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

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

#261

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 10:32 PM UTC

house9-2 wrote: post #245

vinay427 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's fairly clear the commenter meant that they're "illegal immigrants," which approriately describes people that immigrated illegally. While the abbreviated colloquial form may not be strictly accurate on its own, it's quite reasonable to assume the full form given the context.

> I think it's fairly clear the commenter meant that they're "illegal immigrants," Do you describe African Americans using the 'N' word? hopefully not. Would I know what you meant if you did, yes... but I would have a real hard time respecting you.

[deleted]

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

#262

Post by brogrammernot » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 10:32 PM UTC

paulddraper wrote: post #238

ken wrote: post #235

> The results of GitHub’s quarterly anonymous employee survey — which showed a decline in trust of leadership ... In 100% of cases where I've known a small company that got bought by a much bigger company, this has occurred. It's amazing anyone still believes that their small company can get bought and somehow they'll be able to preserve (what they think is) their "company culture".

> It's amazing anyone still believes Has anyone ever believed that?

Yes. I’ve worked at a couple of companies now where this has happened. It’s really hard for founders to let go of their “baby” and as such, there’s a lot of rationalization that goes into the decision when they sell the company or go public.

One of the common ones is that they will have a large enough say to keep the culture of the small company intact and often say things like “we’re just going to continue being ourselves but with more funding or resources or XYZ so it’s really great!”

In the end, they don’t accept the fact that the larger company’s values/culture is their company now and they can try to enact change as much as they want but they are no longer the key decision maker for the company overall.

For a public company at scale, it’s incredibly hard to 1.) grow exponentially or greatly and 2.) keep the hiring bar high enough to maintain your culture. There’s a trade-off made there that you’re public & you cannot slow growth at the risk of upsetting shareholders but it’s a catch-22 cause you can’t also let your salaries go out of control to hire the right talent for your culture cause you have to explain that cost increase to your stakeholders.

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

#263

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 10:33 PM UTC

walshemj wrote: post #233

jcampbell1 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unions are majority rule democratic. When I worked at a plant for one of the big 3, the candidates the union submitted for trades promotions were universally white men. The union didn’t look out for women or minorities particularly well because the majority rules. People assume a tech union will lead to things being somehow more just, but be careful for what you wish for. James Damore might just have the votes.

What is a trades promotions - is this jargon for the executive ?

[deleted]

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

#264

Post by dragontamer » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 10:34 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #223

shadowgovt wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious what side you perceive standardUser to be on. They are making the case that this wasn't acceptable under the Obama administration either to younger generations, but they lacked the political power and voice to do anything about it. Voice and political power that they are now finding as they age into voting enfranchisement and build political action blocs.

Gitmo’s a great example. Under Bush it was immoral. Under Obama? Barely heard a thing. Sure standardUser might have thought it immoral all along, but did he attack both parties (when in power) with the same zeal?

> Gitmo’s a great example. Under Bush it was immoral. Under Obama? Barely heard a thing.

Your history is off. Obama tried to shut it down until it was overturned by Congress.

As soon as the political reality of transferring the prisoners became apparent, all Congressmen blocked the closure of Gitmo. No one wanted to take the prisoners into their own state. No one wanted to be the Senator or Representative to say "I accepted 100 Al-Qaeda detainees into our local prisons! And now our local judges have to put into public trial under our protection, with jury members selected from our State / Cities"

So on the one hand, we had President Bush literally open Gitmo. In the other hand, we have President Obama who tried to close it... but failed because of other more powerful political forces. And yet, you draw a false equivalence between the two.

EDIT: This hits a political pet peeve of mine. False equivalence and whataboutisms. Instead of seeing the differences, a political group deploys propaganda to get their side to believe that there's a false-equivalence on an issue.

And now that you're aware of false-equivalences, I hope that moving forward you'll be better equipped to avoid them in the future. Its an exceptionally powerful propaganda technique. In general, if a group is desperately deploying propaganda to make you believe that two things are equivalent... they probably aren't equivalent.

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

#265

Post by oh_sigh » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 10:35 PM UTC

annoyingnoob wrote: post #51

tj-teej wrote: post #4

I think that a lot of people see a rise and mainstreaming of White Nationalism and want to push back.

