4 ms·

The punishment befits the situation. There's a profound difference between a normal worker supporting anti-gay-marriage causes with a donation and the CEO doin

The punishment befits the situation. There's a profound difference between a normal worker supporting anti-gay-marriage causes with a donation and the CEO doing the same thing, since the CEO is near the top of the org chart and a large number of employees are under his org tree. The CEO's views reflect poorly on the organization and hiring practices to a more significant extent than any normal non-management worker

ameen 6y ago
I don't think any CEO (bigoted or not) can retaliate against their employees for their sexual orientation - it's illegal. While it reflects poorly on him, it seems to be the norm in the U.S. to donate to lobbies.
- scarface74 6y ago
  It wasn’t illegal in all states until the recent Supreme Court decision. I wouldn’t want someone in a position of power that went to Klan rallies on the weekend either. They aren’t going to outright say they are discriminating against you. They are going to say the person isn’t a “culture fit”.
  - zebnyc 6y ago
    You are equating making a donation to a political cause (which was a mainstream opinion at that time) to the Klan. A bit extreme don't you think?
    - scarface74 6y ago
      What’s the difference? In both cases someone wants to take away rights from someone else because of their own belief system.
paulryanrogers 6y ago
When the donation was made when a super majority of United Statians opposed allowing same gender marriage. That said I've come to agree that leadership should be held to a higher standard. And IIRC Eich did not, and still has not, publicly expressed support for such marriages.
Ymous 6y ago
I'm thinking about this and am wondering, does this mean that in an ideal scenario (where CEOs of every company maximally considers the larger impact of their personal actions reflecting upon the company they're helming), they must all support the same things? I can imagine two CEO's of companies A and B (which each own exactly 50% of an industry and are precisely equivalent in public visibility and internal policy). The CEOs are also identical in every way except that one supports a opinion M and the other supports a opinion M' Assuming that they both make public their support, which one would get executed in the court of public opinion? Would it be fair for (any)one of them to get expelled from his/her post just because the masses collapsed the narrative to uphold either only M or M'? (I'm assuming that whether M or M' is the majority opinion is irrelevant) The only solution I can see is that both CEOs collude and decide to either not support anything, or support the same, agreed-upon thing. Assuming that is so, what if we extend this past 2 companies, and into 2000? ---- I'm not convinced that the punishment does befit the situation.
- TAForObvReasons 6y ago
  The leadership is expected to reflect and uphold company values, which may differ from company to company. Incidentally, we have a perfect case study with CFA and its COO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_and_LGBT_people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_and_LGBT_people refresher) CFA's entire organization is built around family values and good Christian values. It starts from the ground level -- you can't become a manager without the company checking your friends and family. So that type of sentiment pervades the organization. The comments and donations were mostly in line with company culture. This isn't to say every CFA employee was anti-gay-marriage, but they value family enough that it is plausible that the employees would support the COO. Mozilla is the opposite situation, emphasizing diversity and trying to cater to the (generally more socially liberal) tech community at large. Eich's donations flew in the face not only of the values Mozilla were trying to espouse, but also directly affecting a nontrivial number of its employees. If Mozilla had the culture of CFA, Eich wouldn't have been removed. In order to uphold their image, Mozilla couldn't have kept him.
hpcjoe 6y ago
That there was 'punishment' for expressing an opinion that is not aligned with a particular world view, by donating money to support something that was in the majority world view less than a decade before ... should be terrifying. To everyone. That someone supports the concept of "punishment" for expressing a view different from what you (and some collection of people) arbitrarily believe should be a widely held view ... is ... unconscionable. And quite frightening. There's literally a science fiction short story about this. And it doesn't end well. I have to look up the title, haven't read it in 35 years or so.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  The 'punishment' involved people saying they don't want to: a. work for you b. use your products unless the guy goes. That's a free action by free individuals. And the idea that we would force individuals to work for people they don't like or that we'd force individuals to use products from people they don't like is authoritarian. Freedom to choose to work with someone also involves the freedom to choose to not work. Freedom of speech gives you the ability to say you like things and also say you don't like things.

ameen 6y ago

I don't think any CEO (bigoted or not) can retaliate against their employees for their sexual orientation - it's illegal. While it reflects poorly on him, it seems to be the norm in the U.S. to donate to lobbies.

scarface74 6y ago
It wasn’t illegal in all states until the recent Supreme Court decision. I wouldn’t want someone in a position of power that went to Klan rallies on the weekend either. They aren’t going to outright say they are discriminating against you. They are going to say the person isn’t a “culture fit”.
- zebnyc 6y ago
  You are equating making a donation to a political cause (which was a mainstream opinion at that time) to the Klan. A bit extreme don't you think?
  - scarface74 6y ago
    What’s the difference? In both cases someone wants to take away rights from someone else because of their own belief system.

paulryanrogers 6y ago

When the donation was made when a super majority of United Statians opposed allowing same gender marriage. That said I've come to agree that leadership should be held to a higher standard. And IIRC Eich did not, and still has not, publicly expressed support for such marriages.

Ymous 6y ago

I'm thinking about this and am wondering, does this mean that in an ideal scenario (where CEOs of every company maximally considers the larger impact of their personal actions reflecting upon the company they're helming), they must all support the same things? I can imagine two CEO's of companies A and B (which each own exactly 50% of an industry and are precisely equivalent in public visibility and internal policy). The CEOs are also identical in every way except that one supports a opinion M and the other supports a opinion M' Assuming that they both make public their support, which one would get executed in the court of public opinion? Would it be fair for (any)one of them to get expelled from his/her post just because the masses collapsed the narrative to uphold either only M or M'? (I'm assuming that whether M or M' is the majority opinion is irrelevant) The only solution I can see is that both CEOs collude and decide to either not support anything, or support the same, agreed-upon thing. Assuming that is so, what if we extend this past 2 companies, and into 2000? ---- I'm not convinced that the punishment does befit the situation.

TAForObvReasons 6y ago
The leadership is expected to reflect and uphold company values, which may differ from company to company. Incidentally, we have a perfect case study with CFA and its COO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_and_LGBT_people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_and_LGBT_people refresher) CFA's entire organization is built around family values and good Christian values. It starts from the ground level -- you can't become a manager without the company checking your friends and family. So that type of sentiment pervades the organization. The comments and donations were mostly in line with company culture. This isn't to say every CFA employee was anti-gay-marriage, but they value family enough that it is plausible that the employees would support the COO. Mozilla is the opposite situation, emphasizing diversity and trying to cater to the (generally more socially liberal) tech community at large. Eich's donations flew in the face not only of the values Mozilla were trying to espouse, but also directly affecting a nontrivial number of its employees. If Mozilla had the culture of CFA, Eich wouldn't have been removed. In order to uphold their image, Mozilla couldn't have kept him.

hpcjoe 6y ago

That there was 'punishment' for expressing an opinion that is not aligned with a particular world view, by donating money to support something that was in the majority world view less than a decade before ... should be terrifying. To everyone. That someone supports the concept of "punishment" for expressing a view different from what you (and some collection of people) arbitrarily believe should be a widely held view ... is ... unconscionable. And quite frightening. There's literally a science fiction short story about this. And it doesn't end well. I have to look up the title, haven't read it in 35 years or so.

renewiltord 6y ago
The 'punishment' involved people saying they don't want to: a. work for you b. use your products unless the guy goes. That's a free action by free individuals. And the idea that we would force individuals to work for people they don't like or that we'd force individuals to use products from people they don't like is authoritarian. Freedom to choose to work with someone also involves the freedom to choose to not work. Freedom of speech gives you the ability to say you like things and also say you don't like things.