Lately it seems that more and more rank-and-file employees believe that a company has some sort of moral obligation to take their political opinions into consideration. Corporations aren't democracies. Unless you're an executive or high ranking decision maker, you're along for the ride. I don't ask my kids for their opinion about my home budget, what house I should buy, etc. So it is at work.
Expecting a company to kowtow to your belief system betrays a conceited/pretentious view of the world around you. If you don't like the job, leave it.
Companies are bunch of people who come together to do something with their time and resources, you can check the documents that bring the companies into existence.
When Nestle tries to hook babies to a baby formula in order to exploit their parents for profit, that's not Nestle doing it - it's the workers at Nestle doing it. The legal ecosystem might or might not hold these people responsible depending on the jurisdiction but that doesn't change who is actually choosing to do it or not.
It is also nothing wrong with attempting to influence the actions of these people and its also normal to get fired for this. Even if you fail to influence those people, in retrospect you elevate the chances for these people to be deeply ashamed of and insulated from the society because of their choices. You can at least deny them the privilege of going around, giving speeches and get applause at the age when they have all the money they need and crave for the recognition for their achievements, love of people and want to believe that their lives were not waisted. Even if you can't take away their penthouses, you can make them cry in these penthouses.
It is a good practice to shame people because it is one of the motivator for their actions.
This same logic can be used to justify any system of exploitive power. Companies control my ability to eat and be housed, these companies drive global politics. If the voice and ethics of the people are not allowed to influence these, then what voice to do the people have? Is my choice is to keep in line or starve how is that any different than any other despotic system?
You're own profile says "I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." but clearly this only applies for the 8 hours of the day I am not at work (less if I work late)?
I never suggested the employee wasn't allowed to speak their mind.
I'm just saying that the person should fully expect to be fired for that sort of behavior, and take that into consideration. There is a time and place, and work is not it. Don't crap where you eat, etc.
If you did that in my house, I'd (politely) kick you out. You're welcome to disagree with me, but if you're inside my house then it's on my terms.
If you earnestly believe there's no important distinction between employees of a multinational corporation and a guest in your private home then I don't think there's any more possible room for discussion.
I am curious though, in what specific context would you "defend to the death" my right to free speech? It seems strange to be willing to offer your life for something with so many terms and conditions applied.
> If you earnestly believe there's no important distinction between employees of a multinational corporation and a guest in your private home then I don't think there's any more possible room for discussion.
There are important distinctions between these two concepts, but not for the sake of the argument here. Freedom of speech is about the relationship between citizens and their government -- not citizens and each other. Google is simply a corp owned by citizens -- who have rights, over the property (the company) they collectively own. These citizens are free (within rule of law) to set the rules in their house -- just like I am free (within rule of law) to set the rules in my house.
Citizens have freedom of association -- I am not forced to house people I don't want to house. I can kick people out of my house for being disruptive, threatening me, or otherwise disagreeing with my rules. Google, as a private business, owned by citizens, should not be forced to employ disruptive people. Again -- there are laws surrounding this -- Google can't do whatever they want -- but I would hope we could agree that Google should be allowed to fire disruptive employees.
> I am curious though, in what specific context would you "defend to the death" my right to free speech? It seems strange to be willing to offer your life for something with so many terms and conditions applied.
This is a simplification of the necessity of free speech. And that this is a principle worth shedding blood over. It's a summary of a great many liberal guiding principles that founded this country (America). I would think this is common knowledge, but I keep forgetting that it is a principle that must be re-taught to each generation of Americans.
The right to free speech is about preventing from the government from throwing you in jail or having you murdered for saying something unpopular -- as happens in places like Russia or China. Our constitutional guarantee of free speech is meaningless if the government is allowed to pick and choose the persons to whom they apply. This applies to all opinions, even those we despise -- because once we allow the censoring of some opinion we have opened the door to the eventual censoring of dissent -- which inevitably leads to authoritarianism etc... Without freedom speech, we have nothing. To me, this is a principle and a right that is worth fighting wars over, worth dying for.
