who just wanted to make a zoo for all of the children of the world, so it's safe to say that he had no legitimate grievances in the movie and was just greedy.

In the book, it's a different story.

1) Hammond wasn't some cuddly old grandpa. He was a tough, shrewd, calculating, manipulating businessman who liked to make grand promises to investors and then cut every corner he could in order to maximize his profits. He views his grandchildren as little more than showpieces for the attorneys who are threatening to close down the project (in particular, he wanted Gennaro to see how much kids would love the park). When the park was coming back online (no thanks to him, since he made no decisions, gave no direction, and provided no leadership in restoring the park's functions), his first impulse was to blame everybody who was dead for the park's failures. Wu, Arnold, Nedry, Regis, they were to blame, not Hammond.

2) Nedry put in an overly competitive bid for what he thought was a fairly straightforward project: Construct a large database for a genetics company and maybe a few other things. Once he got the contract, he realized just how much Hammond wanted out of him and he experienced the bane of IT support: The indecisive client. Instead of just building a database, Hammond wanted him to create a fully automated park filled with animals that hadn't existed for 10s and 100s of millions of years, and he wanted it done perfectly despite giving vague directives. The further Nedry got into the project and the more money he had to spend out of his own pocket, the more demanding Hammond got with him, and the more he was told that unless he fixed everything, neither he or his team would receive any payment. So basically, Hammond was trying to get a lot of work out of Nedry for free. Did he have a legitimate grievance? You bet your ass he did.

Industrial Espionage would immediately ruin his professional reputation and he'd be more likely sued into oblivion by Ingen worse than the Ghostbusters, let alone the malicious mischief and intentional sabotage of life saving safety systems that he was entrusted to run and design. He's get quadruple life sentences in any court.
He's either otherwise resigned to assuming a fake name and living the rest of his life fat, drunk and soaking in the sand and hookers

When you're broke and your employer is fucking you, do you really think about all of that?

If Nedry's plan had succeeded, nobody at InGen would have known that he had stolen the embryos. There'd be no charges to bring him up on and he'd be financially solvent.

Besides, his reputation was already going into the crapper. If InGen had refused to pay him, he would have gone under. InGen would have insured that he never got another contract with any company in any industry they were involved in. So he was doing what he could to survive, personally and professionally. Was he right? No. But neither was Hammond.

And that's why the book was better.

remind me of the book reason cause i haven't read that in years if you could

>>>never mind this is what i get for not reading threads

>2
you... you know the struggle too don't you?

man the book was pretty dark more horror then kid friendly

Not only that but he was annoying, messy, and behaved unprofessionally. Even if he was a valuable asset to the company he probably didn't stand out because he gives a bad impression.

I'm a freelance programmer that mostly does ERP and line of business work and this is my life. I've dropped a significant money of clients because of scenarios like this and despite the fact that they paid my invoices on time they were beginning to cost me more than I made.
Fuck clients like this.

*amount. I guess autocorrect is my punishment for phone posting while shitting

Chuckled.

Yeah. Fuck John "spared no expense except the IT guy's salary at my super hi tech theme park" Hammond.

>Did he have a legitimate grievance
Hammond spared one expense

bullshit he probably got paid really good

when he was only there because nepotism..