3 ms·

This is not about people skirting the rules, this is a poignantly political concern. "Hiring an exec who supported Trump's travel ban" is purely a political is

by jariel 7y ago

This is not about people skirting the rules, this is a poignantly political concern. "Hiring an exec who supported Trump's travel ban" is purely a political issue. Temporarily halting travel from a list of countries designated by the Obama administration as 'dangerous' - specifically because there's a degree of lawlessness and/or the governments can't/won't cooperate with background checks etc. has very reasonable arguments supporting it. (FYI the nations were Libya/Yemen/Syria/Somalia/Sudan/Iraq - all of which have dysfunctional governments unable to provide reliable identity information - and Iran, which has other problems). Note that Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon, Kuwait, Indonesia, Saudi, Oman, Pakistan etc. etc. and the vast majority of states with many Muslim citizens were not affected. Contextualising this within Trump's ugly rhetoric is another thing entirely and this part subject to interpretation. If Googlers are going to be discontent about an issue like this then I'm afraid it's game over for their peace - because they are effectively internalising American political discord. Google's direct participation in China etc. is another issue entirely, much more salient as it directly reflects 'what Google is doing' - but even this can be very complicated. Google is essentially 'choosing' a very specific political ethos which is problematic in itself because most of us tend to confound our own version of morality with that of others in a very intolerant manner.

ChuckMcM 7y ago
> "Hiring an exec who supported Trump's travel ban" is purely a political issue. Yes it is. And that issue is that the person did something in a previous job which many employees found repugnant. But the trust issue, is that the employees also don't trust that Google has the integrity to hire someone who did that, without understanding the whys of it. Or being sensitive to both their existing and new employee on the issue. If I were in Google management, and I had the trust of the people I managed, I could explain to them the reasoning that went into the hire; The skills that came with the candidate, the business need, the qualities of the candidate. And the sensitivity around their previous job choices and how they made those choices (most people do what the boss tells them to do) and what was expected of them at a place like Google. And the people who trusted me would expect me to hold the new hire to those standards and to fire them if they didn't live up to them. I would be able to lean on that trust and say, "Hey, we need to give this guy a chance to prove he can do the right thing and we and he both understand he is held to a higher standard here." Folks I managed wouldn't trust me if they had found out that I had allowed a sexual harasser to work for me after I knew that they had a problem. That is because they would lose trust in me saying that I would hold people to a certain standard. That is the difference in a "only if you get caught" situational morality play. Someone with principles and integrity will take the necessary action, even if it is painful, even when they could "get away with it because nobody else knows." It is a good litmus test. That test being to evaluate how you respond to people who do the right thing even when no one is looking, and to people who do the right thing only after the need to do it comes to light through some other path. In my experience, I trust people who do the right thing even if no one is watching way more than I trust the opportunists.
sagarm 7y ago
> Contextualising this within Trump's ugly rhetoric is another thing entirely and this part subject to interpretation. A different administration could have implemented a policy that limited travel from certain countries without backlash. This one started by -- without warning -- revoking the right to re-enter the country for all legal visa holders from these countries on 1/27/2017, a week after the inauguration, INCLUDING GREEN CARDS.[1] That's a permanent residency visa. People were stranded away from their jobs, homes, families. I was a green card holder not so long ago, and had family in the states on green cards. I felt real fear after the Muslim ban was announced on 1/27/2017. The action seemed calculated to cause as much harm to ordinary people as it could. Policy can be debated, but it's not the policy that is at issue here. It's the disregard bordering on malice. This was just one of many examples, from pardoning Joe Arpaio[2] and separating asylum-seeking families with no plan for re-uniting them,[3] to going looking for decades old citizenships to revoke[4]. I understand that we're too politically weak for anger to work, but I'm only human. It's galling to be told we're the intolerant ones in this situation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769#Green-card_holders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769#Green-ca... [2] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Joe_Arpaio#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Joe_Arpaio#Backgroun... . Today, some Latinios in Texas feel compelled to carry around proof of citizenship: https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/16/us/immigration-citizens-carrying-passports/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/16/us/immigration-citizens-carry... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/us/family-separation-trump-administration.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/us/family-separation-trum... [4] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/magazine/naturalized-citizenship-immigration-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/magazine/naturalized-citi...

by jariel 7y ago

ChuckMcM 7y ago

> "Hiring an exec who supported Trump's travel ban" is purely a political issue. Yes it is. And that issue is that the person did something in a previous job which many employees found repugnant. But the trust issue, is that the employees also don't trust that Google has the integrity to hire someone who did that, without understanding the whys of it. Or being sensitive to both their existing and new employee on the issue. If I were in Google management, and I had the trust of the people I managed, I could explain to them the reasoning that went into the hire; The skills that came with the candidate, the business need, the qualities of the candidate. And the sensitivity around their previous job choices and how they made those choices (most people do what the boss tells them to do) and what was expected of them at a place like Google. And the people who trusted me would expect me to hold the new hire to those standards and to fire them if they didn't live up to them. I would be able to lean on that trust and say, "Hey, we need to give this guy a chance to prove he can do the right thing and we and he both understand he is held to a higher standard here." Folks I managed wouldn't trust me if they had found out that I had allowed a sexual harasser to work for me after I knew that they had a problem. That is because they would lose trust in me saying that I would hold people to a certain standard. That is the difference in a "only if you get caught" situational morality play. Someone with principles and integrity will take the necessary action, even if it is painful, even when they could "get away with it because nobody else knows." It is a good litmus test. That test being to evaluate how you respond to people who do the right thing even when no one is looking, and to people who do the right thing only after the need to do it comes to light through some other path. In my experience, I trust people who do the right thing even if no one is watching way more than I trust the opportunists.

sagarm 7y ago

> Contextualising this within Trump's ugly rhetoric is another thing entirely and this part subject to interpretation. A different administration could have implemented a policy that limited travel from certain countries without backlash. This one started by -- without warning -- revoking the right to re-enter the country for all legal visa holders from these countries on 1/27/2017, a week after the inauguration, INCLUDING GREEN CARDS.[1] That's a permanent residency visa. People were stranded away from their jobs, homes, families. I was a green card holder not so long ago, and had family in the states on green cards. I felt real fear after the Muslim ban was announced on 1/27/2017. The action seemed calculated to cause as much harm to ordinary people as it could. Policy can be debated, but it's not the policy that is at issue here. It's the disregard bordering on malice. This was just one of many examples, from pardoning Joe Arpaio[2] and separating asylum-seeking families with no plan for re-uniting them,[3] to going looking for decades old citizenships to revoke[4]. I understand that we're too politically weak for anger to work, but I'm only human. It's galling to be told we're the intolerant ones in this situation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769#Green-card_holders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769#Green-ca... [2] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Joe_Arpaio#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Joe_Arpaio#Backgroun... . Today, some Latinios in Texas feel compelled to carry around proof of citizenship: https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/16/us/immigration-citizens-carrying-passports/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/16/us/immigration-citizens-carry... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/us/family-separation-trump-administration.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/us/family-separation-trum... [4] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/magazine/naturalized-citizenship-immigration-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/magazine/naturalized-citi...