GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract • Hacker News Board

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#81

Post by zozbot234 » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 7:57 PM UTC

CydeWeys wrote: post #47

im3w1l wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's not restricted to White Nationalism. We see a lot of pushback against Hong Kong nationalism and Catalonian nationalism and Uyghur nationalism and Kurdish nationalism recently. It's as if the forces of good suddenly decided that any nationalism is unacceptable in 2019.

What exactly does Hong Kong nationalism (which is pro-democracy) have to do with White nationalism in the US (which is pro-racism)?

Hong Kong nationalism is not pro-democracy. The Chinese Government supports holding elections for local government officials, including in Hong Kong. Given that, the anti-Chinese attitudes we're seeing there are quite unproductive.

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#82

Post by tehjoker » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 7:58 PM UTC

whalesalad wrote: post #31

A lot of these companies need to start sticking to their guns and simply letting people go for conflicts like this. If you’re not gonna be a team player there are a billion other tech companies you can go be a part of. I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with the core issue here – but at some point the message needs to be sent that you don’t deserve a job and aren’t owed anything. You work in exchange for cash, plain and…

Companies are dictatorships. Get in line peasants.

It could just be that if we want a democratic society, we'll need to directly attack the idea that we have no democracy in the place where we spend most of our lives.

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#83

Post by _bfhp » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 7:58 PM UTC

CydeWeys wrote: post #38

_bfhp wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to understand the opinion being communicated here. People shouldn't protest things they disagree with? People have a duty to be loyal to their employer's every decision?

Yet, strangely, these people curiously will often protest loudly about things they personally disagree with, rather than taking their own advice of shutting up and leaving. It's really about disagreeing with the views being espoused by the employees in question, not their methodology.

I think people just don't often get the chance to think about what principle or virtue first impulse drives them to say one thing or another when an issue comes up. I think it's a strong and productive to prompt ourselves/others to put those into words...

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#84

Post by shadowgovt » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 7:58 PM UTC

creaghpatr wrote: post #74

ilikehurdles wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether it’s the by-the-book definition of partisan, it is still reasonable for people to have strong moral or ethical objections to working for this client.

But not to receiving their services, apparently.

There are quite a few Americans who would prefer to receive no services from ICE. "Abolish ICE" is a concept that has even started to gather steam in Congress itself.

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#85

Post by geofft » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 7:58 PM UTC

whalesalad wrote: post #31

A lot of these companies need to start sticking to their guns and simply letting people go for conflicts like this. If you’re not gonna be a team player there are a billion other tech companies you can go be a part of. I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with the core issue here – but at some point the message needs to be sent that you don’t deserve a job and aren’t owed anything. You work in exchange for cash, plain and…

Nothing is stopping companies from doing this. But they need talented engineers more than talented engineers need sales staff with red hats. That's why the firings haven't started. It'll be worse for the company, and it won't be any worse for the employees - as you say there are a billion other tech companies they can join.

Employees don't deserve a job; they work for cash. And employers, similarly, don't deserve labor; they give cash for work.

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#86

Post by cujo » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 7:59 PM UTC

CydeWeys wrote: post #38

_bfhp wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to understand the opinion being communicated here. People shouldn't protest things they disagree with? People have a duty to be loyal to their employer's every decision?

Yet, strangely, these people curiously will often protest loudly about things they personally disagree with, rather than taking their own advice of shutting up and leaving. It's really about disagreeing with the views being espoused by the employees in question, not their methodology.

> Yet, strangely, these people curiously will often ...

I don't think you have any data to back that up. I could just as easily see a lot of these people deferring to the "wisdom" of management.

I think the number of people who have left jobs when confronted with an ethical problem from their employer is quite small.

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#87

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 7:59 PM UTC

creaghpatr wrote: post #24

geofft wrote: post #14

> With the issue refusing to go away, GitHub executives have changed their internal messaging, including a memo to employees saying barring ICE from “access to GitHub could actually hurt the very people we all want to help,” in the words of Chief Operating Officer Erica Brescia. > “We have learned from a number of nonprofits and refugee advocates that one of the greatest challenges facing immigrants is a lack of tech…

ICE is not a partisan organization, it's a government agency. If you pay taxes, you support ICE, and are their customer, period.

[deleted]

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#88

Post by MattP86 » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 7:59 PM UTC

pm90 wrote: post #42

creaghpatr wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ICE is not a partisan organization, it's a government agency. If you pay taxes, you support ICE, and are their customer, period.

> ICE is not a partisan organization, Only if you have your head deliberately under the sand in the face of all the reporting that has been done so far about wanton cruelty inflicted on human beings by this agency, including but not limited to: * separation of toddlers from their parents * horrific conditions in detention facilities * detaining immigrants for as long as they possibly can * arresting and trying to dep…

* also separation of children from smugglers. Stoping human trafficking is primary role of ICE.

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#89

Post by kick » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 8:00 PM UTC

btgeekboy wrote: post #63

pm90 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ICE is not a partisan organization, Only if you have your head deliberately under the sand in the face of all the reporting that has been done so far about wanton cruelty inflicted on human beings by this agency, including but not limited to: * separation of toddlers from their parents * horrific conditions in detention facilities * detaining immigrants for as long as they possibly can * arresting and trying to dep…

The agency will live on past the current administration. The main function of ICE is needed. The policies imposed upon them from above are the root of the problem and need to be removed. But they will be gone in time, hopefully sooner rather than later.

ICE didn't exist until 2003, and isn't necessarily needed.

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#90

Post by shadowgovt » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 8:01 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #44

Miner49er wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is very much a political decision.

No it’s a neutral position not taking a stance for or against a particular business because of politics. So while it may look to someone like it’s “for” something, they’d also take business from an “ICE-alert” system, so from some PoV that would look like it’s “against”, but it’s not. It’s staying neutral.

There's the edge of a definitions rabbit-hole looming.

To short-circuit it, let's establish as ground-truth that some people think "neutral" is the same has having no position, and some people think "neutral" is a position one can try to take that will have consequences, same as any other position, and at the end of the day, the effects are the same whether it's not a position or a position so the question of "position-ness" of neutrality is moot in a discussion of outcomes.

If a company declares selling computers to the legitimate government of a country is "Just doing business," then, well, that's IBM during the reign of the Nazi party, and history has held them accountable regardless.