Freedom of speech means free exchange of ideas. We're here in HN talking freely, we're listening to each other -- and tolerating each others ideas, even if we don't agree with them. This is a good thing, as the alternative usually leads to people in the outgroup being jailed, and/or mobs, weapons and all sorts of violence.
This is why we defend things like “peoples rights to say racist shit”... because it's a form of self-defense. If I want to be able to hold my own opinions without fear of government reprisal, then I have to grant you that same freedom and protection. I need to fight not just for my right to free speech, but yours -- or the freedom is meaningless. We have to tolerate each other, or we lose everything.
That said: all speech isn't free. There are necessary limits on free speech. You can't falsely accuse others of crimes. You can't libel or defame others falsely. You can't incite to riot or insurrection. You can't cause false panic. You can't lie to the police or report false disasters. There are consequences for speech -- you can't just say whatever you want and expect the rest of us citizens to accommodate you. No one has to accommodate you -- we simply agree tolerate each others beliefs.
I defend a way of life that protects your ability to have opinions I disagree with, without fear of government reprisal. What your fellow citizens and neighbors think of you however, is largely between you and them after that point.
Google is not a government. Google is a company that is collectively owned by citizens. Google has rights as well, because the shareholders/owners have rights as citizens, just like you -- and so people can't just run around their company saying whatever they want without fear or consequences. Any more than you can run around my house saying whatever you want. I say this, having no love of Google. But if Google can't defend it's right to remove disruptive employees, then it's only a matter of time before I lose the ability to throw people out of my house, eventually leading to things like forced quartering of soldiers, etc.
The statement "defend to the death" etc means that I'm willing to fight a war and potentially die over this way of life. I would hope that those here whose views I disagree with but am tolerating would also be willing to give their lives for my rights as well. And to those here who call a belief like this virtue signaling -- well I feel sad for you and those who would be forced to live in the kind of world you propose building.
At this point, I'm happy to agree to disagree with you.
You're arguing the US freedom of speech law, the others are arguing the principle the law is based on. The quote in your profile usually refers to the principle, which is why everyone seems to be confused.
I replied above to same essential comment.... you can say what you want, but in my house I'm free to kick you out if I don't like it. Go scream it from the sidewalk.
Check again, nobody said anything about the American Bill of Rights here. And the natural right is meaningless if your life is destroyed one way or another.
> Lately it seems that more and more rank-and-file employees believe that a company has some sort of moral obligation to take their political opinions into consideration.
Flip the argument around. Rank-and-file employees believe they have the right to not shut the fuck up about issues that concern them. Emigrate to a more authoritarian country if you don't like it.
Absolutely. The only power that can change the rules is (surprise surprise) power. If the Google employees managed to organize themselves into an effective union, they absolutely could force Google management to change the rules. If the employees can’t do that, only governments or (ad) customers can.
Coerced is the operative word here. Employers don't have to accommodate your political beliefs (outside of what the law requires). If you and your friends have enough power, you can try and wield it. Buy shares and get your voice heard at the stockholders meeting. Your mileage may vary. Not everyone has the coercive power of say, Elon Musk.
This person sacrificed their job to draw attention to their pet issue. What did they expect to happen? Google was going to stop the event and sit down with the employee and negotiate? Google has a disruptive employee, that is costing them more money than they are making them, and so got rid of them. No ones rights were violated.
I don't have an opinion on this particular incident, but if I work at a company that suddenly starts making military tech, and I find a critical mass of coworkers to unionize with me and protest the decision, then the company will have little choice but to back down.
It wasn't a company event, at least not an event of the company he worked for. It was a talk by someone from his company at a conference promoting Israeli tech companies.
It seemed like it worked when top tier techies were in high demand but difficult to find. Now post the "learn to code" movement and high interest rates the underlying conditions have changed no? Also Elon probably showed you can disrespect your employees to the hilt and you will still get hoards of good applicants because olympic class people want to only work with other olympic class people.
