31–40 of 51 posts
The actual interpretation of who is being asked to resign is ambiguous.
At the least it should be a lesson not to hastily send company-wide emails while gripped by extreme emotions.
Agreed the headline here is a bit of click baiting.
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…
> If you do not agree with this statement then please reply to this email with your resignation because you have no place here. That is clearly stating that if you have an ideological disagreement hand in your resignation. Contradicting the claim he supports 'ideological inclusion and tolerance' in the preceding paragraph. Nowhere in the text does the term 'hate speech' come up. He does make a reference to demeaning…
Of course, a CEO should write defensively even against uncharitable interpretation and this is a pretty spectacular failure on that level.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could charitably interpret it that way. But he also did write these words: Further I absolutely reject the nationalist, anti-immigrant and hateful politics of Donald Trump and will work to shield our community from this movement as best as I can. ... If you do not agree with this statement then please reply to this email with your resignation because you have no place here. If you identify as a nationalist or fav…
I think if you act in a violently nationalist way (harming or harassing someone who is "not American enough"), or taunt legal immigrants because they "look hispanic", "look indian" etc, that is all completely reasonable grounds for firing. In my opinion, you can identify as nationalist or favor immigration restrictions as long as you don't harm, harass, threaten, etc. someone. And I think this is what the Grubhub CEO…
Starting off with politics and ending by threatening to fire people is generally not the way one cultivates empathy and goodwill.
I agree with your analysis of the motivation, but the execution was a lesson in what not to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That statement is absolutely protected speech.
I think you're mistaking the purpose of the 1st amendment. Racist comments are protected speech in that the United States Government cannot arrest/imprison/etc. you for that kind of speech. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of repercussions for your speech. New York is an at-will state, meaning there is no legal problem with this email. There is no protection for people getting fired for hate speech, just like…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you do not agree with this statement then please reply to this email with your resignation because you have no place here. That is clearly stating that if you have an ideological disagreement hand in your resignation. Contradicting the claim he supports 'ideological inclusion and tolerance' in the preceding paragraph. Nowhere in the text does the term 'hate speech' come up. He does make a reference to demeaning…
It's confused. The paragraph previous to that is talking about protecting people from discrimination. If you read it charitably there's a perfectly reasonable interpretation. Of course, a CEO should write defensively even against uncharitable interpretation and this is a pretty spectacular failure on that level.
The fact that he just sent that out like it is on an impulse hints that there is a whole lot of reflective internal composure and professionalism filters that are missing. Thats not what you want to see in a CEO.
The language is ambiguous and buzz wordy enough that angry Clinton supporters could take it as a call to purge there fellow colleagues. And likewise Trump supporters could see it as a call for them to resign.
Overall, the damage this is going to do is precisely why you do not mix your personal politics and your business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think if you act in a violently nationalist way (harming or harassing someone who is "not American enough"), or taunt legal immigrants because they "look hispanic", "look indian" etc, that is all completely reasonable grounds for firing. In my opinion, you can identify as nationalist or favor immigration restrictions as long as you don't harm, harass, threaten, etc. someone. And I think this is what the Grubhub CEO…
> reinforcing a culture of empathy and goodwill Starting off with politics and ending by threatening to fire people is generally not the way one cultivates empathy and goodwill. I agree with your analysis of the motivation, but the execution was a lesson in what not to do.
However, I do want to express my opinion that in order for racism & sexism to be defeated, it's going to take some grit and discomfort. To quote: "When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels Like oppression."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're mistaking the purpose of the 1st amendment. Racist comments are protected speech in that the United States Government cannot arrest/imprison/etc. you for that kind of speech. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of repercussions for your speech. New York is an at-will state, meaning there is no legal problem with this email. There is no protection for people getting fired for hate speech, just like…
Private enterprises aren't required by law to uphold a high standard of free speech, but being decent Americans does. The government MUST NOT censor, but private companies SHOULD NOT.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's confused. The paragraph previous to that is talking about protecting people from discrimination. If you read it charitably there's a perfectly reasonable interpretation. Of course, a CEO should write defensively even against uncharitable interpretation and this is a pretty spectacular failure on that level.
It reads like an emotion charged poorly proofread diary entry that could at some point be used as material for a company wide email. The fact that he just sent that out like it is on an impulse hints that there is a whole lot of reflective internal composure and professionalism filters that are missing. Thats not what you want to see in a CEO. The language is ambiguous and buzz wordy enough that angry Clinton support…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's confused. The paragraph previous to that is talking about protecting people from discrimination. If you read it charitably there's a perfectly reasonable interpretation. Of course, a CEO should write defensively even against uncharitable interpretation and this is a pretty spectacular failure on that level.
It reads like an emotion charged poorly proofread diary entry that could at some point be used as material for a company wide email. The fact that he just sent that out like it is on an impulse hints that there is a whole lot of reflective internal composure and professionalism filters that are missing. Thats not what you want to see in a CEO. The language is ambiguous and buzz wordy enough that angry Clinton support…
And for everyone who thinks Trump is the only one with hate speech, I refer you to Wikileaks. This women was hateful.
