Facebook fires employee for publicly scolding a colleague • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook fires employee for publicly scolding a colleague

#151

Post by lefstathiou » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 12:59 AM UTC

baddox wrote: post #81

dekhn wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not mob rule, that's completely and absolutely how the legal US government operates. Overturning the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment, which is no trivial task. Mob rule is entirely different: it refers to rule imposed from outside the law, possibly by a large group. Also, the "fewer votes" really only applies to the presidency, not the senate, house, or governors.

> That's not mob rule, that's completely and absolutely how the legal US government operates. Those aren't mutually exclusive. Middle school civics class explanations of the electoral college are fine. You can understand the reasons the electoral college was created and still oppose the fact that there have been multiple recent cases where the electoral college went against the popular vote. And, not that it's partic…

It could be argued the electoral college is designed to prevent mob rule by preventing would be presidents from getting elected just by pandering to the “mobs” of people living in high population states like California and Texas

Re: Facebook fires employee for publicly scolding a colleague

#152

Post by DailyHN » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 1:00 AM UTC

Not a single comment in this thread supports the employee.

Re: Facebook fires employee for publicly scolding a colleague

#153

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 1:01 AM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Facebook fires employee for publicly scolding a colleague

#154

Post by perlpimp » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 1:02 AM UTC

PiggySpeed wrote: post #21

nsainsbury wrote: post #4

I think a key phrase here is "he was dismissed for publicly challenging a colleague’s silence". In other words, he publicly harassed a colleague who (for what could be any number of perfectly valid reasons) preferred not to publicly state their beliefs. That would seem to me to be an eminently reasonable reason to fire someone. If you go around publicly harassing your colleagues to publicly state their political opin…

I'm starting a new job soon and I'm trying to figure out how I'll handle these "silence is complicit" characters. My personal policy is to not discuss political/social issues at work.

This is how in soviet times and to extent how this works with china, unless you are vocally "independently" supportive of party line then you are hiding opposite dissenting view and need to be educated etc.

Re: Facebook fires employee for publicly scolding a colleague

#155

Post by musicale » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 1:02 AM UTC

CA Labor Code section 1102 seems to prohibit firing employees for political activity:

"No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity."

Perhaps publicly criticizing the company you work for does not qualify as a political activity? But expressing support for or opposition to a candidate, law, or public policy presumably would. A company would presumably not be able to fire you for attending or expressing support for a protest or political rally.

Re: Facebook fires employee for publicly scolding a colleague

#156

Post by dlp211 » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 1:05 AM UTC

dekhn wrote: post #71

dlp211 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> where mob rule is becoming the status quo. The Government of the US is currently (mostly) controlled by a party that received fewer votes.

That's not mob rule, that's completely and absolutely how the legal US government operates. Overturning the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment, which is no trivial task. Mob rule is entirely different: it refers to rule imposed from outside the law, possibly by a large group. Also, the "fewer votes" really only applies to the presidency, not the senate, house, or governors.

Maybe the mob is trying to rule because it finds the US government illegitimate because they're majority isn't being represented in the government.

In order for Democrats to win the House they have to get more votes than 50%. Democrats received millions of more votes for Senate but don't control that chamber. Democrats received more votes for the Presidency twice this century and have been denied the power of that branch and as a consequence, the third branch, the judiciary, is currently controlled by Republicans as well.

Re: Facebook fires employee for publicly scolding a colleague

#157

Post by wutbrodo » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 1:06 AM UTC

baddox wrote: post #112

dekhn wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I'm personally against the electoral college (have been since I was a kid). However, it's still not mob rule, by the virtue of the fact that mob rule is necessarily non-legal, while the electoral college is the essence of "legal". And the people who set up electoral college (the authors of the constitution) explicitly added a mechanism to change the system via amendments (it's just very hard to get one passed). C…

> However, it's still not mob rule, by the virtue of the fact that mob rule is necessarily non-legal, while the electoral college is the essence of "legal". Okay. I'm not attached to the particular semantics of "mob rule," but if you define it deliberately such that it doesn't apply in this scenario, then of course it doesn't apply. I just meant, very simply, that it's rule by someone other than who the people expres…

> I just meant, very simply, that it's rule by someone other than who the people expressed their desire to be ruled by.

That's not what the term means. It's practically the opposite of one of the meanings of the word, which is a pejorative for majoritarian rule. An absolute autocrat is about as far as you can get from mob rule, and yet it's "rule by someone other than who the people express their desire to be ruled by".

Re: Facebook fires employee for publicly scolding a colleague

#158

Post by dahfizz » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 1:06 AM UTC

baddox wrote: post #81

dekhn wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not mob rule, that's completely and absolutely how the legal US government operates. Overturning the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment, which is no trivial task. Mob rule is entirely different: it refers to rule imposed from outside the law, possibly by a large group. Also, the "fewer votes" really only applies to the presidency, not the senate, house, or governors.

> That's not mob rule, that's completely and absolutely how the legal US government operates. Those aren't mutually exclusive. Middle school civics class explanations of the electoral college are fine. You can understand the reasons the electoral college was created and still oppose the fact that there have been multiple recent cases where the electoral college went against the popular vote. And, not that it's partic…

> I highly doubt the very people who designed the electoral college would approve of its use when it seems to routinely elect someone who lost the popular vote.

That's literally why they invented the electoral college. To add indirection between the popular vote and the presidency.

Re: Facebook fires employee for publicly scolding a colleague

#159

Post by kyrra » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 1:07 AM UTC

draw_down wrote: post #2

I'm sure the free speech brigade will be along any second now, to plead this person's cause. Yep, aaaaany second now.

It's called compelled speech, which the first amendment says is illegal. (Yes yes, the first amendment is entirely about the government and speech, but it's somewhat of an American belief to then try to apply first amendment protections across our society, even if we're not legally bound by it.)

About compelled speech: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/933/compelled-s...

Re: Facebook fires employee for publicly scolding a colleague

#160

Post by cellularmitosis » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 1:07 AM UTC

baddox wrote: post #123

saagarjha wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Publicly disclosing a private conversation? No, not really.

That's still not public shaming, is it? It's not even a private conversation about private matters.

Yes, it was a private reply, which the facebook employee then outed publicly on twitter.

>I asked @Vjeux to follow @reactjs's lead and add a statement of support to Recoil's docs and he privately refused, claiming open source shouldn't be political.

That is 100% not ok.