5 ms·

Why is anyone surprised by this? For Microsoft employees to suddenly worry about the morality of their employer is somewhat laughable.

eesmith 8y ago
Who is surprised? To the contrary, it seems that you are the one who is surprised about the idea employees should and can put pressure on management. You write "suddenly worry about the morality of their employer", but presumably most of the Microsoft employees didn't sign up to work for a company which directly worked on weapons development, because: > The employees behind the open letter say that even with these contracts, Microsoft itself was never engaged in weapons development; it was selling general-purpose software that others then used and adapted. The IVAS contract is perceived to be different, with Microsoft, rather than third parties, working to increase battlefield effectiveness and lethality. Perhaps that's the surprise? Should all employees expect that their employer can become a weapons developer, and not give any pushback should that happen?
- kmlx 8y ago
  > presumably most of the Microsoft employees didn't sign up to work for a company which directly worked on weapons development can’t people pack up and leave? i mean, there’s probably a queue of other people who will happily work for MS.
  - eesmith 8y ago
    Can't Microsoft not do weapons development? I mean, there's probably a bunch of other profitable projects they can work on. But to the larger point, employees have many ways to provide pushback when management is doing something they don't like. They can complain to their boss, complain to HR, take it up at shareholder meetings, and much, much more. While there is the view that the only possibilities are to follow orders or quit, that isn't very effective management practice for programming. In the intermediate, it means people are no longer enthusiastic about their work, leading to worse quality. People in most fields, not just software development, do more than their job specifically requires. "Rule-to-work" is one way to push back, by doing only what one's job requires. In extremes, it leads to strikes, as you see see with teachers in the last few years. Or even sabotage. These all might reduce shareholder value.
    - kmlx 8y ago
      > Can't Microsoft not do weapons development? do you think this question is being asked in the Syrian arms factories? just seems extremely naive to me. it's in the same vein as "can't we all just stop causing global warming?" no, of course not. > But to the larger point, employees have many ways to provide pushback when management is doing something they don't like. They can complain to their boss, complain to HR, take it up at shareholder meetings, and much, much more. Best form of protest is to quit. the worst possible effect for any company is to lose an employee. not for the employee to protest or whatnot, but to actually lose him to a competitor.
      - eesmith 8y ago
        I'm sorry, but I don't see the relevancy to Syrian arms factories. Is your logic that all companies should be engaged in weapons development because there are Syrian arms factories? Nor do I see how my comment is any more naive than your earlier one. (Indeed, my comment was meant to highlight why I didn't find your earlier comment persuasive.) I think that not only is your analogy to global warming incorrect, but it's hard to make any good argument by analogy. Please instead make a counter-argument on the topic itself. You write "Best form of protest is to quit". The history of labor actions show that isn't always true. Strikes - in effect, a threat of collective quitting rather than the slow effect of individual, uncoordinated quitting - can be more effective. (Though of course not always.) I even pointed to the recent teacher strikes as a counter-example, so it's not like you needed to guess what I was referring to. As another example, do you think that the best way for me to object to racist practices as my place of employment is to simply quit? US civil rights law says that not only do I have the right to object, and publicize my objection, but that my actions are protected, such that it is illegal for the company to retaliate. Consider Google recent decision to end its relationship with the DoD's Project Maven. A dozen staff resigned, while thousands signed a petition in protest. Do you think Google would have ended its relationship if only a dozen people resigned and no one else spoke up against it while being employed? How many people do you think would have needed to resign in order for Google to change its mind?
        kmlx 8y ago

eesmith 8y ago

Who is surprised? To the contrary, it seems that you are the one who is surprised about the idea employees should and can put pressure on management. You write "suddenly worry about the morality of their employer", but presumably most of the Microsoft employees didn't sign up to work for a company which directly worked on weapons development, because: > The employees behind the open letter say that even with these contracts, Microsoft itself was never engaged in weapons development; it was selling general-purpose software that others then used and adapted. The IVAS contract is perceived to be different, with Microsoft, rather than third parties, working to increase battlefield effectiveness and lethality. Perhaps that's the surprise? Should all employees expect that their employer can become a weapons developer, and not give any pushback should that happen?

kmlx 8y ago
> presumably most of the Microsoft employees didn't sign up to work for a company which directly worked on weapons development can’t people pack up and leave? i mean, there’s probably a queue of other people who will happily work for MS.
- eesmith 8y ago
  Can't Microsoft not do weapons development? I mean, there's probably a bunch of other profitable projects they can work on. But to the larger point, employees have many ways to provide pushback when management is doing something they don't like. They can complain to their boss, complain to HR, take it up at shareholder meetings, and much, much more. While there is the view that the only possibilities are to follow orders or quit, that isn't very effective management practice for programming. In the intermediate, it means people are no longer enthusiastic about their work, leading to worse quality. People in most fields, not just software development, do more than their job specifically requires. "Rule-to-work" is one way to push back, by doing only what one's job requires. In extremes, it leads to strikes, as you see see with teachers in the last few years. Or even sabotage. These all might reduce shareholder value.
  - kmlx 8y ago
    > Can't Microsoft not do weapons development? do you think this question is being asked in the Syrian arms factories? just seems extremely naive to me. it's in the same vein as "can't we all just stop causing global warming?" no, of course not. > But to the larger point, employees have many ways to provide pushback when management is doing something they don't like. They can complain to their boss, complain to HR, take it up at shareholder meetings, and much, much more. Best form of protest is to quit. the worst possible effect for any company is to lose an employee. not for the employee to protest or whatnot, but to actually lose him to a competitor.
    - eesmith 8y ago
      I'm sorry, but I don't see the relevancy to Syrian arms factories. Is your logic that all companies should be engaged in weapons development because there are Syrian arms factories? Nor do I see how my comment is any more naive than your earlier one. (Indeed, my comment was meant to highlight why I didn't find your earlier comment persuasive.) I think that not only is your analogy to global warming incorrect, but it's hard to make any good argument by analogy. Please instead make a counter-argument on the topic itself. You write "Best form of protest is to quit". The history of labor actions show that isn't always true. Strikes - in effect, a threat of collective quitting rather than the slow effect of individual, uncoordinated quitting - can be more effective. (Though of course not always.) I even pointed to the recent teacher strikes as a counter-example, so it's not like you needed to guess what I was referring to. As another example, do you think that the best way for me to object to racist practices as my place of employment is to simply quit? US civil rights law says that not only do I have the right to object, and publicize my objection, but that my actions are protected, such that it is illegal for the company to retaliate. Consider Google recent decision to end its relationship with the DoD's Project Maven. A dozen staff resigned, while thousands signed a petition in protest. Do you think Google would have ended its relationship if only a dozen people resigned and no one else spoke up against it while being employed? How many people do you think would have needed to resign in order for Google to change its mind?
      - kmlx 8y ago