The Catholic Church in a number of European countries stopped processing requests to formally deregister people, due to mass departures after the sexual abuse revelations, which may be what they're referring to. For instance, https://www.notme.ie
Did the Catholic church in Ireland have a register of people who were Catholic? Which other countries have this? I've just never heard of such a thing.
Generally record-keeping would be on a parish level, but yes, it's normal for Catholic parishes to keep records on this.
(This wasn't unique to Spain, but Spain was certainly an epicenter, due to a large Jewish population forcibly converted during and after the Reconquista)
If you can prove the firing reason was this. Which would be rather hard to establish unless he somehow gets his hands on some email from the top management saying "that bastard joined a union?! Fire him on the spot!". I estimate chances of that as fairly low.
Why would you estimate the chance as being low? Are you unaware that Google has a history of legally questionable anti-union activity? Never heard of Project Vivian? Of the case they had to settle when they fired six union organizers? Is anything less than absolute legal certainty a low chance?
Each case is decided on its own merits. If Google fired union organizers - which, since they settled, is not even a legally established fact (that's likely why they settled, to avoid having any facts to become legally established) - that doesn't mean they fired this particular person because of it. There are thousands of people in that union, which weren't fired - and that's what the opposing attorney would point out the first thing. And you'd need to establish some causal link between union membership and firing - with actually legally acceptable proof. Getting such proof is what I think of as "low chance". Separately, I also don't think joining a really toothless union would be the cause for firing - unlike the other things described in the article, which most likely were the real cause.
The problem in this case would be they seem to be hiring almost exclusively from a rather obscure religious group. That means they're illegally discriminating against members other religions.
While that is true, I don't think that's such as useful take. They are mainly discriminating against people who are more qualified for the jobs; basically the entire world that isn't Oregon House. If the Crips gang infiltrated Google and were only hiring Crips, you wouldn't say that they are unfairly discriminating against other perfectly good gangs like Bloods, as the main issue. (I understand that the analogy is fa…
I understand the team and around is about 250 people, so even if all 12 are somehow related to the group that's a fraction.
To be fair, it's a lived experience that I have found among other cult and high demand religion recoverers.
I believe that it's a common feature amongst a large portion of cults, but my scepticism arises at the use of it as a broad definition of what is or isn't one. The same way you wouldn't say having a charismatic leader is the definition of what a cult is. It's certainly an aspect of most cults, but not the definition, nor unique to cults
That's okay. People have to draw lines to define things. I found the definition I provided above to be sufficient to my experience.
So, if the author was fired for the reasons they believe, that's pretty bad behavior. But if he had not been fired, what was management supposed to have done about the cult members working for this department? Yes, the cult's leader sounds like a pretty awful person, but he wasn't working there. What were the cult members doing in their work in the department that was clearly wrong? It's suggested that there was favo…
The wine orders were special favors to friends. That typically is not acceptable vendor management.
On the contrary, google employees would be breaking the law by hiring primarily because of religious preference and thus discriminating against competent candidates of other religious (or non) preference
Cults are not religions. The body of decisions is remarkably explicit about this, when you consider how difficult the question “what is a religion” actually is. Edit: I forgot to provide references. Here’s a summary[1] of a 1988 California Supreme Court ruling in which the court determined that cult conduct does not fall under religious protections, even if the cult’s members might genuinely believe the cult’s doctri…
Many religions are cults, and many cults are religions. Ergo religious discrimination could certainly happen.
I believe the parent is referring more to referral/promo networks. For a positive example, I knew one of my senior managers basically brought 15 people from his previous company, to the point where a comfortable majority of people under him were from the company. This can be nefarious when the network arises from abusive or unhealthy environments.
While that may be bad, it is rediculous to call that a cult.
We like it when businesses take a stand on things we agree on. We don't like it when it's about, say, making a gay couple a wedding cake. What stand, exactly, are we saying Google should take? That they don't employee people associated with organizations where leaders engage in pedophilia? If so, we should also have a word with 1.2 billion catholics. You may not like it, but figuring out policy is important to a func…
>If so, we should also have a word with 1.2 billion catholics. Yes, we should
If that's the attitude you want to take then I wish you luck. It sure sounds good and principled to say such things, but there comes a point where you're no longer building a better society and simply witch hunting. Being guilty by association has a long, storied history in law.
This comment of mine will be off topic, which pollutes the comments here. This is why the rules prohibit chastising people for not the reading the article. Correct them and or down them. No need to chastise them as well.
Disagree, shaming someone for poor behavior is how a society operates.
Oh right I forgot addiction and obesity are not at crisis levels in America.
This might be how you and many people think society operates. Unfortunately that’s a dangerous delusion. This reductionist argument is dehumanizing and casts the issuer in an unearned air of superiority.
Exhibit A. Trump is likely to be the most shamed person in existence and is to this date entirely unrepentant.
The fact that shaming has appeared to work on some in his mafia cannot be intelligently construed as evidence for the effectiveness of shame as a tool to correct behavior without controlling for confounding factors which has not be done with any serious rigor on a societal level.