41–50 of 56 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it reflects an attitude that company executives have towards their employees. Companies should respect the reality that their employees do not have homogenous political views.
It didn't sound like he expected anyone at Mozilla to have his viewpoints. He made a private donation privately, 6 years ago.
Gay marriage opinion is the grounds for changing CEO. How about immigration opinion? Animal rights opinion? Climate change opinion? Political views?
- "Political views" is too vague to comment on.
- Immigration opinion is absolutely grounds for changing a CEO - it affects groups of people, potentially both employees and customers of any company. If the CEOs views affects them sufficiently negatively, this should surely be addressed?
- Animal rights - possibly , particularly if the company's role is animal-related.
- Climate change - as above.
All the above might not apply to a company / CEO that is not as directly "public-facing" as Mozilla, but generally for any company with a widespread reputation to uphold and an outspoken employee base, then absolutely any of the items you listed could be grounds for change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It didn't sound like he expected anyone at Mozilla to have his viewpoints. He made a private donation privately, 6 years ago.
No, he made a public donation publicly, the public bit being required by law.
After seeing all this, I wonder what would it take to get the people behind 'the right to marriage' to get the same reaction to 'the right to privacy' - which is an arguably more expansive provision that protects literally 100% of the population?
I agree with your sentiment, and I'm not being facetious when I say the answer is "a single human being who can be held up as the enemy." The government seems to be protected in this scandal by its very ubiquity and pervasiveness. There is no one we can force to step down, no building we can shutter, no single computer we can turn off that will restore our privacy.
What's done is done. But now that Mozilla rid itself one of its best assets, what's do prevent a rival like Microsoft or Google to hire Eich and have him work on their products?
I doubt any company is chomping at the bit to hire Eich after this fiasco, regardless of his technical competencies.
What's done is done. But now that Mozilla rid itself one of its best assets, what's do prevent a rival like Microsoft or Google to hire Eich and have him work on their products?
I doubt any company is chomping at the bit to hire Eich after this fiasco, regardless of his technical competencies.
Gay marriage opinion is the grounds for changing CEO. How about immigration opinion? Animal rights opinion? Climate change opinion? Political views?
I think an opinion on gay marriage is a political view. Additionally, I think a negative opinion on gay marriage is particularly contentious, as opposed to a view on environmental or immigration matters, because it could affects the rights of employees, and additionally it creates a toxic work environment for supporters of gay marriage. Companies shouldn't stray into the realm of political opinion because their emplo…
1) "opinion on gay marriage is a political view" 2) "Companies shouldn't stray into the realm of political opinion because their employees do not have homogenous political views."
Employees may have - even strong - opinions against gay marriage. But they can't be homogenous?.. So they shouldn't be considered? Or being "particularly contentions (because)" makes them exempt?
Looks like a really complicated subject, don't you think?
What's done is done. But now that Mozilla rid itself one of its best assets, what's do prevent a rival like Microsoft or Google to hire Eich and have him work on their products?
I doubt any company is chomping at the bit to hire Eich after this fiasco, regardless of his technical competencies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Civil liberties. That's what all this is about. And he used his money to take civil liberties away from a group of people. That was a mistake. A costly one.
It's easy to frame immigration as a human rights issue. Only somewhat more challenging to frame climate change the same way. Political views are already covered under human rights via freedom of speech, thought, and conscience. Some people view animal rights as equivalent to human rights. These are not fundamentally different things. At most it's a matter of framing.