11–20 of 51 posts
Paragraph 4: "...I and everyone else here at Grubhub will fight for your dignity and your right to make a better life here in the United States."
Paragraph 5: "If you do not agree with this statement then please reply to this email with your resignation because you have no place here."
How is this not a severe contradiction?
Can anyone confirm if this is real? If it is, this is probably going to turn into a PR disaster for them.
I think if anything, it'll make people in the more liberal cities - their main market - more attracted to the company. You may disagree, but my feelings after reading this are to support Grubhub, whereas before I was neutral on them. I value companies that are dedicated to inclusion and discourage hate speech.
Paragraph 3: "I firmly believe that we must bring together different perspectives...including all genders, races.... ideological preferences ." Paragraph 4: "...I and everyone else here at Grubhub will fight for your dignity and your right to make a better life here in the United States." Paragraph 5: "If you do not agree with this statement then please reply to this email with your resignation because you have no pl…
I would disagree with firing someone for saying that they liked Trump. I would agree with firing someone for making racist, sexist, or otherwise derogatory comments toward a co-worker. I think that's what GrubHub's CEO is getting at.
Can anyone confirm if this is real? If it is, this is probably going to turn into a PR disaster for them.
Paragraph 3: "I firmly believe that we must bring together different perspectives...including all genders, races.... ideological preferences ." Paragraph 4: "...I and everyone else here at Grubhub will fight for your dignity and your right to make a better life here in the United States." Paragraph 5: "If you do not agree with this statement then please reply to this email with your resignation because you have no pl…
There's a difference between respecting someone's ideological preference, and discouraging hate speech. I like to think of it like this: your liberties to express ideology end where someone else's human rights begin. I would disagree with firing someone for saying that they liked Trump. I would agree with firing someone for making racist, sexist, or otherwise derogatory comments toward a co-worker. I think that's wha…
No there is not. "Hate speech" is what liberals call inconvenient conservative speech. Approving all speech except "hate speech" is just declaring that you will censor speech you find disagreeable.
The only legitimate speech restrictions are viewpoint-neutral no matter what the viewpoint.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a difference between respecting someone's ideological preference, and discouraging hate speech. I like to think of it like this: your liberties to express ideology end where someone else's human rights begin. I would disagree with firing someone for saying that they liked Trump. I would agree with firing someone for making racist, sexist, or otherwise derogatory comments toward a co-worker. I think that's wha…
> There's a difference between respecting someone's ideological preference, and discouraging hate speech No there is not. "Hate speech" is what liberals call inconvenient conservative speech. Approving all speech except "hate speech" is just declaring that you will censor speech you find disagreeable. The only legitimate speech restrictions are viewpoint-neutral no matter what the viewpoint.
You are right that hate speech is a charge that can get blown out of proportion. The question then becomes how to define it in a way that protects ideological differences.
Mini-lawsplainer: maybe @Grubhub isn't safe with that "resign if you support Trump's politics" email after all. /1
/2 Turns out DC is one of a few jurisdictions with a no-firing-based-on-political-affiliation law. Sec. 2-1401.11 beta.code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/cod…
/3 In fact, under 1-1401.11(4)(B) it's specifically illegal to publish a "preference, limitation, specification, or distinction" based on it
/4 So @Grubhub probably just (1) violated the law and (2) gave a fun free retaliation claim to any Trump supporter they fire or discipline.
/5 [I'll spare you the freedom of association analysis or the hypocrisy-of-talking-about-freedom-of-association analysis]
/6 In short, @Grubhub, wallow and rant, but do it on your private account. Boss speech has liability issues.
/7 [Update] For some reason I thought they were in DC. NY and Chicago. Different laws. I'll look.
Analysis by Ken White: Mini-lawsplainer: maybe @Grubhub isn't safe with that "resign if you support Trump's politics" email after all. /1 /2 Turns out DC is one of a few jurisdictions with a no-firing-based-on-political-affiliation law. Sec. 2-1401.11 beta.code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/cod… /3 In fact, under 1-1401.11(4)(B) it's specifically illegal to publish a "preference, limitation, specification, or distinction"…
Can anyone confirm if this is real? If it is, this is probably going to turn into a PR disaster for them.
I think if anything, it'll make people in the more liberal cities - their main market - more attracted to the company. You may disagree, but my feelings after reading this are to support Grubhub, whereas before I was neutral on them. I value companies that are dedicated to inclusion and discourage hate speech.
I consider myself to be very liberal, and I live in New York, and I find that message to be gross as hell. I dislike everything Trump stands for, but I would likely quit if our CEO sent us an email like that.
I'm sure the CEO meant it to be an affirmation of the values that I hold myself to, but it reads more like a specifically political anti-Trump screed.