That is surely in the mix. To me, its about human decency. I support immigration, but even if you do not support immigration you should support human decency. Making people sleep in cages on concrete, limiting supplies, limiting legal assistance, separating families - those are horrible ways to treat other humans, other humans simply seeking a better life. We are largely a nation of immigrants. We've lost sight of ou…

Illegal immigrants aren't coming here and enjoying the full perks of America. They are coming here and being exploited by employers who know their status and dangle it over their head.

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

#266

Post by csallen » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 10:38 PM UTC

ken wrote: post #235

> The results of GitHub’s quarterly anonymous employee survey — which showed a decline in trust of leadership ... In 100% of cases where I've known a small company that got bought by a much bigger company, this has occurred. It's amazing anyone still believes that their small company can get bought and somehow they'll be able to preserve (what they think is) their "company culture".

Stripe acquired Indie Hackers two and a half years ago, and I love it. I get ample support and encouragement, while also retaining my freedom to run the community how I see fit. Most IHers would also tell you that the site has improved since then.

One of the many keys is aligned incentives and values. If there's even a small 1-2 degree difference in the direction you and your acquirer would like to head in, that gap will widen into a vast chasm given enough time.

Also, kudos to the leadership at Stripe. They're intelligent, well-meaning, and they get it.

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

#267

Post by malvosenior » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 10:39 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #193

umeshunni wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if a significant portion of GitHub's employees are non-US citizens, it's highly unlikely they're illegals.

So? Smart people can figure out that they can be made "illegal" by the stroke of a pen, even if they've complied with every rule they've encountered so far.

It's not actually that easy to revoke someone's citizenship. I know many people who came to the US legally that are vehemently opposed to illegal immigration precisely because they followed the rules and don't see why others shouldn't have to.

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

#268

Post by house9-2 » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 10:42 PM UTC

plurple wrote: post #253

house9-2 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's highly unlikely they're illegals I consider 'illegals' to be a derogatory term used by racists (whether they think they are racist is another matter) Did you drive a car today? Did you speed? If so that is an illegal activity so maybe you are also an 'illegal'? Maybe I am way off base? I should probably go hug a tree or something.

Luckily, whether you consider something racist or not has no actual impact on the usage of the term. And of course, you’re free to call a speeder an “illegal” if you want, just like apparently you’re free to call other HN users racist for using common terminology in a way you don’t like.

> whether you consider something racist or not has no actual impact on the usage of the term

Thats true

> for using common terminology in a way you don’t like.

When did it become common terminology? I am 47 years old and don't remember that term ever being used until the last presidential election as a means to vilify people of color.

Maybe I just wasn't paying attention the other 44 years?

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

#269

Post by vertex-four » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 10:42 PM UTC

qaq wrote: post #18

vertex-four wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If all the employees with morals leave, GitHub will be left with no employees with morals. That is probably a worse situation.

Aren't those who stay by definition are not moral people ? (provided they see the behavior of Github as immoral)?

Depends on whether they believe they are in a position to make the company more moral by their presence, and whether their particular branch of philosophy says that matters.

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

#270

Post by nostrademons » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 10:43 PM UTC

commandlinefan wrote: post #125

duxup wrote: post #19

I'd like to get a feel about what volume of employees have an issue with these things. From issue to issue I hear about various forms of employees making themselves heard but it is REALLY hard to jive with what that means. We've seen Google employees post about some ideas that seemed to be genuinely popular (measure that how you will...) but later ideas or advocacy were reportedly far less supported by the general em…

I also have to wonder what percentage of GitHub’s employees _are_ non-US citizens. Every programming job I’ve ever had in the U.S. was for a company that was staffed by at least 90% foreigners; if they see U.S. immigration as an adversary, they may be opposing any contract on personal grounds.

Every non-citizen I know keeps their head down and doesn't express their personal opinions on political matters (particularly relating to ICE) because they don't want to jeopardize their visa. It would be strange and kinda stupid for a foreign programmer on an H1B to oppose a contract with ICE because they do eventually want to get that Green Card and eventually citizenship, and they know who holds the power in that relationship.

(It's also amusing to see that sometimes shift when they get their citizenship; I had a Japanese classmate in college who was on first a student visa, then an H1B, then a green card for about 15 years. He had zero political opinions for the whole time I knew him. As soon as he got his citizenship, he's active in local politics. It's more about urban planning, transit, and YIMBY efforts than immigration, though.)