If we are going to go back to the good old days™ then at the very least the market needs to see elons companies crash and burn to show that his kind of management does not work long term. So far the opposite is happening.
Expecting employees to enable you to do what they aren't okay with having supported and be silent is just as entitled a worldview. Employees are not to Management/Executives as a child is to a parent. We're all adults. We're all here together, and literally the only thing the Exec title carries with it is potential liabiliy.
Don't like not having your every whim kowtow'd to by people below you? Well, feel free to fire and incur the increased uninsurance premiums that will detract from your bottom line. And hey, there's other places to hire people in. But oh wait.... Everywhere else still recognizes the legotimacy of secondary strikes. Let me know how that works for ya.
Or... You know, listen to the people actually doing the hard work. Be a pity if something unfortunate were to happen to that all those cooperative people that make you making money possible.
“I refuse to build technology that powers genocide.” is not a political consideration, it's an ethical one. The notion that the employer should take ethical concerns into consideration is not a recent trend. Though perhaps the politiciation of it is.
I think there's enough popular disagreement on the issue at hand (Israel's response to Oct 7 attack) to say that for sure this issue is for sure a political one. You can't just handwave "ethics" from your high-horse and expect all the people that disagree with you to backdown.
There is a wide disagreement as to who is at fault and what is to be done here. Stakes are high, people are dying. Resolving that is pretty much the exclusive realm of politics, and (when that fails) warfare.
While it's absolutely true that corporations are amoral dictatorships, not democracies, companies like Google spend an awful lot of PR time and money virtue signaling otherwise (and I use that term not in a derogatory way, but a literal way - they are deliberately signaling virtue, often in conflict with their actual actions.)
If Google want to pretend their founding principal is "do the right thing", and put that front and center in their employee handbook - well, I'd say they have limited ability to complain when employees act on that, at least without being exposed for hypocrisy. Google can't have its cake and eat it too.
On a tangent, I find it a funny coincidence that both your handles start with "lord" -- it's like watching a debate in the House of Lords (UK's "Upper Parliament") :)
Expecting a publicly traded company not to openly support a military committing war crimes isn't pretentious or shocking, actually. It's quite the norm.
I can't tell if people are desperate or delusional.
> Expecting a company to kowtow to your belief system betrays a conceited/pretentious view of the world around you.
I agree and I would call that delusional.
On the desparate side, the trust in government and faith in the democratic system are in shambles. I'm not even sure a frustrated Google Engineer can see the bottom of the despair issue. People do not believe their local, state, or federal governments can do a anything, particularly for the common good.
Take my hometown, of ~20K, that once had a fully functioning clinic and hospital. About ten years ago, the hospital was rebuilt, much nicer building but only 2 ER rooms and no critical long-term care. I suggested to my brother the town ought to have made approval of the construction dependent on providing essential services. He is smart but that idea didn't even register as a legitimate political concern. He doesn't think the government can do anything, least of all for the public good.
That sentiment is building and it's a vicious, reinforcing cycle. I dearly hope something will change before there is only the faintest hope of change.
> On the desparate side, the trust in government and faith in the democratic system are in shambles. I'm not even sure a frustrated Google Engineer can see the bottom of the despair issue. People do not believe their local, state, or federal governments can do a anything, particularly for the common good.
I get it... the angst is real... things are wrong and feel like they are spiraling... systems are failing us, we no longer trust each other, or that there is a common good. Because people can't put their finger on what's causing it, they lash out in unpredictable ways, like this. This widespread disaffection will likely get much worse before it gets better.
That said -- I still believe in free speech and rule of law. No government stopped this employee from speaking their mind -- and they weren't jailed -- this is a good thing. And Google, a company owned by citizens, whose event was disrupted -- should be free to fire disruptive employees. The fact they did so is also a good thing.
What I'm saying is that what happened here isn't the problem -- but to your point it is a symptom of something wider that is going on. A malaise/cancer that seems to have taken over and is rapidly metastasizing.
Expecting a company to kowtow to your belief system betrays a conceited/pretentious view of the world around you. If you don't like the job, leave it.